A discussion on Evolution, The Big Bang and Theology.

[Resha Caner]

ADDITION: because I had a little cerebral flatulence concerning a side issue. I said that the traits that could possibly evolve are entirely dependent on the pool of mutations. I should say that this is not quite true. In reality, a lot of mutations that would move a trait in a certain (perhaps advantageous) direction may never come into play because of some sort of constraint. For example, consider this hypothesis on why nearly all mammals have the same number of neck vertebrae, or this study on a different kind of developmental constraint(?) in butterfly wing patterns.

Can I be your friend? A wealth of information and it's all free!

I've asked other biologists exactly this question - about developmental constraints - and their hackles go up because I'm one of those evil people who dare to remain unimpressed by the grand evolutionary scheme.

It will take me some time to wade through these papers, and even then I don't know how much I'll get out of it. But, from your summary I'm a bit disappointed with Theobald. I'll give him a thousand points for trying, but it sounds like his test has too many holes yet.

In expanding on this idea (as I think you asked), it seems to me there are 3 possible results that could occur when an organism changes:
1) Evolution ... the "filter" of selection keeps those changes advantageous to survival
2) Stasis ... developmental restrictions mean organisms can only change within certain boundaries
3) Extinction ... changes, on the whole, are more of a disadvantage than an advantage, and so life eventually winds down and dies out

I don't see that enough work has been done to be able to take a scientific position that any one of the three of these is better than the other.

When people ask what I would find convincing, I tell them that it would need to be quantified. In other words, we would need a set of equations defining the birth, reproduction, and death of life. There are some simple population equations that work quite well, but they have a frustrating aspect - they're chaotic. Specfically, they can bifurcate (in simple terms that means more than one solution is possible). So, depending on the initial conditions, the same equation can produce all 3 of the above results. How, then, do we determine what the initial conditions should be? That question hasn't been answered.

And, as the models get more complex (which has also been tried) the problems of what assumptions to apply compound.

So, I understand why proponents then make appeals to other things such as the fossil record .... yeah, paleontology ... now there's a black art if there ever was one. But, what I haven't seen yet is anyone who does with paleontology what you just showed me with these papers from Theobald, Allen, and Galis. Namely, I haven't seen anyone looking for alternative explanations.

For example, one "claim" of the fossil record is: we see a progression of animals in different layers, and that progression fits evolution. Well, if you dig deep enough you'll find a bit of circularity in that argument, but even so has no one ever considered other possibilities? For example, what if changes in climate caused massive extinctions of particular animals at particular times. Wouldn't that cause different fossils to deposit at different times? Maybe massive extinctions are what is necessary to raise the chances that just a few samples will fossilize. So, other life could have been present that didn't supposedly evolve until later, but didn't die out in numbers large enough to fossilize ... or to fossilize in sufficient numbers that we've had the time to find them.

Do you have any papers about that in your bag of magic tricks? (Sorry, but it's Friday and I'm feeling a bit cheeky. I hope you don't take that the wrong way. You've been a good sport so far.)

 

[Naraoia]

Can I be your friend? A wealth of information and it's all free!

I like friends

I've asked other biologists exactly this question - about developmental constraints - and their hackles go up because I'm one of those evil people who dare to remain unimpressed by the grand evolutionary scheme.

Really? (Maybe try talking to evo-devo researchers ) Developmental constraint/bias/canalisation, pick your favourite term, is pretty interesting IMO. Obviously I don't think it limits evolution in the way that baraminology nonsense would want it limited, but IMO looking at the constraints as well as the opportunities is absolutely necessary for a complete understanding of evolution.

On the other side of the coin, there is this idea of "facilitated variation", which is explained at length in this book. I put up a review of sorts years ago when I read it, but I'm a bit too lazy to dig up the post now. I also haven't re-read the book since (it's on my supervisor's bookshelf, not mine), but IIRC one of their central points is that some of the seeming complexity of novelties is actually mitigated by the self-organising capacity of biological systems. Say, you want to turn an arm into a wing. Basically, you don't have to generate the right mutations for all of the structures in it, because muscle, nerve, blood vessels etc. all develop by interacting with the skeleton and each other. So if you change the shape of the bones, the right musculature, vasculature and innervation will automatically follow. IIRC, the book is a very interesting read, though not particularly well written.

It will take me some time to wade through these papers, and even then I don't know how much I'll get out of it.

Good luck. I hope you get Theobald better than I did... I still don't think I have a good grasp on what he actually did.

In expanding on this idea (as I think you asked), it seems to me there are 3 possible results that could occur when an organism changes:
1) Evolution ... the "filter" of selection keeps those changes advantageous to survival
2) Stasis ... developmental restrictions mean organisms can only change within certain boundaries
3) Extinction ... changes, on the whole, are more of a disadvantage than an advantage, and so life eventually winds down and dies out

I know you phrased this in terms of "what might happen IF an organism changes", but I'd like to add my thoughts on a more general level of "what might be the evolutionary fate of organisms"

First and foremost, stasis needn't be due to intrinsic constraints. It might just be that the population is good as it is, and most changes are disadvantageous under the circumstances (i.e. stabilising selection).

Also, I'm not comfortable with your characterisation of extinction as the wrong kind of change. First, changes that are a disadvantage on the whole (to be precise: changes that decrease population fitness) can only happen under certain circumstances. Strong genetic drift (= small population) or selfish genes come to mind. Second, extinction may very well arise from failure to change (enough) in response to a new challenge. Or, especially in times of mass extinctions, largely from chance!

I don't see that enough work has been done to be able to take a scientific position that any one of the three of these is better than the other.

What do you mean, better? Your options are all possible, probably all happen, and not all change has to happen with outcome (1) in order for evolution to keep going.

When people ask what I would find convincing, I tell them that it would need to be quantified. In other words, we would need a set of equations defining the birth, reproduction, and death of life.

Well, there are models describing species births and deaths, though that sort of thing isn't really in the scope of my article radar

There are some simple population equations that work quite well, but they have a frustrating aspect - they're chaotic. Specfically, they can bifurcate (in simple terms that means more than one solution is possible). So, depending on the initial conditions, the same equation can produce all 3 of the above results. How, then, do we determine what the initial conditions should be? That question hasn't been answered.

Can you put this in the context of a specific question? Not sure I understand what "initial conditions" you are referring to and why they would be important.

And, as the models get more complex (which has also been tried) the problems of what assumptions to apply compound.

So, I understand why proponents then make appeals to other things such as the fossil record .... yeah, paleontology ... now there's a black art if there ever was one.

Come now, what's wrong with palaeontology?

But, what I haven't seen yet is anyone who does with paleontology what you just showed me with these papers from Theobald, Allen, and Galis. Namely, I haven't seen anyone looking for alternative explanations.

Alternative explanations of what? "The fossil record"?

By the way, the constraint on mammalian vertebrae has been investigated with reference to fossils (sorry, no free version for this one), and it appears that the mammal lineage has been conservative ever since they split from "reptiles". (Which seems at odds with Galis's speculation about metabolic rate, since no one seriously thinks that early mammal-line creatures had especially high metabolic rates.)

For example, one "claim" of the fossil record is: we see a progression of animals in different layers, and that progression fits evolution. Well, if you dig deep enough you'll find a bit of circularity in that argument, but even so has no one ever considered other possibilities?

I don't see the circularity. The fossil "progression" of animals fits classifications of animals that can be drawn up without any reference to fossils whatsoever.

For example, what if changes in climate caused massive extinctions of particular animals at particular times. Wouldn't that cause different fossils to deposit at different times?

I must ask you to clarify exactly what you are suggesting here. Do you mean that, say, mammals might have existed way back when, they just didn't start fossilising until the Jurassic for some environmental reason? At what level? As a "class", or as living species, or...?

In the meantime, a few counterarguments:

Trace fossils. These are not dependent on the source organism being dead - in fact, some types come only from live creatures (the dead rarely walk outside zombie movies!) Why are there no dinosaur trackways before the Mesozoic? Can you show me any coprolites from terrestrial deposits predating, say, the Silurian*? Animal burrows and trackways in marine sediments before, say, the Ediacaran?

*I'm probably being generous here. To my knowledge, actual Silurian land animals (example) are all tiny and unlikely to produce easily discovered coprolites.

Palaeoenvironments. I'm sure you've heard things like how the early atmosphere didn't contain much free oxygen. Organisms that require oxygen - exhibit A: vast majority of animals - simply could not have existed in such environments.

Extant organisms in the fossil record. Creatures that are common and show no sign of extinction today are most certainly not absent from the fossil record. If living (morpho)species of foraminiferans or, heck, humans can be found as fossils and yet be abundant today, when exactly did these supposed mass die-offs that led to fossilisation happen?

Maybe massive extinctions are what is necessary to raise the chances that just a few samples will fossilize. So, other life could have been present that didn't supposedly evolve until later, but didn't die out in numbers large enough to fossilize ... or to fossilize in sufficient numbers that we've had the time to find them.

I would bet money that this effect is not strong enough to cause the entire pattern, but you would have to refer to experts of taphonomy for a real argument

Do you have any papers about that in your bag of magic tricks?

I'm afraid the papers in my bag that deal with fossilisation are not very relevant to this particular issue

(Sorry, but it's Friday and I'm feeling a bit cheeky. I hope you don't take that the wrong way. You've been a good sport so far.)

No worries, I'm enjoying this conversation.

 

[Resha Caner]

First and foremost, stasis needn't be due to intrinsic constraints. It might just be that the population is good as it is, and most changes are disadvantageous under the circumstances (i.e. stabilising selection).

Also, I'm not comfortable with your characterisation of extinction as the wrong kind of change. First, changes that are a disadvantage on the whole (to be precise: changes that decrease population fitness) can only happen under certain circumstances. Strong genetic drift (= small population) or selfish genes come to mind. Second, extinction may very well arise from failure to change (enough) in response to a new challenge. Or, especially in times of mass extinctions, largely from chance!

Sure, I get that.

What do you mean, better? Your options are all possible, probably all happen, and not all change has to happen with outcome (1) in order for evolution to keep going.

I guess what I meant was an overarching theory. I understand that biologists will accept that all 3 happen, but in the main they think #1 has dominated. How else would life have diversified from its beginnings?

Well, as I've said all along, maybe it didn't diversify. Maybe the diversity was created. So, it could have started from a diversity that has maintained itself or possibly even decreased.

Can you put this in the context of a specific question? Not sure I understand what "initial conditions" you are referring to and why they would be important.

It wasn't meant as a question. It was a statement of the type of thing I would find convincing. If you're interested in the chaos aspect of it, I think I can find a very simple population equation that we could use to demonstrate a few things.

Come now, what's wrong with palaeontology?

I suppose we would need to find a palaeontologist so he/she could defend it. Otherwise I'd just be taking cheap shots.

I must ask you to clarify exactly what you are suggesting here. Do you mean that, say, mammals might have existed way back when, they just didn't start fossilising until the Jurassic for some environmental reason? At what level? As a "class", or as living species, or...?

It was what I might call a "soft" challenge. It's not something I've spent a lot of time on so I wouldn't be well prepared to defend it. I just thought you might have heard something. I'm not sure I could locate all the supporting documentation, but I recall a rather amusing story about trace fossils at Laetoli that left a few palaeontologists with egg on their face.

But any scientist worth his salt is aware of the weaknesses of his discpline as well as its strengths. Within my own expertise (classical mechanics - principally as it applies to machines) I am certainly aware of what one can't do ... and I've published on some alternative ideas that might work to fill the gaps. That's what I'm looking for in biology/palaeontology/geology as well, but it's slow in coming.

There is this thing where I can call my sister ugly but you can't. So, I understand a certain reluctance to share outside the clique since the information is likely to be abused.

 

[coolname123]

Hey Resha, what happened to our little discourse? Things were just getting good.

 

[Resha Caner]

Hey Resha, what happened to our little discourse? Things were just getting good.

Did you have a question for me?

 

[coolname123]

I had a response... Pretty sure there were some questions in there somewhere, or at the very least points that we've been treating like questions up till now. Here they are in case you missed them.

I...

I'm...

(those are just the linkbacks, obviously there's more than just references to me once you follow them)

 

[Resha Caner]

Also, we don't necessarily know it's wrong… It could be 100% correct, we just don't have the adequate information to confirm it yet… I mean there's no way to know either way, but saying you know it's wrong assumes you know what is right, at which point you're falling into the same issue you keep critiquing within science.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. - Hitchens (As much as I despise the man, this statement is true.)

Or maybe incomplete, and again… If you think it's wrong and that we need a revolution, Science welcomes your input… again you'd better have the information to back your idea… And if it can't explain our reality better than the current models, then you may also have difficulties… But if you can take all the data we have and explain it differently and in a way that makes more sense than evolution then be my guest. But if you're not that confident, then why be so adamant that they got it wrong?

So you have a measure of reality for us to use? If so, that would be helpful to answering your question.

In the meantime, let's look at a few facts. IQ tests consistently rank race as follows:
1. Asian-Americans
2. European-Americans
3. African Americans
source: Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, can we conclude Asians are the best adapted for survival with respect to intelligence?

 

[coolname123]

Not sure if you missed part one of my response (I linkbacked to two responses there)... but there was a whole other response before these questions came up. Unless you just thought there was nothing worth addressing there (but honestly that's the half of the conversation I'm more interested in).

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

I think you are mis-interpreting this ever so slightly... I assume Hitchens is mostly referring to a God type being here... Which there is legit no physical evidence for. These formulas in question describe what they attempt to describe with relative accuracy. They are not lacking in evidence, they actually have a pretty good track record to provide evidence that speaks to its functionality. If there was literally no data to confirm or deny it then you'd have a point... but there is plenty of data to corroborate it's claims... thereby it is not making claims without evidence.

So you have a measure of reality for us to use?

A measure of reality? How can you measure reality? it's not like a number that can be rated on a scale... Our reality is simply the universe in which we exist. The streets we walk down, the people we engage with the history our planet has been through and the footprints of that past left behind... everything that makes this realm that we live in what it is... I know it's a pretty big scope, but that's why I'm hesitant to slap a definitive measure on it.

In the meantime, let's look at a few facts...

Now as for IQ tests, they tend to be notoriously bad for detecting things like emotional and social intelligence. It's something I need to be constantly aware of when children from other cultures enter the programs I work in because while some cultures place a higher standard on academic intelligence, we tend to place a pretty high value on emotional intelligence... So someone from an asian culture may appear to have ASD or some other form of social disorder to someone brought up in a culture such as this when in reality they just have not been taught the same form of social intelligence that we have... It's a cultural thing, not a race/region thing. And if we try to translate that over to survival who's to say social intelligent is not just as important as academic intelligence if not more. I don't know what point you're trying to make here, but no... I don't think that the conclusion of these groups having a higher IQ equates to a better chance of survival, or even that they necessarily are more intelligent.

 

[Resha Caner]

Unless you just thought there was nothing worth addressing there

Yep, so if you want me to address something, I guess I'll need something more concise.

I think you are mis-interpreting this ever so slightly.

The comment was aimed at the phrase, "we just don't have the adequate information to confirm it yet."

A measure of reality? How can you measure reality?

Your phrase, not mine ... that is, the part where "current models ... explain our reality." If it's not a measure, what is it? A beauty contest?

Now as for IQ tests, they tend to be notoriously bad for detecting things like emotional and social intelligence

Yep, but I'm sure science would welcome your input if you could find a way to take this data (or other data) and explain it differently.

I don't think that the conclusion of these groups having a higher IQ equates to a better chance of survival, or even that they necessarily are more intelligent.

As it stands, it sounds like you're saying this data has no predictive power with respect to selection. Or is it that intelligence is not a factor in selection? Or is it that the factors are too complex to make any conclusions about selection?

 

[coolname123]

Yep, so if you want me to address something, I guess I'll need something more concise.

K, so can I just just assume you've conceded that point about scientific philosophy (or realized that you can't really defend your side when we actually care about academic practices)

The comment was aimed at the phrase, "we just don't have the adequate information to confirm it yet."

'Adequate information' and 'any information at all' are two completely different things... Not having adequate information implies that information exists, just not enough of it. If we didn't have any information at all, or even if that was what I said that would be one thing... but we do, and it wasn't... so again, don't think you're using that quote properly.

Your phrase, not mine...

No, I used the word reality... never once implied it was a measurement, that is your phrase. But you have a weird sort of view on reality. I mean thinking of what exists all around us as a measurable unit. Explanations don't have to be mathematical. Again I return to Romeo and Juliet. Using numbers and measurements to explain that would be not only confusing to say the least but perhaps the least helpful way ever to think about literature. And I think one of the least beneficial ways to think about our reality. And then to say "if not that than a beauty contest" does a great dis-service to people who actually care enough about our reality to attempt to accurately explain it. Explanations don't have to be beautiful, and they don't have to be mathematical... as long as they explain, the way in which they do so is not an issue.

Yep, but I'm sure science would welcome your input

Did you even read the article you linked me to? It is full of people saying exactly what I just said there, calling the IQ tests into question and debating what the tests actually tell us. Science doesn't need my input, it's already saying everything I believe (and for good reason).

As it stands, it sounds like you're saying this data has no predictive power with respect to selection. Or is it that intelligence is not a factor in selection? Or is it that the factors are too complex to make any conclusions about selection?

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. That selection is unpredictable, i.e. random? I've already stated this, and that I agree with it. What exactly do you believe anyways? I have said several times what I believe in these regards, but you haven't actually said what you believe... I've just been assuming what you believe given the things you take issue with and the people you tend to source.

 

[Resha Caner]

K, so can I just just assume you've conceded that point about scientific philosophy (or realized that you can't really defend your side when we actually care about academic practices)

No, I didn't concede anything. I just didn't see a reason to reply.

No, I used the word reality... never once implied it was a measurement

I never said you did. I was just asking by what means you know one "model" of reality to be better than another. It would be easier to use a standard you have detailed than for me to guess at it.

Did you even read the article you linked me to?

Yes, I did. Did you notice that I agreed with you about the deficiencies of IQ tests, and asked if you had anything better? It seems you don't.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

I thought the question was pretty straightforward, but I'll try again. Does intelligence play a role in evolution or doesn't it?

What exactly do you believe anyways? I have said several times what I believe in these regards, but you haven't actually said what you believe... I've just been assuming what you believe given the things you take issue with and the people you tend to source.

Believe about what? You've never asked me that question before that I recall ... other than what was in the OP, and I answered that.

 

[coolname123]

No, I didn't concede anything. I just didn't see a reason to reply.

I'm sorry, I don't buy that. You were complaining for two solid pages that you couldn't source anything convincing because of my admittedly ridiculous attempt to describe what sort of reading I was in the mood for. So I gave you free reign saying "source whatever you want" and opened the floodgates for you to quote everything you were unable to previously, and that's the point at which you see no reason to reply? Opening ones self up to the exact sources you were complaining you couldn't source is one of the best reasons to reply. What this says to me is either, these sources don't actually say what you thought they said… or that they never existed, they were just a scapegoat so you could say 'even if you don't agree with that, I've got better stuff that I can't show you'. So I challenged you to show it to me and that's where you draw the line… I give in and admit I made a mistake opening myself up to everything you were complaining about and that's where you draw the line. I'm sorry but that's not good enough, at this point you're just painting a nice little picture of someone who doesn't actually have the information she claims, but doesn't want to admit it. And I'm sorry but that just seems dishonest to say "I've got all these other sources, if only I could source them..." and then I say "fine, then source them"... at that point your response should be "here they are!" not "on second thought, no... I'm still not going to source them."

And the difference between my impression of you and your impressions of me is I just told you exactly where and why you gave me the impression, leaving it in your court to correct my impression if it is in fact the wrong one, instead of saying;
you - "you're wrong and don't want to admit it"
me - "I don't want to admit it because I don't think I am, but why do you think I'm wrong?"
you - "Ugh, there's no reason to reply"
or condensed as I read it…
you - "You're wrong"
me - "why?"
you - "You're just wrong"
That is the least helpful way to engage in debate, and the least convincing. And I'm sorry but the more you keep painting yourself out as this type of person the less I think you actually know.

I never said you did.

Really?

And if it can't explain our reality better than the current models

So you have a measure of reality for us to use?

A measure of reality? How can you measure reality? it's not like a number that can be rated on a scale

Your phrase, not mine

Perhaps there was some mis-interpretation here, but I think it's pretty hard to argue that what I saw there didn't exist.

I was just asking by what means you know one "model" of reality to be better than another

Our model is an ever changing thing… it's not some kind of end goal it is the current best explanation, and if you've got a better one then the model changes… it's not like there's several best models floating about. It's entirely possible the current one is not perfect (and I doubt it is), but it's not gonna suddenly become a completely different model overnight, so thinking of it in terms of multiple models instead of an ever-evolving model is not a helpful way to think about it IMO.

and asked if you had anything better? It seems you don't.

http : // www . physanth . org/association/position-statements/biological-aspects-of-race/?searchterm=race Biological Aspects of Race — American Association of Physical Anthropologists

http : // pps . sagepub . com /content/2/2/194 Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence

Schaefer, Richard T., ed. (2008). "Race". Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society. 2. SAGE. p.1091

Those are just the first three academic articles I found sourced in this wikipedia entry that align with what I think… I don't personally need to deliver a better explanation, people much smarter than me are already saying everything I want to say better than I could ever say it. You want something better? Read the articles above challenging the thought.

I thought the question was pretty straightforward, but I'll try again. Does intelligence play a role in evolution or doesn't it?

I didn't say the question wan't straightforward, I said I don't know what you are trying to prove with the question… very different statement.
So to answer the question I don't know what kind of role intelligence will play in evolution, it's to complex a thing to be predictable… Our intelligence may be our downfall, who knows. This is why I see evolution as a kind of random act because I don't think it can really be predicted. ('kind' being a type, not a description of 'random'… just so you don't accuse me of hiding behind words again)... Now what are you trying to prove with that?

Believe about what? You've never asked me that question before that I recall ... other than what was in the OP, and I answered that.

I know I never asked you it, that's why I asked it there… So what do you believe about evolution or whatever you've been prompting me about recently?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm sorry, I don't buy that.

If you don't trust me, there is no point in proceeding - no point in me digging up more sources for you to reject. But, if that's what you want:

The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
Personal Knowledge by Michael Polanyi
Against Method by Paul Feyerabend
How the Laws of Physics Lie by Nancy Cartwright
The Structure of Science by Ernest Nagel
The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory by Pierre Duhem
The Science of Mechanics, Knowledge and Error by Ernst Mach
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman by Richard Feynman
The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin
The Limitations of Science by J.W.N. Sullivan
The Science of Measurement (I forget the author at the moment. I would have to look it up when I get home).

The Problem of Induction from the Stanford website along with all its sources: The Problem of Induction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Along with other topics from that same website such as:
Physicalism
Indispensability
Realism
Empiricism
Philosophy of Biology

The Bohr/Einstein debates:
Bohr–Einstein debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifically, the EPR paper and Bohr's reply to it, which are referenced in the wiki.

This has some connections to the Copenhagen Interpretation:
Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With respect to parallels in biology & evolution, there was a debate between a Frenchman and a German but I forget there names. The debate is detailed in Natural Science in Western History by Frederick Gregory, and, again, I would have to look it up when I get home.

I'm running out of steam, but there are the more recent debates involving people like Stephen Jay Gould, and the 2 other celebrity biologists whose names escape me at the moment. The one tried to argue that it is intellectually dishonest to separate abiogenesis from evolution and the other tried to argue for quantifying evolution. Once more, I'd have to dig around at home to find their names.

 

[coolname123]

If you don't trust me, there is no point in proceeding

leaving it in your court to correct my impression if it is in fact the wrong one

This may be the difference between you and me... I always try to assume the best of people, even after I've made assumptions of them, so when I say 'leaving it in your court to correct my impression', I mean just that. I recognize my impression might be wrong and I'm not to big to admit that (even as I write this I'm still not completely convinced I'm right), so saying "if you don't trust me there's no point in proceeding" just seems like a cop-out to avoid having to correct an assumption that may or may not be right.

Now, I'm not just going to read for the fun of it, I already have enjoyable literature to read... If you have a point to make, make it and source the relevant information. But to just ask me to read a wall of articles without me even knowing what you want me to draw from them? or where you stand on them... I mean there's enough info there to fuel a university paper but you've given absolutely no framework for the references. I mean some of these are two way debates, and I don't even know if you were agreeing, say, with Einstein or Bohr... We've talked about a lot of things, you can't just assume I'll know what relates to what. Now let me be very clear here, I'm not rejecting your sources. I'll happily read them in time, I'm just not about to read something until I know why I'm reading it. I mean I could source every religious book on my bookshelf in regards to my philosophical beliefs on evolution, but they often make comments here or there and have a chapter or two in relation to the points I'm trying to make, Some of them make good points but I don't agree with their arguments in whole and expecting you to read them in their entirety without knowing why, what to pay closer attention to or where this information might be is not how you discuss. It may be one of many teaching methods (not one I'm terribly fond of, but one none-the-less), but I came here for a discussion not a reading assignment... So if you're done discussing, I'm sorry... But given that we're 8 pages in and all I know of you is that you take issue with the scientific method and falsification and that is the extent of what I know about you and your philosophy... Not even what it is about these things that bothers you or why (I can assume it has something to do with religion, but even that has not been made clear), all creates a pretty vague image of what it is you actually think. So hopefully you'll forgive me for not jumping into these sources full of enthusiasm with what is perhaps the vaguest ideology I've ever encountered.

 

[Naraoia]

I guess what I meant was an overarching theory. I understand that biologists will accept that all 3 happen, but in the main they think #1 has dominated. How else would life have diversified from its beginnings?

It doesn't have to dominate. It just has to be common enough to keep life from stagnating.

Well, as I've said all along, maybe it didn't diversify. Maybe the diversity was created. So, it could have started from a diversity that has maintained itself or possibly even decreased.

As it stands, the geological record is strongly against this possibility. (Unless you have a better argument than "I heard some embarrassing story about Laetoli once")

It wasn't meant as a question. It was a statement of the type of thing I would find convincing. If you're interested in the chaos aspect of it, I think I can find a very simple population equation that we could use to demonstrate a few things.

If that's the discrete version of the logistic, then that's the one I had to play with back in school. It was quite fun, rabbits and period doublings and all. My first encounter with chaos, I think

ETA: and that sort of model doesn't deal with evolution, per se. The only thing it covers is population size, entirely ignoring the composition of the gene pool, the fitness of individuals or the population, and the distribution of phenotypes.

I suppose we would need to find a palaeontologist so he/she could defend it. Otherwise I'd just be taking cheap shots.

Reasoned arguments are not "cheap shots", no matter who's around. I'd like to hear if you have any.

But any scientist worth his salt is aware of the weaknesses of his discpline as well as its strengths. Within my own expertise (classical mechanics - principally as it applies to machines) I am certainly aware of what one can't do ... and I've published on some alternative ideas that might work to fill the gaps. That's what I'm looking for in biology/palaeontology/geology as well, but it's slow in coming.

Perhaps you should look a century or two earlier, before it was widely accepted that the fossil record is the product of evolution

(FWIW, it seems to me that palaeontologists are well aware that they are dealing with difficult data. Two recent favourites of mine: this one involves experiments with dead fish-things to examine how decomposition affects their apparent phylogenetic placement, and this one investigates the effects of sampling bias on reconstructions of morphospace evolution.)

 

[Resha Caner]

It doesn't have to dominate. It just has to be common enough to keep life from stagnating.

I think we're down to semantics now, and I suspect you know what I'm getting at. But I understand that you disagree.

Perhaps you should look a century or two earlier, before it was widely accepted that the fossil record is the product of evolution

If you're implying that I would accept earlier results of palaeontology because they were used as evidence against evolution, you would be wrong. You'll find I'm just as hard on the questionable assumptions and methods of YEC, etc.

As it stands, the geological record is strongly against this possibility. (Unless you have a better argument than "I heard some embarrassing story about Laetoli once")

Reasoned arguments are not "cheap shots", no matter who's around. I'd like to hear if you have any.

FWIW, it seems to me that palaeontologists are well aware that they are dealing with difficult data.

Yes and no. I bet it is more likely to be a mixed bag. This is a difficult question to answer - induction is a tricky subject. In short, I would say palaeontology has its uses, but it is often stretched beyond its bounds.

I don't believe in the perfect argument, and so it is always possible to find a way to maintain a position if one is determined enough. Further, most of those who have no direct experience of a science are going to listen to the people with the diploma. They may review the "evidence" for themselves, but I'm growing increasingly skeptical of what second-hand interaction with data by lay people can possibly yield. They don't have the background to know what the alternatives might be. In the case of palaeontology I am certainly in that same boat.

But, as a source for seeding the discussion, consider this: What are the odds of a dead dinosaur becoming fossilized?: Scientific American

Let me add that I was tempted to give a lengthy parable of my own experiences - using science I understand at an intimate level - as a parallel. In many ways palaeontology is a forensic science, and I have been involved in the post mortem of many machines throughout my career. It ain't like CSI. One works with very limited evidence of a superficial nature which is often contaminated without proper means for calibration in an attempt to describe a very special one-time event which could have had multiple causes. Drawing conclusions is more gut feel based on experience than science, and I don't see how palaeontology can be any different.

Further, I designed and built those machines, operated them, and was present to work through possible failure modes. I can replicate the conclusions of a post mortem on a duplicate, fully-functional machine. None of that is available to palaeontologists.

Finally, it is rare (extremely rare - I know of 1 case) that the supposed mechanism of evolution (genetic material) is present, and so the conclusions are largely of a taxonomic nature.

But, again, my confidence is quickly waning that such an argument would be convincing except for those who share a "been there, done that" experience. I could propose alternative interpretations of fossil & geological evidence, but I doubt their worth given that I lack the proper diploma. So, maybe this is only convincing to me.

 

[Naraoia]

If you're implying that I would accept earlier results of palaeontology because they were used as evidence against evolution, you would be wrong. You'll find I'm just as hard on the questionable assumptions and methods of YEC, etc.

No, I'm implying that you would be more likely to find the dispute whose lack you're complaining about before something became established knowledge

Yes and no. I bet it is more likely to be a mixed bag. This is a difficult question to answer - induction is a tricky subject. In short, I would say palaeontology has its uses, but it is often stretched beyond its bounds.

As always: examples?

(Clarification: I do not doubt their existence. If I went through my paper collection, I'm 100% sure I could find a few unwarranted conclusions. But we aren't discussing my opinion of palaeontology, eh?)

I don't believe in the perfect argument, and so it is always possible to find a way to maintain a position if one is determined enough. Further, most of those who have no direct experience of a science are going to listen to the people with the diploma. They may review the "evidence" for themselves, but I'm growing increasingly skeptical of what second-hand interaction with data by lay people can possibly yield. They don't have the background to know what the alternatives might be. In the case of palaeontology I am certainly in that same boat.

But, as a source for seeding the discussion, consider this: What are the odds of a dead dinosaur becoming fossilized?: Scientific American

Okay, read it... what was the point?

Let me add that I was tempted to give a lengthy parable of my own experiences - using science I understand at an intimate level - as a parallel. In many ways palaeontology is a forensic science, and I have been involved in the post mortem of many machines throughout my career. It ain't like CSI. One works with very limited evidence of a superficial nature which is often contaminated without proper means for calibration in an attempt to describe a very special one-time event which could have had multiple causes. Drawing conclusions is more gut feel based on experience than science, and I don't see how palaeontology can be any different.

(1) In your analogy, what would be the equivalent of the cause of "death"?

(2) Palaeontology quite often does not deal with one-off events. If you read your SciAm piece? Practically the entire second paragraph is about very common modes of fossil preservation! And so many phenomena that we might observe in the fossil record - speciation, extinction, predation, diseases, adaptation etc. - are either still all around us or repeated many times in the fossil record itself. (You could, I trust, list the most common reasons machines die?)

(3) I honestly don't know what in palaeontology you think relies on "gut feeling" besides the identification of problematic fossils.

(4) If your "gut feeling based on experience" tends to give you correct answers, then this analogy only goes to show that palaeontology (as you see it) works...

Further, I designed and built those machines, operated them, and was present to work through possible failure modes. I can replicate the conclusions of a post mortem on a duplicate, fully-functional machine. None of that is available to palaeontologists.

Living organisms/present day environments and fossil examples that are in some important way similar to the target of the investigation may be, though.

Finally, it is rare (extremely rare - I know of 1 case) that the supposed mechanism of evolution (genetic material) is present, and so the conclusions are largely of a taxonomic nature.

So? Genetic material is not the only way to classify things. The wonderful thing about genetic and morphological evidence is that they agree surprisingly often (as they should if common descent is true!) A vertebrate is a vertebrate whether you classify it by the sequence of a bunch of proteins or by its endoskeleton.

(BTW, what one case? Ancient DNA has been used in phylogenetics alone more times than one - Neandertals, Denisovans, mammoths immediately come to mind. So either you aren't terribly familiar with ancient DNA, or you're referring to something I can't even guess.)

But, again, my confidence is quickly waning that such an argument would be convincing except for those who share a "been there, done that" experience. I could propose alternative interpretations of fossil & geological evidence, but I doubt their worth given that I lack the proper diploma.

It's kind of hard to convince anyone without relevant arguments. I'm still not sure what dismantling faulty machines has to do with the fossil record.

So, maybe this is only convincing to me.

Well... yes.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well... yes.

These delusions do give me some pleasure, so I appreciate you humoring me.

But we aren't discussing my opinion of palaeontology, eh?

Are you going to play your cards close to the vest now? I'd like to hear your opinion of palaeontology.

No, I'm implying that you would be more likely to find the dispute whose lack you're complaining about before something became established knowledge

I thought science was an ongoing process.

As always: examples?

(Clarification: I do not doubt their existence. If I went through my paper collection, I'm 100% sure I could find a few unwarranted conclusions.)

Yes. So what are you asking for here? Wouldn't a few examples just constitute cherry-picking? That's why I prefer discussing this from a methodological perspective rather than doing tit for tat.

The point of the link was to establish the nature of the "difficult data" as you call it. A credentialed palaeontologist is discussing just that - how the fossils we have are likely from specialized events that didn't necessarily represent the general population of their time. It seems many people have the mistaken notion that as the data gets worse, it just means the accuracy goes down and you can repair that accuracy by accumulating more of the same. They don't seem to understand the signal/noise ratio aspect of data where, at a certain point, the data becomes worthless.

Where exactly palaeontology is at on that scale, I don't know, but it doesn't sound promising.

Your comment about morphology surprises me. At another site I used to haunt (it unfortunately closed) I had the good fortune to have many discussion with a biologist who was a devout adherent of evolution, and yet quite frank about certain things. For example, he once said, "Morphology is crap." Not that his opinion rules the day, but it does demonstrate that the reputation of morphology within the profession needs some damage repair. To give you the example you're asking for:

Morphology is not a reliable tool for delineatin... [J Parasitol. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Another example would be the hubbub over the "hobbit."

I'm sorry if I find these examples amusing. Don't some of them make you snicker? Another was a television special where "experts" were reconstructing the methods used to build the Sphinx. One of the experts made statements about what tools they obviously didn't have, and how amazing it was that they could accomplish what they did with the tools he had - I think it was that they only had bronze and not iron ... or maybe only copper tools. I don't recall. Anyway, he set out to prove how one would have chiseled the stone for the Sphinx with these primitive tools ... and failed miserably. But, after some hand waving and pontificating he concluded that it was possible to sculpt the Sphinx with these ancient tools.

(BTW, what one case? Ancient DNA has been used in phylogenetics alone more times than one - Neandertals, Denisovans, mammoths immediately come to mind. So either you aren't terribly familiar with ancient DNA, or you're referring to something I can't even guess.)

Given the link I provided with a focus on dinosaurs, I was thinking of the Mesozoic. I know of one case for a TRex where some genetic material was found.

Yes, the more recent the era, the better the data.

Regardless, your comment about the the links between genetic and palaeological trees is also a bit surprising given the link you gave me about problems in establishing UCA. In brief (and I realize it might sound dismissive) explanations of the link have always come off to me as circular. We're going to assume all life on earth shares genetic similarities, and then extrapolate from the genetic similarities we find in current life back to fossilized life, and voila! fossilized life also appears to be similar.

Big deal. Is there something about creation that would require me to assume life is going to be genetically different?

I'm still not sure what dismantling faulty machines has to do with the fossil record.

I was trying to draw a parallel between the forensic aspects the two share. I'm better qualified to speak on that which I am familiar with, and I think the parallel a good illustration of the difficulties of noisy data.

(1) In your analogy, what would be the equivalent of the cause of "death"?

A broken machine. But I wasn't just speaking to "death." It was more about trying to reconstruct an event that no one witnessed.

(4) If your "gut feeling based on experience" tends to give you correct answers, then this analogy only goes to show that palaeontology (as you see it) works...

That's the point. It doesn't work. Yes, you start with the most likely cause. Then you work your way down the list until something fits. But, in the case of palaeontology, we don't have any living "customers" to tell us when we finally get it right. It's a process that has no predicitive power whatsoever.

 

[Naraoia]

Are you going to play your cards close to the vest now? I'd like to hear your opinion of palaeontology.

I don't have one monolithic opinion of "palaeontology". I have lots of little local opinions I form when I read individual papers. So I don't think I can give you a concise summary of my views of the whole field.

I tend to think the field has been improved a lot by, you know, people actually testing their ideas. (You think that the Chicxulub impact wiped out the dinosaurs? Better go and check that the timelines match! You have ideas about feather evolution? Better make sure the forms you're basing them on aren't preservational artefacts! And so on...)

In the cases were conflicting opinions are difficult to rule out? Well, we may have to settle for non-answers. Exhibit A: interpretation of (mainly soft-bodied) fossils without diagnostic traits or close modern counterparts. (Dinomischus, many Ediacarans, Tullimonstrum...) I have a feeling that the identity of some of those critters will never be settled beyond "um, looks like some sort of animal". There is simply too much missing or ambiguous information.

I thought science was an ongoing process.

Please. I'm not sure that you aren't deliberately missing the point. Ongoing process doesn't mean no debate is ever settled. How many recent studies dispute the general roundness of the earth?

Yes. So what are you asking for here? Wouldn't a few examples just constitute cherry-picking? That's why I prefer discussing this from a methodological perspective rather than doing tit for tat.

A few examples are certainly more for me to work with than sweeping statements and vaguely relevant analogies.

And, you know, if you can't provide any, maybe your opinions are based on gut feeling more than anything else.

The point of the link was to establish the nature of the "difficult data" as you call it. A credentialed palaeontologist is discussing just that - how the fossils we have are likely from specialized events that didn't necessarily represent the general population of their time.

But, as your link itself demonstrates, palaeontologists are well aware of this. If the literature was full of people claiming there were no jungle-dwelling dinosaurs in the Mesozoic, I would understand the problem. As it is, I'm not sure what it is. All data sources have their limitations. That doesn't necessarily make them unsuitable for drawing any conclusions.

Your comment about morphology surprises me. At another site I used to haunt (it unfortunately closed) I had the good fortune to have many discussion with a biologist who was a devout adherent of evolution, and yet quite frank about certain things. For example, he once said, "Morphology is crap." Not that his opinion rules the day, but it does demonstrate that the reputation of morphology within the profession needs some damage repair. To give you the example you're asking for:

Morphology is not a reliable tool for delineatin... [J Parasitol. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Another example would be the hubbub over the "hobbit."

I guess the more sophisticated answer is: depends, and with caveats. Perfect agreement between two independent datasets - be they two different genes, genes and morphology, gene order, gene presence, what have you - is extremely rare, but then no one who has ever dealt with real data should expect that. Classification methods always operate with an error margin.

I meant that morphologically defined groups are often (not always) also recovered by molecular means. Obviously, my main interest is animal evolution at the macro level, so that's where most of my impressions come from. For example, vertebrates/chordates, echinoderms, hemichordates, brachiopods, molluscs, annelids and arthropods were all recognised as distinct lineages long before the invention of molecular methods, and remain recognised as such long after said invention.

(Relationships among the aforementioned phyla are a different matter, but then the phylum level is roughly where animal morphology starts becoming apples and oranges. Too much divergence, and, to use your words, the noise begins swallowing the data.)

Many morphological (or should I say "phenotypic"?) classifications within these groups have also stood the test of DNA - vertebrates still include an intact class of mammals, birds, cartilaginous and bony fishes, and so on... The classes of starfish, sea urchins, crinoids, and brittle stars didn't suddenly disintegrate upon molecular analysis... this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. And the most astonishing thing about this is that until recently, phenotypic classifications were not based on anything resembling a rigorous statistical analysis. They were, as you would put it, purely qualitative and kind of based on "gut feeling".

I'm sorry if I find these examples amusing. Don't some of them make you snicker? Another was a television special where "experts" were reconstructing the methods used to build the Sphinx. One of the experts made statements about what tools they obviously didn't have, and how amazing it was that they could accomplish what they did with the tools he had - I think it was that they only had bronze and not iron ... or maybe only copper tools. I don't recall. Anyway, he set out to prove how one would have chiseled the stone for the Sphinx with these primitive tools ... and failed miserably. But, after some hand waving and pontificating he concluded that it was possible to sculpt the Sphinx with these ancient tools.

And that proves what, beyond TV specials being a terrible source of science?

Given the link I provided with a focus on dinosaurs, I was thinking of the Mesozoic. I know of one case for a TRex where some genetic material was found.

I don't think any claim of genetic material has been verified. Not genetic material, but fragments of collagen have been isolated and sequenced from both T. rex and the duck-bill Brachylophosaurus. (Here is my Genbank search for them)

Regardless, your comment about the the links between genetic and palaeological trees is also a bit surprising given the link you gave me about problems in establishing UCA.

Those are two different problems, and we are also talking about very different levels. How difficult it is to connect, say, eukaryotes with bacteria has no bearing whatsoever on the agreement of, say, vertebrate relationships between living and fossil vertebrates. Even if we can never conclusively test universal common ancestry, there is little doubt about common ancestry at lower-than-universal levels.

(FWIW, each of the three domains can be defined on either a morphological - hey, nucleus et al.! - or a biochemical - hello, weirdo ether bonded membrane lipids! - basis.)

In brief (and I realize it might sound dismissive) explanations of the link have always come off to me as circular. We're going to assume all life on earth shares genetic similarities, and then extrapolate from the genetic similarities we find in current life back to fossilized life, and voila! fossilized life also appears to be similar.

Sorry, this is beginning to sound like a dad argument.

(1) It is a fact that all modern life forms share genetic similarities.

(2) It is also a fact that most fossil life forms - (Pre)Cambrian problematica notwithstanding - fit into classifications of modern life forms on a morphological level. There's no need to go down to the molecular level to see that trilobites are arthropods.

So you are basically arguing that things that look and quack like ducks are genetically not ducks. To quote an extreme example from one of my favourite books, you are arguing that despite their very similar appearance and ecology (and the fact that the modern organism was predicted from the fossils!), a Precambrian cyanobacterium-like fossil and its modern counterpart shouldn't be regarded as related...

Big deal. Is there something about creation that would require me to assume life is going to be genetically different?

The better question is: is there something about creation that would require any part of life to respect a nested hierarchy?

I was trying to draw a parallel between the forensic aspects the two share. I'm better qualified to speak on that which I am familiar with, and I think the parallel a good illustration of the difficulties of noisy data.

You frankly sound more like you're talking about confounding variables than noise.

A broken machine.

That is your side of the analogy. What I was asking is what's the equivalent of that in palaeontology.

But I wasn't just speaking to "death." It was more about trying to reconstruct an event that no one witnessed.

What, in your view, would be a typical "event" that palaeontology tries to reconstruct? I increasingly suspect you don't have a clear idea yourself...

(Not really surprising, since palaeontology deals with so many different questions, and I don't think most of it gets out to the public. Digging up fossils and sticking labels on them is not the whole discipline.)

 

[Resha Caner]

I tend to think the field has been improved a lot by, you know, people actually testing their ideas.

If falsification were part of that I would agree, but you didn't seem to know if that had been done.

How many recent studies dispute the general roundness of the earth?

That would lead us into a discussion of confidence level. What is the confidence level for the roundness of the earth? Can we compare that to a confidence level in palaeontology? If not, this isn't a valid comparison.

But, as your link itself demonstrates, palaeontologists are well aware of this. If the literature was full of people claiming there were no jungle-dwelling dinosaurs in the Mesozoic, I would understand the problem. As it is, I'm not sure what it is. All data sources have their limitations. That doesn't necessarily make them unsuitable for drawing any conclusions.

It can. Is there a study on when palaeoglogical data becomes too noisy (or the variables are confounded, if you prefer)? Being aware of it is irrelevant if they are drawing conclusions from one environmental condition about what life was like across the whole earth.

And that proves what, beyond TV specials being a terrible source of science?

A few of your replies are becoming a bit ad hominem without really addressing the issue.

Even if we can never conclusively test universal common ancestry, there is little doubt about common ancestry at lower-than-universal levels.

Did I miss something here? Why is there little doubt if it can't be tested? Earlier you were emphasizing the role of testing.

(2) It is also a fact that most fossil life forms - (Pre)Cambrian problematica notwithstanding - fit into classifications of modern life forms on a morphological level. There's no need to go down to the molecular level to see that trilobites are arthropods.

But these are artificial (human created) classifications. Unless you're going to argue a platonist philosophy it is a problem to assume an artificial category means real genetic similarity.

So you are basically arguing that things that look and quack like ducks are genetically not ducks.

Your link didn't work for me, so I don't know which book you mean. But, yes, that could be the case.

The better question is: is there something about creation that would require any part of life to respect a nested hierarchy?

If you answer my question, I'll answer yours. Plus, I'll need a definition of "nested hierarchy" to be sure I understand you.

What, in your view, would be a typical "event" that palaeontology tries to reconstruct? I increasingly suspect you don't have a clear idea yourself...

(Not really surprising, since palaeontology deals with so many different questions, and I don't think most of it gets out to the public. Digging up fossils and sticking labels on them is not the whole discipline.)

Evolution is an event.

I'm sure there are parts of palaeontology of which I'm unaware. I'm not an expert in that area. And it's a difficult discipline to define. There is a contiuum from geology to palaeontology to archaeology to anthropology, and setting a definite line to separate them is tough. Regardless, I can't speak to what I don't know. I'm not trying to discount the entirety of it.