Are inquiries of the origin of life really scientific?

[Mallon]

Okay. You're a scientist, and I'm a lawyer. I'm really trying to understand this. There's science behind fingerprint identification theory... it's been tested, repeated with confirmatory observations such that it's been generably accepted to be reliable.

The science has revealed the evidence,i.e., Joe Blow's fingerprint on the murder weapon. We must still interpret that evidence.

You seem to be making a distinction between science and interpretation of the evidence, but the fact is that the two are not distinct; science involves interpreting evidence.

Here's how the scientific method works:

1) Observe some natural phenomenon that requires explanation.
2) Derive a set of alternate hypotheses that each explain how that phenomenon works. Each hypothesis should make some prediction about what we should and should not see if that hypothesis is correct (i.e., if hypothesis A is correct, then we should see X. This is called falsifiability.). This way we can distinguish between hypotheses and reject those that do not fit the data.
3) Derive an experiment to test the different hypotheses.
4) Run the experiment and observe which of the predicted results is consistent with which hypothesis. Reject those hypothesis that have been falsified.
5) Those hypotheses that have not been falsified are accepted as 'true' (for the time being) because they fit the evidence.

All science follows this rubrik. If it doesn't, it's probably not science.

 

[sfs]

That's a pretty broad brush. I guess with those criteria, whatever Mallon says is scientific is scientific.

Sorry, but nowhere in what I wrote did I include "Mallon says so" as one of the criteria.

Is a theory scientific if it cannot be subjected to scientific method?

No, but then you're left with the question, "What is the scientific method?" If you investigate that question in depth, you will find that there is no single scientific method, but rather a cluster of methods. What they have in common is the requirement that hypotheses be tested against empirical data. That is done all the time in evolutionary biology.

Can an inquiry into history be subjected to scientific method?

Absolutely. That's pretty much what I just said.

I'm not saying that a scientist who studies origins is not a scientist. I'm skeptical of whether TOE should be called a scientific theory.

I understand that. I'm telling you that your skepticism is misplaced. Or, more bluntly, you're wrong. (And how could evolutionary biologists be scientists if what they do all day isn't scientific?)

It's a cluster of evidences, some based on science, some not so much, that proponents of the theory interpret as the best explanation.

Which pieces of evidence are not based in science?

It's historical and more akin to a criminal theory or theory to explain how Stonehenge came to be, neither of which is generally considered a scientific theory.

I didn't think that being "generally considered" to be scientific mattered to you -- you have your own standards to apply. I would certainly consider archeology a science, although not all archeological theories are scientific. A particular criminal case might be an application of science, but not be science itself, mostly because such highly particular events aren't of great interest to scientists. The history of life, on the other hand, is of interest, while the history of a particular organism is not.

 

[juvenissun]

Initially, the meaning of the Greek word for truth, unhiddenness, has nothing to do with assertion and that factual contexture in terms of which the essence of truth is usually explained, i.e. with correctness and correspondence. To be hidden and unhidden means something quite different to correspondence, measuring up, directness towards . . . Truth as unhiddenness and truth as correctness are quite different things; they arise from quite different fundamental experiences and cannot at all be equated.
Heidegger, Martin – The Essence of Truth – On Plato’s Cave Allegory and Theaetetus [Continuum, 2002, Sadler, Ted trans., p. 8]


Thought in the Greek fashion, truth is always eventually concealed by time. Science and inquiry into truth can reveal truth from its essential hiddenness, but never completely and never for all time. Modern science can look at the behaviour of species, inherited characteristics and such, but no such investigation can by its nature reveal the truth of how life on earth began.

Kronos has concealed that particular truth from us. We have no time machine, so may only make conjectures consistent with the truths we do know.

Aristotle. who had a few things to say about truth, logic and science was quite able to distinguish art from science and politics while noting their inter-relationship in certain areas.

Yes, we can do analysis to make any word we use clear enough for its meaning. But this won't happen during conversation, or even during debate.
So, it still ends up with a mess almost 100% of time.

That is why the wisdom of Solomon is so precious. If one has wisdom, then he can listen correctly.

 

[juvenissun]

My definition of science: Anything done or figured out by logic IS scientific.

Can you give example of illogical understanding? That is not a knowledge of science.
A good example is: The beginning of faith.
The amazing part is, beyond the beginning, faith becomes scientific again. We called it Theology.

 

[Harry3142]

I watched a documentary recently, in which a scientist attempted to explain why the meteorite that hit Chesapeake Bay 35 million years ago was not an Extinction Level Event. This meteorite had left a crater that is 53 miles in diameter.

Her 'explanation' soon made it obvious that she was a random-chance evolutionist. She stated that unlike the meteorite that hit this planet 65 million years ago, this meteorite hit water. Because of this, instead of a massive explosin, firestorm, concussive force, and ash combining to wipe out most lifeforms, there was simply a 'big splash' which caused a tsunami of from 10 to 30 miles in height to form, giving the east coast of North America a soaking.

There are a number of scientific arguments against this. One of them is that the meteorite of 65 million years ago hit the Gulf of Mexico, a body of water that is vastly deeper than the Chesapeake Bay.

Another argument against this is that scientists have stated that the meteorites that have caused this destruction were travelling at circa 26,000 miles per hour. That translates to 38,133 feet per second. Chesapeake Bay is only about 300 feet deep. That means that once the meteorite was at its surface, it made contact with its floor within 0.008 (1/125) seconds.

Another argument against the 'splash theory' is the heat generated by a meteorite. By the time it reached the surface of Chesapeake Bay the massive heat that it was giving off had already set everything on fire for miles around, as well as turning the water in its path into steam. So there was no water there for a 'big splash'.

So what does this mean to us? It means that there have been extinction level events since the one which occurred 65 million years ago, and they have been every bit as destructive as that one was. The other major one occurred in Tajikistan circa 10 million years ago, and left a crater 32 miles in diameter. As well, there have been 3 impacts, dating from 38 million years ago to 15 million years ago, which have each left craters of 15+ miles in diameter.

Then right in the middle of the time period which scientists claim was the seperation point between the lineage to modern man and the lineage to the ape family, there were 2 more localized extinction level events, both occurring in Africa, supposedly our ancestral home. Ngorongoro 'blew its top', leaving a volcanic crater 12.5 miles in diameter, and Ghana was hit by another meteorite which left a crater 6.5 miles in diameter. This last one occurred circa 1.5 million years ago, and the earlier one occurred a little over 1 million years prior to that.

That is why I am a believer in Intelligent Design. This planet has been here for longer than 6,000 years, but its lifeforms would not be here without quite literally divine intervention.

 

[sfs]

Her 'explanation' soon made it obvious that she was a random-chance evolutionist. She stated that unlike the meteorite that hit this planet 65 million years ago, this meteorite hit water. Because of this, instead of a massive explosin, firestorm, concussive force, and ash combining to wipe out most lifeforms, there was simply a 'big splash' which caused a tsunami of from 10 to 30 miles in height to form, giving the east coast of North America a soaking.

There are a number of scientific arguments against this. One of them is that the meteorite of 65 million years ago hit the Gulf of Mexico, a body of water that is vastly deeper than the Chesapeake Bay.

Another argument against this is that scientists have stated that the meteorites that have caused this destruction were travelling at circa 26,000 miles per hour. That translates to 38,133 feet per second. Chesapeake Bay is only about 300 feet deep. That means that once the meteorite was at its surface, it made contact with its floor within 0.008 (1/125) seconds.

Another argument against the 'splash theory' is the heat generated by a meteorite. By the time it reached the surface of Chesapeake Bay the massive heat that it was giving off had already set everything on fire for miles around, as well as turning the water in its path into steam. So there was no water there for a 'big splash'.

While some of your facts are wrong -- there was no Chesapeake Bay there 35 million years ago -- your conclusion is correct: the proposed "big splash" explanation is nonsense. That impact made a very large hole in the bedrock.

So what does this mean to us? It means that there have been extinction level events since the one which occurred 65 million years ago, and they have been every bit as destructive as that one was.

What makes you think that the more recent events have been equally destructive? The Chesapeake Bay crater is 90 km wide, while the Chicxulub crater is either 180 km or 300 km wide, depending on whom you ask. That means the Chicxulub event was far more powerful. (There have also been suggestions that multiple impacts occurred around the same time.)

The other major one occurred in Tajikistan circa 10 million years ago, and left a crater 32 miles in diameter. As well, there have been 3 impacts, dating from 38 million years ago to 15 million years ago, which have each left craters of 15+ miles in diameter.

So, in summary, there was one massive impact that caused a mass extinction, and several much smaller impacts that didn't (although it has been suggested that the Chesapeake Bay impact was one of a series that produced a smaller mass extinction 33 million years ago). And from this you conclude . . .?

Then right in the middle of the time period which scientists claim was the seperation point between the lineage to modern man and the lineage to the ape family, there were 2 more localized extinction level events, both occurring in Africa, supposedly our ancestral home. Ngorongoro 'blew its top', leaving a volcanic crater 12.5 miles in diameter, and Ghana was hit by another meteorite which left a crater 6.5 miles in diameter. This last one occurred circa 1.5 million years ago, and the earlier one occurred a little over 1 million years prior to that.

Ngorongoro is a caldera, not a crater. Calderas are produced when a volcano erupts and empties the underlying magma chamber, after which the surrounding land collapses. Ngorongoro was undoubtedly destructive, but it was orders of magnitude weaker than the Chicxulub impact.

That is why I am a believer in Intelligent Design. This planet has been here for longer than 6,000 years, but its lifeforms would not be here without quite literally divine intervention.

I don't follow your reasoning. Why, based on what you've presented, do you think that lifeforms wouldn't have survived without divine intervention?

 

[philadiddle]

I don't follow your reasoning. Why, based on what you've presented, do you think that lifeforms wouldn't have survived without divine intervention?

Because that's what he wants to believe so that is where the evidence will always take him, no matter what the evidence is.

 

[crawfish]

Sort of. They look at evidence and, after listening to one lawyer offer a hypotheses consistent with guilt and another to the contrary, determine if the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence. To call that a scientific process seems absurd. Sorry.

I see what you're saying, but I do have a question. As a lawyer, do you think it is possible that, given the absence of a witnesses, murder weapons or a body, it is possible to be reasonably certain of someone's guilt based solely on circumstantial evidence? Reasonable enough for a jury to confidently convict?

Perhaps the immediate evidence does not exist, and not one single piece of evidence can be used to prove guilt, but the amalgamation of many solid pieces of circumstantial evidence can paint an overall picture that make guilt difficult to deny. Perhaps you have a perp whose DNA exists on the scene; whose cell phone records indicate he was in the general area at the time of the murder; who has a solid motive for murder; whose testimony has multiple internal conflicts and does not agree with secondary witnesses.

Any historical claim brings up inevitable questions that must be answered. A theory is an attempt to answer these questions, and must be corroborated by the evidence that does exist. A scientific theory must answer all of these things in a manner that is supported by all evidence; any single piece of evidence that conflicts with it will falsify it. Certainly, you can't prove it the same way you do by direct observation, but as the evidence builds up it will slowly eliminate the untrue possibilities.

Science isn't simply glorified butterfly catching, as some Creationists would like to think. It is more than testing and classifying. It is about explaining, more than anything else, and the past is definitely in that realm.

 

[oncelost]

You seem to be making a distinction between science and interpretation of the evidence, but the fact is that the two are not distinct; science involves interpreting evidence.

Here's how the scientific method works:

1) Observe some natural phenomenon that requires explanation.

The diversity of life.

2) Derive a set of alternate hypotheses that each explain how that phenomenon works. Each hypothesis should make some prediction about what we should and should not see if that hypothesis is correct (i.e., if hypothesis A is correct, then we should see X. This is called falsifiability.). This way we can distinguish between hypotheses and reject those that do not fit the data.

i. One common ancestry from abiogenesis;
ii. One common ancestry from the special creation of one organism;
iii. Multiple common ancestries from the special creation of multiple organisms.

Are there any other contenders?

3) Derive an experiment to test the different hypotheses.
4) Run the experiment and observe which of the predicted results is consistent with which hypothesis. Reject those hypothesis that have been falsified.

Help me out here. Does digging up fossils count? Does searching for irreducible complexity count? If so, I guess that's the part that is counter-intuitive to us non-scientists. It just seems more like plain old looking for evidence and interpreting that evidence; as opposed to experimentation. It's like using a microscope (a scientific contraption) automatically makes your conclusions from what you see "scientific".

5) Those hypotheses that have not been falsified are accepted as 'true' (for the time being) because they fit the evidence.

All science follows this rubrik. If it doesn't, it's probably not science

It seems to me that, until Kingdom come, none of these hypotheses will be completely falsified to the satisfaction of their proponents. It's just a matter of assessing which is the most reasonable in light of the evidence. That, perhaps, is the key difference between historical inquiries versus inquiries about how something works.

 

[Mallon]

Help me out here. Does digging up fossils count?

Sure. If you posit a specific evolutionary scenario that predicts that certain fossil ancestors should be present at a certain time and place in the rock record, then you can test this scenario by looking for the predicted fossils in those rocks. This was done recently with the "fishapod" Tiktaalik, for example. It's effectively an experiment.

Does searching for irreducible complexity count?

Well... if you posit that a particular structure is irreducibly complex, then you can falsify it by demonstrating adaptive intermediates, so... yes, I guess.

 

[oncelost]

My definition of science: Anything done or figured out by logic IS scientific.

So, if ID is another iteration of the teleological arguement, and that argument is valid, then ID is scientific?

Science ... is more than testing and classifying. It is about explaining, more than anything else, and the past is definitely in that realm.

Explaining? At some point, the term can get so watered down that it seems like it is whatever works best for the one using it. And maybe I'm just as guilty as the next guy.

"Science" is a broader term than what I'm getting at, though. I know the word is derived from the latin word for knowlege (or something like that). My question is whether a theory explaining history can be a scientific theory. And I do appreciate all the informed opinions on the matter.

 

[lucaspa]

So, if ID is another iteration of the teleological arguement, and that argument is valid, then ID is scientific?

There is no universally accepted definition of "science" or a means to tell what is "scientific" or not. In the sense the ID makes statements about the physical universe that are testable and falsifiable, it is a scientific theory. Unfortunately, testing of ID has consistently falsified it. ID is a falsified scientific theory. It is wrong.

My question is whether a theory explaining history can be a scientific theory. And I do appreciate all the informed opinions on the matter.

Of course it can. Think of the "scientific method". It's actually the hypothetico-deductive method.

1. Make a hypothesis. This is a statement about some aspect of the physical universe.
2. Assume the hypothesis is true for the moment.
3. Make deductions of observations we should find (if the hypothesis is true). These are also called "consequences".
4. Go look for those observations/consequences.
5. If you find the observations, the hypothesis is supported. If you find contrary observations, the hypothesis is falsified.

Let's take Meteor Crator. You have a crator in the Arizona desert. You make the hypothesis: The crator was formed by a meteor impact. What are some consequences?
1. There should be shards of the meteor at the center of the crator.
2. The shape of the crator should correspond to the shape generated by an impact.

People have looked for, and found, pieces of a meteor in the crator. On an experimental note, we can simulate an impact that shooting a small rock at high velocity into a pile of flour. Done that too, and the result is a crator similar to Meteor Crator.

Now let's try a hypothesis within evolution:
" For example, scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered. Furthermore, geneticists have found that the number of wings in flies can be changed through mutations in a single gene." Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

I suggest you read that entire chapter since it discusses the nature of science. But basically we have done the same hypothetico-deductive method discussed above. A hypothesis, a deduction to an observation/consequence, finding the observation and support of the hypothesis.

Forensic science also makes use of hypotheses and hypothesis testing. Watch a bit of CSI and you see them testing various hypotheses.

 

[shernren]

Of course it can. Think of the "scientific method". It's actually the hypothetico-deductive method.

1. Make a hypothesis. This is a statement about some aspect of the physical universe.
2. Assume the hypothesis is true for the moment.
3. Make deductions of observations we should find (if the hypothesis is true). These are also called "consequences".
4. Go look for those observations/consequences.
5. If you find the observations, the hypothesis is supported. If you find contrary observations, the hypothesis is falsified.

When Newton's framework for gravitation couldn't explain the anomalous orbit of Neptune, people didn't reject it; they postulated instead that there was another object, the planet Uranus, outside its orbit which was perturbing it, and indeed that was the scientifically accurate explanation.

When Newton's framework again couldn't explain the anomalous orbit of Mercury, some people didn't reject it; they postulated instead that there was another object, the planet Vulcan, inside its orbit which was perturbing it. But that turned out to be the wrong thing to suppose.

Why does Mercury falsify Newton's gravitational principles, but not Neptune?

Of course, falsifiability is a good place to start when explaining how science works; but the philosophy of science has progressed beyond it.

So, if ID is another iteration of the teleological arguement, and that argument is valid, then ID is scientific?

Sure, then ID would be valid! (Assuming your premises.) But that wouldn't by itself make it scientific.

"Science" is a broader term than what I'm getting at, though. I know the word is derived from the latin word for knowlege (or something like that). My question is whether a theory explaining history can be a scientific theory. And I do appreciate all the informed opinions on the matter.

Philosophy of science is hard. You're right, the word was originally scientia which simply meant "knowledge" in Latin. (Indeed, some still insist today that theology is a science!)

But ponder this, and tell me what you think:

Yesterday, the meteorologist could only give me a forecast: there would be a 60% chance of rain today.
But tomorrow, given that it did rain today, the meteorologist would be able to give me a full explanation: it rained because this particular cold front met another warm front and created such-and-such a cloud which in the end precipitated.

Was the meteorologist a scientist yesterday? Would he be a scientist tomorrow? Is he ever a scientist? (But everything he does is done using physics and mathematics!)

 

[lucaspa]

When Newton's framework for gravitation couldn't explain the anomalous orbit of Neptune, people didn't reject it; they postulated instead that there was another object, the planet Uranus, outside its orbit which was perturbing it, and indeed that was the scientifically accurate explanation.

Now you are going to get into more complicated parts of the philosophy of science. I wanted to do the simple stuff for Oncelost first before we got into the more complicated, but more realistic, details.

Yes, when a large, previously successful theory encounters data that seems to falsify it, the first thing that is done is propose an ad hoc hypothesis. The ad hoc hypothesis saves the theory from falsification. You noted the classic example of this.

The key is that the ad hoc hypothesis must be testable independent of the theory it is trying to save. In this case, the existence of the new planet was tested using the theories of optics (telescopes), not that of gravity.

As you noted, the same ad hoc hypothesis didn't work in explaining the precession of the orbit of Mercury.

The other classic example is the aether. When Michelson-Morely's experiments falsified the aether, the ad hoc hypothesis of the Lorentz contraction was proposed. By this hypothesis, earth shrunk just a little bit in the direction of travel in its orbit, just enough to make the speed of light coming head on be the same as the speed of light coming from behind. Notice there is no way to independently test this ad hoc hypothesis. It's only effect on the universe is to make the speed of light constant in all directions while preserving the aether. Since it was not independently testable, the Lorentz contraction was not considered valid.

Of course, falsifiability is a good place to start when explaining how science works; but the philosophy of science has progressed beyond it.

Popper did two things:
1. Describe how science works: by falsifying hypotheses/theories.
2. Propose a demarcation criteria to tell science from non-science: scientific theories are falsifiable, non-scientific theories are not.

Popper succeeded in #1 but failed in #2. In general, science does work by falsification. This is because falsification is what you can do with deductive logic.
"To my mind the great strength of Karl Popper's conception of the scientific process is that it is realistic -- it gives a pretty fair picture of what actually goes on in real-life laboratories." "The Threat and the Glory", by P.B. Medawar (Nobel Prize winner in medicine), HarperCollins, New York, 1990 (original publication 1959). pp 96-101.

Now, if you want, we can get into testing hypotheses in bundles and the other major way that falsifiability does not work as a criteria for what is and is not scientific.

Sure, then ID would be valid! (Assuming your premises.) But that wouldn't by itself make it scientific.

The teleological argument as formulated by ID does not work because there is an unintelligent process that gives design: natural selection.

Now, teleology does not have to involve intelligence. Aristotle's original listing of causes included a teleological cause. Let's take the example of a chameleon. The teleological cause for the chameleon's ability to change colors is: to avoid predators. However, the mechanism by which chameleon's got this ability is natural selection.

Because of the way the lawyers handled the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas trial, we are stuck with the task of showing creationism is not science in order to keep it out of science classrooms. However, as people have noted, there is a huge problem in trying to define "science" or find criteria to know what is science and what isn't.

The best approach is to forget all that. Treat ID like it is: a scientific theory. Despite the efforts of its proponents, ID does make testable statements about the physical universe. When we test those statements, we find that they are false. ID is a falsified scientific theory.

Notice this actually makes a statement about the truth value of ID. Saying ID is not "scientific" says nothing about the truth value.

But ponder this, and tell me what you think:

Yesterday, the meteorologist could only give me a forecast: there would be a 60% chance of rain today.
But tomorrow, given that it did rain today, the meteorologist would be able to give me a full explanation: it rained because this particular cold front met another warm front and created such-and-such a cloud which in the end precipitated.

Was the meteorologist a scientist yesterday? Would he be a scientist tomorrow? Is he ever a scientist? (But everything he does is done using physics and mathematics!)

Isn't the "60% chance of rain" a hypothesis? The forecast is a hypothesis, which is then tested against what really happens. Now, the "full explanation" is another set of hypotheses involving cold fronts, warm fronts, and precipitation.

 

[LifeInJesus]

To me the origin of life is not scientific. It's religious and always shall be.

 

[Mallon]

To me the origin of life is not scientific. It's religious and always shall be.

So what do you make of the arguments put forth here that such issues are scientific?

 

[LifeInJesus]

So what do you make of the arguments put forth here that such issues are scientific?

What's scientific about evolution?

 

[lucaspa]

To me the origin of life is not scientific. It's religious and always shall be.

But not to scientists. LifeInJesus, take a frying pan. Order a bottle of mixed amino acids from Sigma Chemical Company. You can get a 100 ml or 500 ml bottle. Pour the solution of amino acids into the frying pan and put it over low heat. Let the contents evaporate and then keep it on low heat for 4 hours. Then slowly add water. You will have living protocells in the water in the frying pan. You have just simulated the origin of life in tidal pools of the primitive ocean -- which was also a dilute solution of amino acids.

Also, as long as events in the past leave consequences in the present, what happens in the past is scientific.

 

[lucaspa]

What's scientific about evolution?

I gave you one example: you can make deductions about what fossils should be found if evolution is true. When we find the fossils, that is scientific support for evolution.

I suggest you actually read Origin of Species. Look at how Darwin tests the various parts of evolution.

For instance, Darwin proposes that natural selection involves:
1. Variation between individuals.
2. More individuals are born than the environment will support or that will survive to adulthood and reproduce. This sets up a competition between individuals for scarce resources.
3. Those individuals with traits useful for the competition will do better and leave more offspring.

Darwin wanted to test #2 to see if it were true. This is one experiment he did:

"With plants there is a vast destruction of seeds, but, from some observations which I have made, it appears that the seedlings suffer most from germinating in ground already thickly stocked with other plants. Seedlings, also, are destroyed in vast numbers by various enemies; for instance, on a piece of ground three feet long and two wide, dug and cleared, and where there could be no choking from other plants, I marked all the seedlings of our native weeds as they came up, and out of 357 no less than 295 were destroyed, chiefly by slugs and insects." Origin of the Species 6th Edition, pg 54

So, in this case only 62 plants survived of an original 357, the rest being destroyed by slugs and insects. That's a competition to avoid being eaten by slugs and insects, and only 1 in 6 plants survives the competition.

 

[LifeInJesus]

I gave you one example: you can make deductions about what fossils should be found if evolution is true. When we find the fossils, that is scientific support for evolution.

I suggest you actually read Origin of Species. Look at how Darwin tests the various parts of evolution.

For instance, Darwin proposes that natural selection involves:
1. Variation between individuals.
2. More individuals are born than the environment will support or that will survive to adulthood and reproduce. This sets up a competition between individuals for scarce resources.
3. Those individuals with traits useful for the competition will do better and leave more offspring.

Darwin wanted to test #2 to see if it were true. This is one experiment he did:

"With plants there is a vast destruction of seeds, but, from some observations which I have made, it appears that the seedlings suffer most from germinating in ground already thickly stocked with other plants. Seedlings, also, are destroyed in vast numbers by various enemies; for instance, on a piece of ground three feet long and two wide, dug and cleared, and where there could be no choking from other plants, I marked all the seedlings of our native weeds as they came up, and out of 357 no less than 295 were destroyed, chiefly by slugs and insects." Origin of the Species 6th Edition, pg 54

So, in this case only 62 plants survived of an original 357, the rest being destroyed by slugs and insects. That's a competition to avoid being eaten by slugs and insects, and only 1 in 6 plants survives the competition.

Fossil finding is not science.