No Precambrian Rabbits: Evolution Must Be True

_{Cornelius Hunter

September 12, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Last week’s review of Richard Dawkins’ new book in the Economist hit all the usual chords. Dawkins’ purpose is to demonstrate that evolution is a fact–as incontrovertible a fact as any in science, and the Economist is only too happy to propagate the absurdity. First, there are the usual silly evidential arguments that only work with the uninformed, of which there are apparently many. True, species appear abruptly in the fossil record but, explains the Economist, “That any traces at all remain from so long ago is astounding, and anyway it is not the completeness of the fossil record but its consistency that matters.” After all, there are no fossil rabbits in the ancient strata. That’s right, no rabbits before the Cambrian era. Astonishing, evolution must be true. Read more

Comments

Joseph, #36
camanintx:
When biologists say that evolution is a fact and theory, they are referring to numbers 2 and 6. ID accepts number 2 and only questions the 6th meaning
#6 is far from a fact so anyone who claims it is is lying.
And you won't find any biologist that says it is. Taking quotes out of context to imply otherwise is one of the more disingenuous traits of evolutionary theory critics.camanintx_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

camanintx:
While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific,
Except that the pre-cam rabbit is not a valid criteria. IOW perhaps the only thing that could falsify the ToE is a meeting with the designer(s) explaining what actually took place. So before one can say something about falsification you need to present a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms.Joseph_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

camanintx:
When biologists say that evolution is a fact and theory, they are referring to numbers 2 and 6. ID accepts number 2 and only questions the 6th meaning
#6 is far from a fact so anyone who claims it is is lying. Also ID accepts up to and including #5. ID also accepts the blind watchmaker has a very minor role.Joseph_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
The fossil record is evidence for common descent.
Except it isn't. Ya see the vast majority of the fossil record (>95%) is of marine invertebrates. No evidence of universal common descent is observed in that vast majority.
Common descent leads to the positive prediction that the history of life would show a hierarchy of development while separate descent would not.
Except that evolution does NOT have a direction so in reality no such hierarchy was ever predicted.Joseph_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Mr. Lim: The cambrian-rabbit postulate is like a mainstream sixteenth-century astronomer saying that contemporary theories of astronomy would be falsified if a planet was reliably observed to follow a sawtooth-wave path across the sky. It's certainly true that this would be sufficient to disprove the astronomy of the time. It's not true that it would be necessary to see this, or something just as wildly at odds with the astronomical charts, to disprove the astronomy. We know with hindsight that much more minor discrepancies with the observed celestial motions turned out to be signs of fundamental incorrectness in the astronomical theories. So it's not - in this respect - absurd to look for a Cambrian rabbit in order to falsify naturalistic evolution, while it is absurd to cite the lack of a Cambrian rabbit (or the like) as proof that naturalistic evolution is fully confirmed by the evidence. (Mandatory government health warning: This comment contains analogy. Analogies are not suitable for children under the age of 12 except under the supervision of an adult. The drawing of a sound analogy between naturalistic evolution and Ptolemaic astronomy does not in itself constitute evidence that naturalistic evolution is false, or an assertion to that effect. Analogies can go down as well as up.)anonym_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

#32 Cornelius - I don't understand your argument at all. The premise of separate descent and the premise of common descent are both compatible with theism and atheism. Are you denying this? The fossil record is evidence for common descent. Where does the religion come into it?Mark Frank_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

Re 31:
The argument you quote is sound. ... Religion doesn’t come into it.
Of course religion comes into it.
separate descent might be a natural process).
And it might not be. The premise about separate descent must entail both cases in order for the argument to succeed.Cornelius Hunter_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

Re #25 Here’s an example from a textbook that lays out the argument in more rigor: “The fit [ie, the sequence of the major groups in the strata] is good evidence for evolution, because if fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals has been separately created, we should not expect them to appear in the fossil record in the exact order of their apparent evolution.” I am sorry. I thought you were talking about the specific example of a rabbit in the precambrian not the sequence of the major groups in the fossil record. The argument you quote is sound. It is important to realise which flavour of evolution we are discussing here. In this case it is simply common descent. The argument compares common descent with separate descent(Religion doesn't come into it. Common descent might have been started or even controlled by God and separate descent might be a natural process). Common descent leads to the positive prediction that the history of life would show a hierarchy of development while separate descent would not. Nothing wrong with that argument.Mark Frank_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

Venture,
I’m quite interested to hear your refutation of my argument.
Refuting your argument isn’t a problem at all; it’s just a little boring at this stage in the game. (In case you were not aware, the flimsy demarcation arguments against ID have all been refuted – by those who are no friends of ID I might add). If you narrow the context of the arbitrary demarcation line narrow enough to exclude ID then you can throw out a great number of other scientific ideas as well, and if you broaden it enough to include those ideas, then ID is well within the boundary. Many philosophers of science have consequently moved on. What remains is the obvious logic that an idea is either refuted by the scientific evidence or it is not; it is either supported by that same evidence or it is not. It also would seem that science (being a search for truth) looses credibility when one ideological faction (the conventionalists) try to insist that there own arbitrary rules be used to refute empirical hypotheses on procedural rules violations instead of by the empirical evidence itself. In dealing with the question of the origin of living tissue, the answer is one of two: either it was the product of material causes, or it wasn’t. Ideologues who claim that it’s not even possible to explore if “it wasn’t” display a level of circular reasoning that is simply uninteresting. Now, the problem with your specific argument is that it falls apart from the very start. It’s based on an error of fact, one of supposed ignorance within the scientific community as to the chemical and physical properties that surround, say, the existence of DNA. However, we already know and understand the chemical bonding properties of nucleic sequencing in DNA (grab a schematic of bonds within DNA and look for yourself). There are no physical or chemical forces between the nucleotides along the linear axis of DNA (where the information is) that causes the sequence of nucleotides to exist as they do. In fact as far as the laws of the universe are concerned DNA doesn’t even have to exist at all. Yet, the sequence of nucleotides is the source of organizational and functional information for all living things on this planet, and it exists without any physical laws to explain its existence. The very same argument you posit appeared here just days ago (as it does repeatedly thorough out the months and years). I told the last materialist that fronted the ignorance argument that his logic betrayed an ignorance of knowledge and discovery. I now say the same to you: - - - - - - - - This betrays your misunderstanding (or willful abuse) of discovery and knowledge. When you hear of a cancer researcher (for instance) talking about the vast number of unknown enzymes and compounds that can be found at the depths of the oceans or in the rain forest – each of which may lead to a cure for cancer – then you need to realize what is being said. Or more precisely, what is being said about “what we don’t know”. These researchers are looking for organic constituents that might perhaps have a favorable effect on the molecules and cells they study. These “favorable effects” will come in the form of chemical reactions which they have not seen in any of the constituents they’ve studied thus far. The “unknown” part of this lies within the realm of what we have and have not seen in the chemical reactions that we’ve studied. What it does not mean is that we are looking for a new type of chemical bond that we do not even know exists. In other words, when a researcher applies a new compound within his/her studies; they are not jumping back from their lab equipment with their arms in the air, shocked that there is a new category of chemical reaction that no one on Earth has ever seen. They are looking for reactions which clearly fall within the chemical regularities that we are already intimately familiar with. They can DESCRIBE those reactions as they study them, and they understand those reactions by virtue of an already known set of descriptors. We already know the bonds that are in play in the sequencing of DNA. None of them have the capacity to cause the selective aperiodic nature that we observe within the sequence. Appealing to ignorance is simply a put off of what we already know to be true – and if that put off is offered solely for the reason of being able to ignore the only cause already known to be able to create the effect we observe, then science is no longer science. Its just ideology and politics. Men in labs who follow their ideology instead of the evidence. - - - - - - - - - - In other words, your argument is divorced from the facts. Also, materialism as an all-encompassing ideology is refuted by observable evidence that is not even in dispute. If you would care to read scientists a little more closely you might have picked up on this fact. I posted four examples from a forty year span of time just for that reason.Upright BiPed_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

IRQ Conflict, #26
camanintx @11 I took the liberty of binging some links and quotes for you.
Then I suggest you let the moderators of this web site know they are mistaken.camanintx_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter, #17
“While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, it doesn’t prove that the theory is true, so your title is still a non-sequitur.” Please don’t shoot the messenger.
Only when they deliberately distort the message.camanintx_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

I gave this "barrier" thing a little thought. Would the barrier have something to do with a lack of information? That is, programming. Seems reasonable to me at least.IRQ Conflict_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Design predicts that not all things are the result of a cause and effect relationship of purely material forces, but that an act of agency is involved.
I think I spelled out very clearly exactly why this is an Argument From Ignorance and therefore not a valid prediction. I'm guessing you got as far as "...I’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer" and simply assumed that you knew what the rest of the post was about. I'm quite interested to hear your refutation of my argument. And to be fair I don't think materialism is actually a scientific theory either, and I don't think that the "prediction" made by materialism is any more valid than the one you claim for ID. I've given you a fairly detailed explanation for why such "predictions" are invalid. Whether you agree or not, surely it must be true that ID makes other types of predictions, right? So does ID make any prediction that isn't reducible to "ID predicts that you will never find X?" For instance, the above reduces to "Given an effect for which the cause is currently unknown, ID predicts that you will never find a purely material force or forces which can be shown to be the cause." And for the record, I'm perfectly aware that my argument applies equally to the proverbial precambrian rabbit. See Mark's comment @ #18.VentureFree_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Ah! Here is an interesting link for ya camanintx. "The Creationists would have us believe there is some magical barrier separating selection and drift within a species from the evolution of new species and new characteristics. Not only is this imagined barrier invisible to most scientists but, in addition, there is abundant evidence that no such barrier exists. We have numerous examples that show how diverse species are connected by a long series of genetic changes. This is why many scientists claim that macroevoluton is just lots of microevolution over a long period of time. " I am a Creationist. I don't put up invisible barriers. But I certainly wouldn't claim that the lack of evidence of said barrier is proof of Macroevolution. That is a fallacy. One that I see constantly promoted by the religious Darwinists. From what I understand, the claim is that because microevolution occurs and is observed and there is no known (key word) mechanism by which said process is either shunted or stopped all together then it is rational to think that it continues to do so leading to speciation. Am I correct in my analysis? It gets better, or worse depending on your POV. http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.htmlIRQ Conflict_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

camanintx @11 I took the liberty of binging some links and quotes for you. "for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons." http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm To further convolute the issue read talk origins redefinition of things as they try to squirm out from having to confront the issues. "Supermacroevolution" (wheres my cape Robin?) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html It's a all the "creationists" fault Hahaha...oh brother.IRQ Conflict_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

#18
I am aware of several examples of scientists who when asked “what would falsify the theory of evolution?” – respond “rabbit in the precambrian” following what Haldane may or may not have said. I don’t know of a single example of a scientist arguing: “There are no rabbits in the precambrian therefore evolution is true” or even using this as evidence for evolution. Can you refer to a single example?
Of course it has been used as evidence (Haldane and later evolutionists). It is not being set forth as a serious (or risky) prediction of evolution. Yes, it is prediction, but its confirmation doesn't *directly* help evolution much. In fact there can be all kinds of contradictions within the evidence and evolution is unharmed. The point of these types of "predictions" is that they falsify creation / design. As usual, it's all about religion. Here's an example from a textbook that lays out the argument in more rigor: "The fit [ie, the sequence of the major groups in the strata] is good evidence for evolution, because if fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals has been separately created, we should not expect them to appear in the fossil record in the exact order of their apparent evolution."Cornelius Hunter_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Venture Free, When I see a celebrity-scientist wrap himself in empiricism while he rejects observable evidence (most of which is hardly even in question) in order to sell his metaphysical conclusions in a book – then I call BS. When a news/op organization then reviews the book without even the slightest bit of skepticism (particularly one that operates under a code of ethics that contains such crazy ideas as accuracy, questioning motives, avoiding stereotypes, giving voice to dissention, etc) – then again, I call BS. You apparently don’t care that empiricists ignore observable evidence, but your tolerance for hypocracy does not constitute gullibility on my part. Instead, it takes a rather special arrogance on your part to even suggest naiveties. - - - - - - - - - A quick look at your blog offers an explanation for your twisted logic. I notice that you operate under the burden of finding an ID proponent that can give you a falsifiable prediction of the design hypothesis. If you would only stop ignoring the obvious, your problem would go away. Please allow me to make it simple for you. Let’s just take the two competing ideas on their face. Materialism predicts that all things are the result of a cause and effect relationship of purely material forces. Design predicts that not all things are the result of a cause and effect relationship of purely material forces, but that an act of agency is involved. These following words were placed into the scientific record in the summer of 1968 (Science, 160 1308): “Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of in animate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry.” (Polanyi) In trying to reconcile the issues, the following question was placed into the scientific record in 2001 (Biosystems Vol 60 pp 5-21): “…if you abstract away the details of how subject and object interact, the "very peculiar range" of sizes and behaviors of the allosteric polymers that connect subject and object, the memory controlled construction of polypeptides, the folding into highly specific enzymes and other functional macromolecules, the many-to-many map of sequences to structures, the self-assembly, and the many conformation dependent controls - in other words, if you ignore the actual physics involved in these molecules that bridge the epistemic cut, then it seems unlikely that you will ever be able to distinguish living organisms by the dynamic laws of "inorganic corpuscles" or from any number of coarse-grained artificial simulations and simulacra of life. Is it not plausible that life was first distinguished from non-living matter, not by some modification of physics, some intricate nonlinear dynamics, or some universal laws of complexity, but by local and unique heteropolymer constraints that exhibit detailed behavior unlike the behavior of any other known forms of matter in the universe? -Pattee These words were then added in 2005 (Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, 2:29) It could be argued that the engineering function of a folded protein is totally reducible to its physical molecular dynamics. But protein folding cannot be divorced from the causality of critical segments of primary structure sequencing. This sequencing was prescribed by the sequencing of Hamming block codes of nucleotides into triplet codons. This sequencing is largely dynamically inert. Any of the four nucleotides can be covalently bound next in the sequence. A linear digital cybernetic system exists wherein nucleotides function as representative symbols of "meaning." This particular codon "means" that particular amino acid, but not because of dynamical influence. No direct physicochemical forces between nucleotides and amino acids exist. (Abel) And appearing in 2009 (International Journal of Molecular Science 10, 247-291) The capabilities of stand-alone chaos, complexity, self-ordered states, natural attractors, fractals, drunken walks, complex adaptive systems, and other subjects of non linear dynamic models are often inflated. Scientific mechanism must be provided for how purely physicodynamic phenomena can program decision nodes, optimize algorithms, set configurable switches so as to achieve integrated circuits, achieve computational halting, and organize otherwise unrelated chemical reactions into a protometabolism. To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut [9]: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. - - - - - - - - So the question becomes: Which of these aforementioned predictions of reality has withstood the test of time; the most scientifically enlightened period in all human history, the past 50 years since the elucidation of genetic algorithms and the recognition that the genetic symbol-system is not reducible to the physicality demanded by materialism? Who will require special pleading from this point forward?Upright BiPed_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Let me try to rephrase the title. If "precambrian rabbit" in the broadest sense means "a fossil with a position in the geologic column that is not according to the predictions of evolutionary theory" then it will not be a falsification of Darwinism. Every now and then such fossils are found, e.g. grass in dinosaur dung, just to give a recent example. The only thing these discoveries do is making the evolutionary theorists redraw the family tree of certain organisms. The idea of a literal precambrian rabbit is, of course, absurd, and as fas as I know no competing theory predicts the existence of such fossils. To me it looks more like a cleverly packaged strawman argument to make those who challenge Darwinism sound stupid. BTW, the phrase itself allegedly originates from J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and is indeed used by evolutionists to argue at least the falsifiability of evolutionary theory.Alex73_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

anonym,
I think the distinction here is between what counts as necessary as opposed to sufficient evidence for falsification.
Could you flesh this out a bit? I'm not sure I understand how this relates to Cornelius' point.Mr. Lim_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Is there anyone who disputes that a materialist mechanism is completely unknown, which would account for the fossil record and cambrian explosion?lamarck_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Mr. Lim:
Please tell your YEC colleague Andrew Sibley that the “rabbit in the Precambrian” falsification criterion is absurd.
I think the distinction here is between what counts as necessary as opposed to sufficient evidence for falsification.anonym_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Clive,
What is absurd? This criterion is used quite often in the evolutionist camp, if you find it absurd, take it up with them.
Sorry, I probably wasn't clear in my original post. I agree with you that evolutionists (Haldane in particular) have proposed rabbits-in-the-Precambrian type tests of evolution. What I am disputing is that this type of test is necessarily "absurd", as Cornelius asserted. It's not absurd to Carl Baugh, who has made a career out of looking for these things, and presumably it's not absurd to Mr. Sibley and other YECs who post here.Mr. Lim_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

#17 I am aware of several examples of scientists who when asked "what would falsify the theory of evolution?" - respond "rabbit in the precambrian" following what Haldane may or may not have said. I don't know of a single example of a scientist arguing: "There are no rabbits in the precambrian therefore evolution is true" or even using this as evidence for evolution. Can you refer to a single example?Mark Frank_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

"While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, it doesn’t prove that the theory is true, so your title is still a non-sequitur." Please don't shoot the messenger.Cornelius Hunter_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

camanintx: While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, it doesn’t prove that the theory is true, so your title is still a non-sequitur. Exactly.
Now if all you Jebus people will just shut up about it, we can all go back to assuming its true anyway. /sarcasmUpright BiPed_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Mr. Lim,
Please tell your YEC colleague Andrew Sibley that the “rabbit in the Precambrian” falsification criterion is absurd.
What is absurd? This criterion is used quite often in the evolutionist camp, if you find it absurd, take it up with them.Clive Hayden_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

camanintx: While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, it doesn’t prove that the theory is true, so your title is still a non-sequitur. Exactly.Dave Wisker_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter, #10
Wisker (8):
The very title of this blog post is a complete and utter non sequitur, which no evolutionary biologist (least of all Richard Dawkins) has ever espoused.
I know it sounds absurd, but the Precambrian rabbit, and others like it, are precisely what evolutionists have seriously set for as falsification criteria / creation refuter.
While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, it doesn't prove that the theory is true, so your title is still a non-sequitur.camanintx_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Cornelius,
I know it sounds absurd, but the Precambrian rabbit, and others like it, are precisely what evolutionists have seriously set for as falsification criteria / creation refuter.
Please tell your YEC colleague Andrew Sibley that the "rabbit in the Precambrian" falsification criterion is absurd.Mr. Lim_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

IRQ Conflict, #7
camanintx @4 Exactly the point. Micro=fact Macro=wishful thinking. But real scientists don’t distinguish between the two do they? Gee, wonder how come?
More like microevolution=fact, macroevolution=theory, but yes, real scientists do distinguish between them. Even the people behind this web site don't dispute this.
Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution This is urban legend, for such terms have been used regularly in the scientific literature.
Now if you really think "theory" means "wishful thinking" to real scientists, then I suggest you haven't met any real scientists.camanintx_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply