On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:10:09 +1000, Derek McLarnen wrote:
[...]
>>DM>The "severity of the debate" is only a "testosterone and
>>>entertainment" issue.
>>SJ>If that were the case, it doesn't say much for your opinion of the
>>leaders of evolutionary thought like Gould, Dawkins, Dennett and
>>Maynard Smith!
DM>Well spotted! I don't have much of an opinion of the efforts of Gould
>especially, to overstate the differences between neo-Darwinian theory
>and paleontological observation. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't
>see any significant challenge to neo-Darwinian theory in any
>paleontological evidence. Perhaps you can help me here.
If you assume that Gould *is* overstating the differences between neo-
Darwinian theory and paleontological observation, then you won't see any
significant challenge to neo-Darwinian theory in any paleontological
evidence!
The fact is that Neo-Darwinian theory (like those other pseudosciences,
Freudian psychology and Marxist economics), is able to accommodate just
about anything, without feeling any "significant challenge":
"Popper saw that a theory that appears to explain everything actually
explains nothing. If wages fell this was because the capitalists were
exploiting the workers, as Marx predicted they would, and If wages
rose this was because the capitalists were trying to save a rotten
system with bribery, which was also what Marxism predicted. A
psychoanalyst could explain why a man would commit murder- or,
with equal facility, why the same man would sacrifice his own life to
save another. According to Popper, however, a theory with genuine
explanatory power makes risky predictions, which exclude most
possible outcomes. Success in prediction is impressive only to the
extent that failure was a real possibility. Popper was impressed by the
contrast between the methodology of Marx or Freud on the one hand,
and Albert Einstein on the other. Einstein almost recklessly exposed
his General Theory of Relativity to falsification by predicting the
outcome of a daring experiment. If the outcome had been other than
as predicted, the theory would have been discredited. The Freudians
in contrast looked only for confirming examples, and made their
theory so flexible that everything counted as confirmation. Marx did
make specific predictions-concerning the inevitable crises of
capitalism, for example-but when the predicted events failed to occur
his followers responded by modifying the theory so that it still
"explained" whatever had happened." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, p148)
But maybe you could ask yourself why *should* Gould (and other
palaeontologists like Eldredge and Stanley) want to "overstate the
differences between neo-Darwinian theory and paleontological
observation", if those differences aren't real?
[...]
>>DM>The content of the debate is the only thing that is
>>>important.
>>SJ>Agreed, but it's this very *content* that is generating all this
>>vitriol. It seems to me that they are frustrated beyond endurance
>>that they cannot find a theoretical Darwinian mechanism that
>>accounts for the empirical facts.
DM>I would have to agree that the Punk Eeks (particularly Gould - Eldredge
>appears to be somewhat further advanced) appear to be having problems
>reconciling paleontological observations with neo-Darwinian (not just
>Darwinian) theory. On the other hand, the neo-Darwinians appear to have
>liite difficulty in fitting these paleontological observations into
>neo-Darwinian theory.
See above. What "paleontological observations" could *not* be fitted "into
neo-Darwinian theory"?
>SJ> This is *precisely* what my model of Mediate Creation would expect.
DM>It is precisely what the YEC model would predict also.
Actually, even Morris admits that Progressive Creation (which is closest
to Mediate Creation), fits the evidence better than YEC, but he rejects
PC on theological grounds:
"There is another aspect of the fossil record, however, which seems
to support the evolution model. Different forms of life seem to have
first appeared in different geologic ages-first in vertebrates, then
marine vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles then birds and
mammals, then man. Some such sequence as this is of course a
primary prediction of the evolution model. Creationism on the other
hand would expect to find all the major kinds of organisms appearing
at essentially the same time, unless there were a number of different
periods of creation. This latter idea, called by its advocates
`progressive creation' is inconsistent with the postulate of a
purposive, knowledgeable Creator, who knew what He was doing at
the beginning." (Morris H.M., "The Troubled Waters of Evolution",
1974, p92)
[...]
>>DM>...Both sides agree that, when
>>>evolution occurs, it is in genetically small steps, i.e.
>>>throughout the whole process, offspring are not markedly
>>>different genetically from their parents.
>>SJ>Agreed that they both say this, but in Gould's case it seems to be
>>only lip service. He and Eldredge know the fossil record does not
>>really support Neo-Darwinist gradualism:
>>
>>"The history of most fossil species includes two features
>>particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
>>exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They
>>appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they
>>disappear; morphological change is usually limited and
>>directionless.
DM>At first glance, this looks OK - it once looked OK to me. Most of it
>still looks OK. Stasis is only a specific case of gradualism, where no
>genetic/phenotypic variations that arise in a population increase the
>relative "fitness" of the variant individuals. When the fossils of a
>population disappear from a site, it may mean that the population moved
>to a similar environment as that for which it was already adapted.
>Alternatively the population may have gone extinct, because it could not
>move to a similar environment to that for which it was already adapted,
>or adapt to the new environment.
As I said, "Neo-Darwinian theory...is able to accommodate just
about anything"!
DM>But be careful! "They appear in the fossil record looking much the same
>as when they disappear" is not quite in accordance with the evidence. It
>should say "They appear in the fossil record IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION
>looking much the same as when they disappear FROM THAT LOCATION." What
>this implies is that the population variation (by neo-Darwinian
>processes) has occurred somewhere else. In rare instances, this
>"somewhere else" has been found.
The point is that they don't show up in *any* "particular location":
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It
seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields
zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight
accumulation of change-over millions of years, at a rate too slow to
really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in
evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of
evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with
no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere!
Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how
the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to
learn something about evolution." (Eldredge N., "Reinventing
Darwin", 1996, p95)
>SJ>2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species
>>does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
>>ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."...The extreme
>>rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the
>>trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
>>textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches;
>>the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of
>>fossils. (Gould S.J, "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, pp150-151)
DM>"In any local area", indeed. If only Gould had used that phrase in point
>1. And if only Gould had highlighted the full implications of that
>phrase, I, at least, would not have taken so long in reconciling the two
>positions.
The point is that Neo-Darwinism claims (or at least claimed) that
"species" *did* "arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors" in a "local area":
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic
transformation, an entire population changes from one state to
another." (Gould S.J, "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, pp150-151)
>SJ>"We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports
>>that interpretation [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the
>>while really knowing that it does not." (Eldredge N., "Time
>>Frames', 1985, p144)
DM>There is plenty of "gradual adaptive change" evidenced in the fossil
>record, in the field and in the laboratory.
OK. Then please give some *examples* of such "gradual adaptive change":
1. "in the fossil record'; 2. "in the field" and 3. "in the laboratory".
And also please explain there are even more examples of such
"gradual adaptive change" that are *not* "evidenced in the fossil
record:
"According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming
contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five
million years during an early period in the age of mammals. Because
this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain
populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate
continuous evolution. What they discovered was that species that
were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in
time with their alleged descendants, and "the fossil record does not
convincingly document a single transition from one species to
another." (Stanley, S.M., "Macroevolution", 1979, p39) New species
seem to appear from time to time, and they are more or less related to
what came before, but noboby knows how it happens. From time to
time something is found that can be interpreted to support the
Darwinian scenario. The importance of such a find is then
exaggerated, and the mountains of negative evidence are quite
unscientifically brushed aside." (Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma:
The Establishment of Naturalism", 1990, p35)
DM>There is even more "no adaptive change", i.e. stasis and extinction.
Since "stasis" is the *absence* of evolution, you are admitting that
there is, there is even more evidence of *no* evolution than there is
evidence of evolution!
DM>But there is no "sudden adaptive change" requiring processes that are
>inconsistent with neo-Darwinian theory.
OK. Then explain how the bat and the whale each changed from a small
rodent-like mammalian ancestor in only 10 million years (or less):
"Stanley uses the example of the bat and the whale, which are
supposed to have evolved from a common mammalian ancestor in
little more than ten million years, to illustrate the insuperable problem
that fossil stasis poses for Darwinian gradualism:
`Let us suppose that we wish, hypothetically, to form a bat or a
whale...[by a] process of gradual transformation of established
species. If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or
even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then
we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to
form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal
with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous. Chronospecies, by
definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very
little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from
one small rodent like form to a slightly different one, perhaps
representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!' (Stanley S.M,
"The New Evolutionary Timetable". 1981,, p71, in Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", 1993, p51).
>>Johnson observes:
>>
>>"In these frustrating circumstances, paleontologists clearly needed
>>to find a theory that would allow them to report the projects as
>>successful, but they felt constrained to operate within the
>>boundaries of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. What was required was a
>>theory that was saltationist enough to allow the paleontologist to
>>publish, but gradualistic enough to appease the Darwinists.
>>Punctuated equilibrium accomplishes this feat of statesmanship by
>>making the process of change inherently invisible....As
>>a scientific theory, "saltationist evolution" is just what Darwin
>>called it in the first place: rubbish. Gould and Eldredge
>>understand that, and so despite hints of saltationism particularly
>>by Gould) they have always kept open their lines of retreat to
>>orthodox Darwinian gradualism." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
>>1993, pp61-62)
DM>I have no difficulty in understanding why it suits Johnson's purposes to
>tar the Punk Eeks with the "saltationist" brush. And I do see how they,
>Gould particularly, must accept some of the responsibility for this
>characterisation.
Considering that Gould called his paper: "The Return of Hopeful
Monsters" and predicted that "during this decade Goldschmidt will be
largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology." (Gould S.J.,
"The Return of the Hopeful Monster", in "The Panda's Thumb",
1980, p155), I would suggest that "Gould...must accept" *all* "the
responsibility for this characterisation."
DM>However, let's hear Eldredge and Dawkins set the
>record straight. I apologise for the Eldredge quote; the most relevant
>parts are in the last four paragraphs, with the punchline in the last
>paragraph, but I felt that the rest was needed to set it up.
>
>Eldredge first:
>
>"...Nonetheless, we were accused of being saltationists. Steve Gould wrote
>two consecutive essays on Richard Goldschmidt in his monthly column in
>Natural History in 1977. Among other things, Steve speculated that the
>recent discovery of regulatory genes - genes that turn other genes on
>and off - raised the possibility that mutations in the regulatory
>apparatus might occasionally have the sort of effect Goldschmidt had in
>mind with his notion of 'macromutations.' These macromutations had the
>large-scale effects of the sort he posited for his 'hopeful monsters.'
>Nowhere in either article did Steve mention punctuated equilibria.
>
>But it was enough, it seems, that he, champion of a new model positing
>bursts of relatively rapid change, would, a few years later, discuss
>Goldschmidt in favourable terms. Mayr was one of the first to level the
>charge that punctuated equilibria is nothing but old saltationism in new
>guise. Our debt to Mayr's concept of species and speciation, so central
>to the idea of punctuated equilibria, eventually induced him to do an
>about face. Mayr came to prefer taking credit for punctuated equilibria
>rather than seeing it linked to his old nemesis Goldschmidt.
>
>Gould annd I were regularly derided and dismissed as neo-saltationists
>for many years thereafter, and still occasionally hear the charge."
>(Niles Eldredge, "Reinventing Darwin", 1995, Weidenfeld & Nicolson,
>pp.99-100)
There is one good reason why Gould at least was "derided and dismissed as
neo-saltationists", that's because he was! Let's hear it directly from
Gould:
"I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs,
complete in all their complex and integrated features-a fantasy that
would be totally anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection
and relegating it to the role of eliminating old models. Instead, I
envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key
adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an
ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth
and form proto-jaws?' (Gould S.J., "Is a new and general theory of
evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p127)
If proposing "a potential saltational origin for the essential features
of key adaptations" does not qualify Gould as a "neo-saltationist", I
don't know what does.
DM>Now Dawkins:
>
>"Eldredge and Gould are rightly annoyed at the misuse of their ideas
>by creationists who, in my terminology, think that punctuated
>equilibrium is about huge, 747-type macro-mutations which, they
>are right to believe, would require miracles."
Neither Dawkins nor you actually quote where "creationists...think
that punctuated equilibrium is about huge, 747-type macro-mutations".
But if they did, Gould's own words about envisaging "the potential
saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations"
could reasonably be interpreted that way.
DM>Dr Gould would lessen the risk of such misunderstanding if he more
>clearly emphasized the radical distinction between rapid gradualism and
>saltation (i.e. macro-mutation). Depending on your definition, the
>theory of punctuated equilibrium is either modest and possibly true or
>it is revolutionary and probably false. If you blur the distinction
>between rapid gradualism and saltation you may make the punctuation
>theory seem more radical. But at the same time you offer an open
>invitation to misunderstanding, an invitation that creationists are not
>slow to take up."
>(Richard Dawkins, "Climbing Mount Improbable", 1996, Viking, pp. 94-95)
DM>So, even if Johnson continues to describe PE as saltationist (does he?)
No. If you are going to state what Johnson says, then you should consult
his books and articles, many of the latter are on the Web at
http://www.arn.org/arn.
DM>there is no further reason for you to do likewise. Also, it might be
>worthwhile for you to study how the paleontological observations of PE
>proponents are explicable using the processes of neo-Darwinism.
I study and in fact own dozens of Neo-Darwinist books and articles. How
many books and articles have *you* studied that contain creationist
and other criticisms of neo-Darwinism?
>SJ> If "habitat-tracking" was such a major feature of PE, it seems
>>strange that it is only mentioned *once* in G&E's latest defence of
>>PE (and that admitting that other theorists don't agree with them):
DM>If, as I seem to remember, you have a copy of "Reinventing Darwin" you
>will note that it contains extensive discussion of habitat tracking.
Indeed it does. But what scientists write in popular books is
usually regarded as less definitive than what they write in peer-reviewed
scientific journals. And in their latest defence of PE, namely
Gould S.J. & Eldredge N., "Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age,"
Nature, 18 November 1993, Vol 366, G&E mention habitat tracking only
*once* (pp223-224) and at that admitting that others don't agree with
them.
>>DM>The question is, how does "habitat tracking" appear to a
>>>paleontologist. If he is just looking in a single area, the
>>>movement of a population in or out will look no different to
>>>"sudden appearance" or "extinction" respectively. It is only
>>>by fossil hunting over huge geographical expanses (often not
>>>possible) that a paleontologist can find a pattern of
>>>"habitat tracking".
>SJ> All this to my mind is propping up a shaky theory with auxiliary
>>hypotheses.
DM>I would still appreciate your comment on the substance of the point I
>raised.
I would have thought this might apply to those species which do in
fact roam over "huge geographical expanses" but not to those which don't.
In any event, I would have thought that the some of the fossils which
have moved would be found. Paleontologists do in fact carry out
"fossil hunting over huge geographical expanses".
My Mediate Creationist hypothesis is that the origin of new designs is
wholly or partly supernatural (ie. either through a first-class or
second-class miracles) and therefore happens so rapidly (possibly but
not necessarily in one generation), that the actual transition event(s)
would be most unlikely to be captured in the fossil record.
This fits *all* the facts far better than any naturalistic hypothesis
and what's more it isn't a difficulty to be explained away. It is an
*expectation* of my Mediate Creation psoition.
DM>Of course, if you *really* want to examine an example of "propping up a
>shaky theory with auxiliary hypotheses", you might want to have a close
>look at the historical development and continued use of the auxiliary
>"Trinity" hypothesis to prop up the shaky theory that Jesus is God. If
>one were to accept the author of Acts' description of Jesus as "a man
>approved of God" at face value, then the "Trinity" hypothesis would not
>be necessary.
Red herring ignored! It alway tells me that you are having problems
with your arguments when you have to try to change the subject!
>SJ>My Mediate Creation model would *expect* sudden appearance, few
>transitional forms and stasis, but to Neo-Darwinism it is a major
>problem which must be explained away.
DM>By expecting the direct action of a deity as an integral part of
>your model, there can be very few unexpected phenomena.
Not really. A theistic science hypothesis is still constrained by
the fossil and other evidence. But the point is that "the direct
action of a deity" *does* fit the facts better than any naturalistic
theory.
[...]
>>DM>Not a "festering sore", but a lively, entertaining
>>>and educational debate.
>SJ> I am glad that we can both enjoy the spectacle of the world's
>>leading Darwinists forming into two camps and tearing each other
>>(and their theories) to pieces before the general public!
DM>Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. What specific theories are
>being substantively, not rhetorically, torn to pieces, i.e. falsified?
I suggest you start "looking in the right places"! For instance, you
might look up Gould's counter-attacks ("Darwinian Fundamentalism" and
"Evolution: The Pleasures of Pluralism") on so-called `ultra-Darwinism'
in thef New York Review of Books, June 12 & 26, 1997, at:
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997062647F
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F)
DM>By the way, I'm also looking forward to the upcoming battle between the
>"expansion of the universe is constant or decelerating" camp and the
>newly-formed "expansion of the universe is accelerating" camp.
The point is that the universe is not going to contract, which means
that this is its one and only expansion. This of course is fully in
accord with Mediate Creation.
[...]
>>DM>...the practice of science isn't a zero-sum game. It isn't
>>>about warring and winning; its about discovering and testing.
>SJ> That assumes that Darwinism is 100% "science".
DM>No. I was only referring to that part of the evolutionary issue that
>*is* science. The part that is not science, i.e. the arena of Jerry
>Falwell, Gary Parker, Phillip Johnson and Daniel Dennett is most
>definitely about warring and winning.
A little while ago, you sounded uncertain about what "Phillip Johnson"
claimed about PE. Do you own (or at least you actually ever *read*) any
of Johnson's books? If so, what page reference do you have that supports your
claim that "Phillip Johnson...is most definitely about warring and
winning"?
>SJ>But as Ruse admits, it is also a type of secular religion:
>>
>>"Certainly, historically, that if you look at, say, evolutionary
>>theory, and of course this was brought out I think rather nicely by
>>the talk just before me, it's certainly been the case that evolution
>>has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with
>>elements akin to a secular religion...I think that today also, for
>>more than one eminent evolutionist, evolution in a way functions as
>>a kind of secular religion..." (Ruse M., "Nonliteralist Anti-
Evolutionism: The Case of Phillip Johnson", 1993 Annual
>>Meeting of the AAAS, Symposium "The New Antievolutionism", February
>>13, 1993)
DM>Ruse couldn't have picked better examples of this than the Huxley's. On
>the other hand, I don't find it difficult to separate the science from
>the philosophy even when both come from the pen of the same author and
>appear in the same publication. You've read "The Blind Watchmaker". From
>your writings, I don't see that you find it difficult to separate the
>philosophy from the science. Do you?
In the case of Darwinism in general, and Dawkins in particular, "the
science" is so intertwined with "the philosophy" that it is extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two.
>SJ> My analysis is that what we are now seeing between Gould and Dawkins
>>looks more like the worst aspects of two religions fighting it out,
>>than a scientific debate.
DM>My observation is that your analysis (or Johnson's analysis which you
>have adopted) focuses more on the flow of rhetoric among participants,
>than on each participant's understanding of the substantive issues.
I don't "adopt" Johnson's analysis. I disagree with Phil on a number
of things and what's more I have told him so. My tagline says "`Test
everything' (1Thess 5:21)" and I mean it. I identify with this motto
from Horace that Gould cites of J. Harlan Bretz:
"Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri, "I am not bound to swear
allegiance to the words of any [human] master."
(Gould S.J., "The Great Scablands Debate", in "The Panda's Thumb", 1980,
p168. Word "[human]" mine.)
DM>Johnson is a lawyer; for his profession the flow of rhetoric has a real
>influence on decisions. What's your excuse? :-)
I don't need an "excuse". Both Johnson and I quote plenty from the scientific
literature. The "rhetoric" flows mainly from the evolutionist side.
[...]
>>DM>You've been peddling this hopeful line for a long time now,
>>>but the writings of Dawkins, Maynard Smith, Williams, Gould
>>>and Eldridge don't support it...
>SJ> Of course they don't admit it! That's the one thing both sides
>>cannot admit - that neither of them are right.
[...] Ad hominem red-herring deleted!
>>>SJ>Dawkins is right that naturalistic evolution can only
>>>>happen by Neo-Darwinian mechanisms.
>>DM>A bit simplistic, but essentially right.
>SJ> How can a one-sentence summary of Dawkins' position be anything else
>>but "simplistic"? But thank you for conceding that my summary was
>>"essentially right"
DM>Do you want to make it even more "right"? Then try this. "Dawkins and
>Eldredge are right that naturalistic evolution can only happen by
>Neo-Darwinian mechanisms."
Just about *anything* can "happen by Neo-Darwinian mechanisms",
as Gould once complained:
"All these statements, as Robson and Richards also note, are subject
to recognized exceptions- and this imposes a great frustration upon
anyone who would characterize the modern synthesis in order to
criticize it. All the synthesists recognized exceptions and "ancillary
processes," but they attempted both to prescribe a low relative
frequency for them and to limit their application to domains of little
evolutionary importance. Thus, genetic drift certainly occurs- but
only in populations so small and so near the brink that their rapid
extinction will almost certainly ensue. And phenotypes include many
non-adaptive features by allometry and pleiotropy, but all are
epiphenomena of primarily adaptive genetic changes and none can
have any marked effect upon the organism (for, if inadaptive, they
will lead to negative selection and elimination and, if adaptive, will
enter the model in their own right). Thus, a synthesist could always
deny a charge of rigidity by invoking these official exceptions, even
though their circumscription, both in frequency and effect, actually
guaranteed the hegemony of the two cardinal principles. This
frustrating situation had been noted by critics of an earlier Darwinian
orthodoxy..." (Gould S.J., "Is a new and general theory of evolution
emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p120)
Derek. I am pressed for time, so I will have to answer your other
messages later. From past experience on Fidonet, our exchanges
tend to grow exponentially, and this may not be appreciated by
other Refelctorites. Therefore, I will answer your large posts, one at
a time, if possible. This means that my replies may be late. I apologise
for any inconvenience this may cause.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------