Observation or speculation?

[laptoppop]

I want to know if I'm being unfair here. It seems to me that often evolutionary scientists are content to accept speculation when observation is not available.

For example, consider the early poster child of the ID movement - the bacteria flagellum. (by the way, whether YEC, gap, TE or whatever -- isn't this an amazing awesome beautiful example of God producing beauty? We may disagree at how He did it - but WOW - what a creation!) I see this addressed in some detail at http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html.

But what I see appears to be models and speculation, not "this fossil shows this organism which had these characteristics, then this other fossil shows this organism directly from the first that shows the next step" etc.

From my perspective, it appears to be enough to postulate a reasonable way it might have occured as opposed to showing evidence of how it did occur.

This is the kind of thing that folks like me see as transitional gaps in the fossil record. Various incredible structures seem to show up without any record of direct precursers. This has led to some people postulating things like punctuated equilibrium, etc.

Am I off-base?

 

[gluadys]

I want to know if I'm being unfair here. It seems to me that often evolutionary scientists are content to accept speculation when observation is not available.

For example, consider the early poster child of the ID movement - the bacteria flagellum. (by the way, whether YEC, gap, TE or whatever -- isn't this an amazing awesome beautiful example of God producing beauty? We may disagree at how He did it - but WOW - what a creation!) I see this addressed in some detail at http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html.

But what I see appears to be models and speculation, not "this fossil shows this organism which had these characteristics, then this other fossil shows this organism directly from the first that shows the next step" etc.

From my perspective, it appears to be enough to postulate a reasonable way it might have occured as opposed to showing evidence of how it did occur.

This is the kind of thing that folks like me see as transitional gaps in the fossil record. Various incredible structures seem to show up without any record of direct precursers. This has led to some people postulating things like punctuated equilibrium, etc.

Am I off-base?

Yes, you are off-base but I am not sure why. A lot of the material you claim to exist only as speculation is documented on scientific sites. Is it that you have not seen them, or even looked for them? Or is it that you have seen them but are dissatisfied with them?

In the latter case, it would be helpful if you would be more specific about the source of your dissatisfaction. A generalized complaint about speculation doesn't help focus on the problem.

On the bacterial flagellum, have you seen Kenneth Miller's page?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol

On transitional fossils, have you explored all of these lineages? Some include species to species transitions just as you have asked for.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

[jereth]

You're missing a third term, laptoppop: "deduction" (= inference). Deduction fits in between observation and speculation.

Observation = I saw it happen
Deduction = I see substantial evidence and rationally piece together what happened
Speculation = I make a guess about what happened based on scanty evidence

All of science, including evolutionary science, is based on some degree of deduction. No one has ever observed an electron, yet we can easily deduce/infer their existence and properties by observing their interactions with things that we CAN see.

Same goes for biological theories of evolution, as well as "old earth" geology and astronomy.

 

[Dannager]

You're missing a third term, laptoppop: "deduction" (= inference). Deduction fits in between observation and speculation.

Observation = I saw it happen
Deduction = I see substantial evidence and rationally piece together what happened
Speculation = I make a guess about what happened based on scanty evidence

All of science, including evolutionary science, is based on some degree of deduction. No one has ever observed an electron, yet we can easily deduce/infer their existence and properties by observing their interactions with things that we CAN see.

Same goes for biological theories of evolution, as well as "old earth" geology and astronomy.

This man speaks the truth.

 

[jereth]

One of the severe problems with pop-creationism is that it dichotomises everything into direct observation and wild guesswork (i.e. speculation). If we can directly observe something, it's science. Otherwise it's wild guesswork. We cannot observe something that happened 20,000 years ago, therefore any suggestions about what happened 20,000 years ago is (and can only be) wild guesswork. The concept of deduction is left out altogether, even though as humans we use deduction every day of our lives.

There is a tree in my back yard. I did not observe how it got there. But I know trees grow from seeds, therefore I deduce that once upon a time a seed fell into the ground where the tree now stands and sprouted.

There is a U-shaped lake next to a river. I did not observe the river flowing through the lake, but common sense and knowledge of rivers allows me to deduce that the river once flowed through the lake, but has more recently cut a shorter course.

There are basalt formations in some parts of the world. I did not observe these volcanic rocks forming, and I cannot see any volcanoes nearby. But i know that basalt only comes from a volcanic source, therefore I can deduce that millions of years ago there was once a volcano here.

There are some limestone caves in my part of the world. I did not observe these caves forming, but I know that limestone cannot form unless this part of the world was once under an ocean for a very long period of time, therefore I deduce that millions of years ago there was once an ocean here.

There are craters all over the moon and very few on the earth. I did not observe any of these craters forming, but I know that they can only form from a long period of meteorite bombardment. Therefore, I deduce that billions of years ago the earth and moon were pounded by meteorites, and since then the earth's surface has been remodelled.

There is a star at the centre of the solar system, with planets around it. I did not observe it forming, yet the Spitzer space telescope has pictured many stars forming in the Orion nebula, with clouds of gas and dust around them. Therefore I deduce that over billions of years the earth and planets formed from a similar cloud of gas and dust whose central regions collapsed to form the sun.

 

[laptoppop]

Excellent posts - and you are quite right. Deduction is a proper way to describe some of the process.

One problem is when people do not clearly differentiate deduction
from observation -- when they give deduction the same weight as observation. (note: I am not saying that about this thread)

I would add one more class -- presupposition. It seems to me that often the debate rages on without recognizing that there is a varying set of presuppositions being applied. Each participant is being reasonably logical and consistent, once you recognize the initial state.

Let's look at one small example: the case of the moon's craters.
First we have presuppositions.
1) The moon, when first formed, did not have craters.
2) The rate of meteor collisions has been relatively constant for a very very long time.

Then we have observations.
1) The moon has lots of craters.
2) Meteor hits cause craters that look like the moon's craters.

Then deductions.
1) It is likely the moon's craters were caused by meteor strikes.
2) Since presupposition (2) is assumed to be true, it follows that the moon must have been here for a very long time.

If one challenges the presupposition that the rate of meteor impacts has been constant, one can arrive at a logical deduction that does not imply an "old" moon. Same observations, but different presupposition leading to a different deduction.

The deduction we could probably agree on in this case is that it is likely that the moon's craters were caused by a large number of meteors striking the surface.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Actually science's main tool is induction.
Looking at related facts and abstracting general principles from them.
Deduction takes place after the general principles are in place.

for example

Then we have observations.
1) The moon has lots of craters.
2) Meteor hits cause craters that look like the moon's craters.


this is describing induction.

 

[Assyrian]

If one challenges the presupposition that the rate of meteor impacts has been constant, one can arrive at a logical deduction that does not imply an "old" moon. Same observations, but different presupposition leading to a different deduction.

That's quite a good analysis laptoppop. Presumably you wouldn't accept radiometric dating on moon rocks we got back from the Apollo missions.

However there is one detail you left out of the analysis. That is that the earth shares the same neighbourhood as the moon. However many meteorite impacts the moon received, our planet should have undergone the same number of impacts per square kilometer.

Observation: the earth does not have anything like the number of craters the moon has. This suggest the impacts occurred a long time ago, or over a long time, and most of the craters on the earth have had time to erode away.

If the earth received all these impacts in a short period of time, the earth's atmosphere would have be raised to blast furnace temperatures sterilising all life there.

Either the impacts occurred before life began, or they occurred over a long period with life having time to recolonise the areas devastated by impacts.

 

[jereth]

Let's look at one small example: the case of the moon's craters.
First we have presuppositions.
1) The moon, when first formed, did not have craters.
2) The rate of meteor collisions has been relatively constant for a very very long time.

Actually, presupposition #2 is not part of evolutionary theories of the moon. Evolutionists believe that the moon was subject to extremely heavy bombardment for less than 1 billion years out of its total ~4.5 billion year history. The bombardment then settled down to the present, almost negligible, rate.

And there are 3 more observations that you did not take into account:
- The moon has relatively lightly cratered regions, the maria, which were created through lunar volcanism
- The moon is currently geologically dead, with no volcanic processes occurring
- The earth, which would have been subject to the exact same meteorite bombardment as the moon, has only a handful of craters on its entire surface

Factoring in these 3 further observations, the process of deduction proceeds as follows:
- The meteoritic bombardment of the moon was followed by a period of volcanism, giving rise to the maria. However, the moon is now geologically dead. Therefore sufficient time must have elapsed for the moon's interior to have cooled down from a molten state. It is impossible for such cooling to occur in any less than millions of years.
- Ever since the earth and moon were bombarded, something happened to destroy all of the earth's craters. We do not know of any geological processes that could accomplish such resurfacing in any less than millions of years. The major process we do know of which could have wiped out the earth's craters (plate tectonics) takes place over hundreds of millions of years
- Therefore, the cratering of the earth and moon must have occurred many millions of years ago.