Just my thoughts on the recent series of posts at Uncommon Descent on Darwin, Eldredge and the fossil record. Click on the link if you want to know more!
It all started with this post from Denyse O’Leary which Lizzie picked up on here at TSZ replying to O’Leary’s claim that Stephen Meyer’s presentation of Louis Agassiz’s question:
Why, he [Agassiz] asked, does the fossil record always happen to be incomplete at the nodes connecting major branches of Darwin’s tree of life, but rarely—in the parlance of modern paleontology—at the “terminal branches” representing the major already known groups of organisms?
Was there any easy answer to Agassiz’s argument? If so, beyond his stated willingness to wait for future fossil discoveries, Darwin didn’t offer one.
To which O’Leary offers:
And no one else has either.
Lizzie points out:
Oh, yes, they have, Denyse. That’s what what punk eek was. But it also falls readily out of any simulation – you see rapid diversification into a new niche at a node, and thus few exemplars, followed by an increasingly gradual approach to a static optimum, and thus lots of exemplars. But I present an even more graphic response: when you chop down a tree, and saw it up into logs for your fire, what proportion of your logs include a node?
While mung the Merciless links to Lizzie’s post, it doesn’t draw much attention but Uncommon Descent blog owner and bankruptcy lawyer, Barry Arrington decides to pick up on the theme with a post entitled “Steve Meyer: Cambrian gaps not being filled in”; Dr. Nicholas Matzke, well-known evolutionary biologist and former public information project director at the National Center for Science Education, comments, linking to his article on the Cambrian Period at Panda’s Thumb. I just can’t help myself (having had my ability to comment at Uncommon descent recently restored due, I believe, to the intercession of mung the mendacious) jumping in to fight with the tar baby, starting at comment twelve.
It might be worth mentioning here my attitude to commenting at Uncommon Descent. Having had posting privileges restored, I decided I would comment on my own terms, as and when I had time and inclination, neither seeking nor avoiding “death-by-cop” and generally only when I noticed the more blatant errors and claims by the more credible habitués.
Barry Arrington then authored a follow-on post where he posted a number of quotes purporting to support his claim that the fossil record does not support gradual evolution.
Alan Fox: “The current record is certainly not incompatible with gradual evolution over vast periods of time.”
Again, leading Darwinists disagree:
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. (Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.)
In passing, it is worth noting the typo in the quoted publication. The correct title of the book is The Myths of Human Evolutiuon not “Myth”! The book was published in 1982. The iconic transitional fossil, Tiktaalik roseae, was found in 2004. Unimpressed with the quotes, I commented
Nice selection from the Bumper Book of Quote-mines, Barry.
as it was fairly obvious that the quotes were all obtained from secondary sources. Barry took umbrage at my impugning his integrity and another commenter, William J. Murray, took up Barry’s cause in posting:
You owe Mr.Arrington an apology for claiming he was quote-mining when he was obviously not, and you should admit you were wrong about what the known fossil record actually reveals wrt the prediction made by Darwin.
My response:
Maybe WJM has a point. I was under the impression that Barry didn’t think evolutionary processes were the explanation (or sufficient explanation) for the Cambrian period and the proliferation of stem groups that first put in an appearance over that period. Of course Eldredge is fully committed to the view that evolutionary processes are sufficient. If Barry agrees with Eldredge then I am sincerely sorry for thinking otherwise and welcome Barry into the fold of Darwinism.
was not considered an adequate apology. It was not published and I am now, presumably as I haven’t bothered to post any further comments, persona non grata at Uncommon Descent.
However the quote-mine saga rolls on with Nick Matzke and also another commenter, Roy, (welcome to TSZ by the way) continuing to point out the obvious. Barry has no more read Eldredge’s original work The Myths of Evolution than I have flown to the Moon. This book is not available as a download so I have only managed to read the excerpts available via Google books that indicate it to be clear, well-written and aimed at high-school-level students. An essay by Niles Eldredge entitled Confessions of a Darwinist (PDF is here) makes it very clear that Eldredge’s views are very much in line with those of Charles Darwin.
The story continues at On Quote Mining and Breaking News!!!! Wesley R. Elsberry Solves 154 Year-Old Riddle of the Fossil Record; Awaits Call from Nobel Committe. The latest post is has the Kairosfocusesque title, Nick Matzke Admits His Quote Mining Accusation Was False; Instead of Apologizing Tries to Change the Definition of “Quote Mining” to “Refusing to Agree With Me”.
So, no apology from me to Barry Arrington.
ETA correct link to Eldredge
Neil Rickert,
As my kids used to say, ‘padlock jinx!’ 😉
Blas,
Longer response in the original thread
For the solipsist, there are no facts, and everything is speculation.
Blas, I recommend jury duty for an education on how facts are established.
Virtually all scientific discoveries/principles came from ID/Creationism. Science as we know it today is philosophically grounded in ID/Creationism, and has been for hundreds years. the denials and protestations of nihilistic post-modernists notwithstanding.
Oh horrors; for the defendant and for the other jurors! A journey down the rabbit hole.
What is truth? How do you know the witness said what he said? What is the meaning of “if”? How do we know we are deliberating a verdict? What is a door? How do we know we exist?
And that’s the point I was making to Alan Fox about his suggestion that because Mr. Arrington agreed with Eldredge about the data in the fossil wrt what Darwin predicted, he should also adopt Eldredge’s belief in Darwinism.
That statement is false.
ID/creationism is a socio/political movement started formally in 1970 with the founding of the Institute for Creation Research by Henry Morris and Duane Gish. In the light of court decisions going against it, ID/creationism has steadily morphed in order to find a court proof version that will allow its pseudoscience into the public school science curriculum.
It is a purely sectarian motivated culture war on secular society using pseudoscience and socio/political tactics to advance a sectarian agenda. Any other attempts to rationalize ID/creationism’s socio/political agenda are nothing but pure deception.
The recommendation was made knowing that there are pretty good screening procedures for jury duty. The horror stories get publicity primarily because they are rare.
Then it should trouble you not to give, say, 100 examples of a scientific discovery and show how that is directly traceable to ID/Creationism.
I’ve seen this claim made many times. Yet nobody has ever taken me up on my offer to allow the claimant to support their claim.
Interesting how you answer but a single question of the several I have answered.
Allow me to repeat:
— I do have to wonder why people like William, obviously intelligent, never seem to wonder why ID never seems to achieve anything. And yet that’s the side they’ve picked – the side that never publishes, never discovers, never creates, never does anything except snipe at the “enemy”.
So, William, you’ve been hanging round UD now for some time. What’s been achieved in the world of ID in all that time? Can you name a single thing?
—
So it seems your answer to that is that as science as we know it today is philosophically grounded in ID/Creationism then ID/Creationism does not actually have to do anything at all, it just sits there providing “grounding”.
However I’m sure there is a tiny weeny small tiny part of your brain that realizes this is simply an excuse to explain away why ID never achieves anything, if you think it’s achieved everything then the thought that ID is sterile never gets a look in. But as we know, your belief in the powers of ID/Creationism (thank you for joining the two up, it’s denied by many on your side) does not have to stem from anything in IDC, rather you believe it because it’s useful. And boy, has ID ever shown itself to be useful!
So, William, if science as we know it today is philosophically grounded in ID/Creationism, and has been for hundreds years, why is ID/Creationism such a laughing stock among actual scientists?
Why does ID/Creationism have nothing to say about science, if science is grounded in it?
Anyway, the fact remains that your side achieves nothing, does nothing, creates nothing, educates no one and the most active ID/Creationists are at UD arguing over quote-mines. And you are one of them. What was the last ID supporting scientific paper published William? Oh, that’s right, all of them! ROFL!
Calculated much FSCI/O lately William? You are starting to sound like Joe now, you know that right?
Yet the fact that none of the players involved but the evolutionists had read anything relevant from the primary literature, only 5th hand quotemines, troubles you not at all?
I can see how serious your concern for science being done well is. And why you prefer to hand around places like UD where science is but a secondary concern.
This is what always makes me laugh. Don’t look at the reasons for denial, the objections to your claim. Oh, no, that would be far too easy. And, worse, there might actually be something to those denials.
But no, instead you should just label the dissenter a nihilistic post-modernist and you can stick a star on their lapel so we know who’s who. Whatever you might think of me, I know for a fact you are on the losing side, so you can call me whatever names you like, you’ll be the guy wondering why 20 years later ID turned out to be a flop and why you wasted so much of your limited time arguing for it (not that you actually do that, of course, as there is no argument to be made as you well know, hence the childish name calling).
So for you it’s nihilistic post-modernists, for KF it’s danger to society homosexuals
Is there *anything* you people are not terrified of?
I was once on a jury that had just such a character. What a blinkering nightmare!
We deliberated a trivial case for over a week – it should have taken ten minutes – and ended up as a hung jury just because this one character kept disagreed with every statement anybody ever made. His disagreements had nothing to do with the evidence.
The judge was dismayed and had to declare a mistrial.
Bad juries occasionally happen. My point is that juries routinely decide the fate of human beings on evidence that is flimsy compared to the evidence supporting evolution.
I guess I accuse ID advocates of being selectively hyper-skeptical.
Fix it with your Mind-Powers, William!
Like TSZ commenters?
Example?
The hyperskepticism is a pretentious façade that is supposed to make them appear to be thoughtful and careful in their “reasoning”.
Down deep they all know that they are part of a sectarian socio/political movement; but in recent years, especially since Kitzmiller vs. Dover, they have been trying desperately to eradicate their history. It is not going to happen.
William’s hackneyed assertion about ID/creationists being the founders of science is an attempt to link ID/creationists with the great minds of science and the Enlightenment. I don’t believe I have ever encountered an ID/creationist, on the internet or in person, who didn’t have some kind of delusions of grandeur about being a great mind in the cause of science and “following the evidence wherever it leads.” However, to a person, they have all been hyper-conservative sectarians who fear that secular science – and homosexuality and “liberalism”, and now Obama – are destroying society.
Can someone send Barry a Nick Matzke doll for Christmas? He has an unhealthy infatuation.
Richardthughes,
What you see, is a lawyer trying to cope with the problem that the other side has better facts.
Amended for accuracy.
I don’t care what “belief system” a claim is embedded in; I do care what lecture or chapter or article it is embedded in.
One of the quotes that Alan referred to as being from some “bumper book of quote mines”.
Barry says:
First of all, if we check the original, which I just did, we know it is a quote mine, because it isn’t quite accurate:
The passage quoted actually reads:
See what the original quote-miner did there? Note the capitalisation of “No” at the beginning, to disguise the fact that the initial “But” at the beginning of the original sentence has been excised (without ellipses). That version is found all over the web if you google, so as a quote-mine it has been in circulation for years. But more importantly, look what what is missing from the ellipses – a vital clue.
In other words, these are not Eldredge’s actual words – this whole passage is in reported speech. It might be a decent summary, or it might not be, but the citation given is simply incorrect. Eldredge is not being “quoted” in that article, his lecture is being reported, by a science journalist, who may, or may not, have understood it correctly. The whole article is a newspaper report on a talk at a meeting that the reporter attended, and there is no indication that Eldredge authorised the article, or, indeed, ever saw it.
However, in fact, the whole article seems pretty competent. Alexander does quote Eldredge directly in places (making the places where he uses reported speech very obvious), and seems to have understood the import of the lecture pretty well, if we can judge from Eldredge’s other writings. And of course, it doesn’t make the point that Barry wants it to make.
Nonetheless, I think Barry needs to understand that the charge of “quote-mining” usually doesn’t mean “picked out a quote to make it say something other than what the author meant”. It usually means “picked some ready-mined quote, denuded of context, from some other source, without bothering to check either its context or veracity”. It doesn’t mean that the person using the quote is using it dishonestly; it does mean sloppy scholarship and a preference for peddling secondhand arguments without being too fussy about their provenance.
In this case, the nugget was originally mined from newspaper report of a talk at a meeting called “New Horizons in Science” and here are some other quotes:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
In other words, “”Leading Darwinist authorities” do not disagree
as Barry claims.
The “authority” he cites first is a second hand report of a “Darwinist authority” who, according to the cited article, does nothing of the sort – in fact goes into some detail about the Darwinian graduated adaptation that took place in many successive populations of trilobites, followed by extinction. All he says is that the adaptation happened too rapidly and in populations that were two small to give us anything but a remote chance of finding fossils of organisms who lived during the adaptation period.
The vast majority are from adapted populations that thrived and persisted because they were well-adapted to their niche.
I think Barry subscribes to the Dave Hawkins school of intellectual honesty, i.e.
AFDave’s Law Of Quotation: It is not a quote mine if I am merely quoting someone else’s quote mine.
Well, that seems pretty comprehensive. I wonder how/if Barry will respond. It’s a shame you can’t post there any more.
I’m quite certain he’ll read it anyway.
I’d post the lot, except that it’s copyrighted. I might have quoted more than “fair use” as it is 🙁
Of course, I guess that Barry might be thinking (if he’d read the original, which he clearly hasn’t, as presumably he’d have quoted it correctly if he had, rather than pass on the omissions) that Eldridge was agreeing that we don’t find any evidence of a “finely graduated organic chain” in the fossil record, even if he thinks that punk eek is why.
But not even this is true – first of all, the fossil record fits punk eek very nicely – precisely those periods in which change would have been most rapid and in the smallest populations are those we don’t find, whereas we DO find stasis – but not total stasis – in well-adapted populations. Just as Darwin predicted, we see “a finely graduated organic chain” of evolutionary change, in, for instance, sharks, to take just one example – a lineage that is so well-adapted that it remains a top predator today that resembles its very ancient ancestors extremely closely.
Except of course for those tell-tale “finely graduated organic” changes down the hundreds of millions of years!
When discussing punctuated equilibrium, I think a lot of creationists (intentionally/unintentionally/hopefully?) confuse the graduated scale of evolution with the theorised gradual rate of evolution. Evolution always takes tiny, small-grade steps rather than saltational jumps, and nothing in punctuated equilibrium says otherwise. I get the impression that a lot of creationist commentators think or hope or try to persuade people that punk eek is a sort of saltational theory, when in fact it’s all about the dynamic rate of evolution over time. To what extent this confusion is a conscious intent to mislead probably depends on the creationist. I’m not sure if Barry is honestly confused or not. I’d guess he probably doesn’t care.
The elephant in the room here seems to be that the IDers don’t realize that they are now arguing as if “Darwinism” is true, and are just quibbling over what are (in comparison to the idea itself) over minor details.
I’ve seen the idea that there are far too few transitional fossil sequences to support Darwin floated on UD.
So there are such sequences you say ID supporter? But don’t we just need a single one to disconfirm ID? Why, yes, that’s right. Just as a single rabbit in the wrong strata would disconfirm central themes in evolution, a single set of transitional fossils disconfirms ID.
And they’ve already quoted text noting this is the case without complaint, without realizing what it does to their argument (such as it is).
Of course, to some of them it will not matter as ID seems to be required for everything anyway, but to folks like KF where ID seems to be required for “bodyplans”, finding a finely graduated set of ‘bodyplans’ in the fossil record has to sow some doubts as to their preferred explanation – the designer does not need to create that sequence as they can jump over gaps if desired, yet they created it anyway. Unlikely evidence for ID really.
As now it’s official – transitional species have been discovered in the fossil record according to UD!. And they have given up on their main thrust of ID and are reduced to quibbles over what Darwin said and what it meant, as if it has any real relevance today.
Excellent analysis, Lizzie.
Attention, Barry Arrington!
Is the defence still that you were not using quote-mines or that you were only repeating someone else’s quote-mines?
Since this is not the law, ignorance may be admitted as a defence. But any scholar attempting to support a point from the literature has a reasonable duty to check that their quote is beyond attack, if only for pragmatic reasons, because we all have a search engine, and can read. Quote mining is a hoary old practice, and a useful resource exists here. Search for your author, see if the quote is listed, see if your quote is the reduced version, and read the commentary. If it’s there, proceed with caution. Even if it’s not there, make sure you check the primary source, because you can bet your life your readers will. Some of them.
Posting at The Skeptical Zone is not enough evidence of skepticism?
Maybe only the different appreciation of when a faster rate become a jump.
Blas,
Punctuated equilibrium is not a saltational theory. You’d need some evidence that the amount of genetic change x over n generations (x/n) over a particular period was large – ie n=1 or some similarly low figure, or x itself is large. If the slope x/n is always shallow, but generally very shallow or flat, you’d still have a PE-like pattern, without ever needing to import rapid generational change (which is unlikely in a sexual species). But you’re not going to get that info from fossils.
You post here.
I admit to be a Darwin skeptic.
I think that’s a very good point. I don’t expect it’s a conscious intent to mislead, but I do think it’s a culpable unwillingness not to understand something you have a vested interest in believing makes no sense.
I would be genuinely interested in seeing an original post from you, describing exactly why you are skeptical of modern evolutionary theory (assuming that’s what you mean by “Darwin”) and what evidence would convince you to accept it as the currently best scientific theory for the observed data it purports to explain.
Except when evolution occurs in saltational jumps, that is. Polyploidization can be pretty saltational.
Nothing will convince me that any theory of OOL or origine of species is scientific. Because to me are all untestable or if you want unfalsifiable. Theoris about unique events in the past are unfalsifiable, and do not testable as my view of science requiere to be tested.
Why I´m skeptic of darwinism? Because in the university I had to study the “biogenetic law”. And I repeated “ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny”. And some years ago I found it was not only wrong, but probably a fraud. And darwinists have no problem with that. Many still keep the Haeckel draws in their books and says that that theory has some value.
That make me very skeptic about everything a darwinist says.
I think it’s probably true to say that Darwin neither envisaged how small the variations could be (phenotype odds ratios for SNPs can be tiny but nonetheless detectable) nor how large (how much a small difference to a regulatory gene can make to the potential of the phenotype, e.g. length of limb). After all he knew nothing about genetics.
And it’s probably also true that occasionally a slightly monstrous hopeful gets lucky.
But at the level of the phenotype it’s still pretty damn gradual, isn’t it?
Not in the sense of inventing new genes. And it only seems to work for plants.
I’m skeptical. I was taught that controversy and the likely resolution in 9th grade biology, in 1960.
You should consider asking for your tuition money back. What university?
Well darwinits accept at least three big jumps without problems.
The pass from procariotic to eucariotic cell.
The pass from monocellularity to multicellularity
The pass from asexual to sexual reproduction
None of that changes can be gradual. You are in one side or in the other.
And on the other hand you have that also drift lead to jumps. You have silent mutation fixed by chance until all the mutation for the new phenotype are completed.
Only the first is a jump, and it does not involve inventing new genes.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a few key events were somewhat saltational. Margulis’s theory of endosymbiosis for the origin of eukaryotic cells seems to have good support.
However, I don’t think there’s any good reason to suppose that multicellularity was particularly saltational. There are even half-way organisms alive today – slime molds, for instance, or siphonophores.
Same with sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction essentially facilitates horizontal gene transfer, and again, we see varying degrees of this even today. It’s not an all-or-nothing thing. And of course many organisms reproduce both ways. Even we do! (Twinning)
In that case, it would seem that any discussion with you is pointless. Your mind is made up and you refuse to ever change it.
Nonetheless, I’ll take at least a brief tilt at your windmill. Are you aware that origin of life is distinct from origin of species, and that the first is not covered by the theory of evolution?
Speciation is not a unique event, though. It has been observed. What do you find uncompelling about the explanation provided by modern evolutionary theory for these observations?
Incidentally, do you consider intelligent design creationism to be scientific by these same standards?
Could you provide a few cites supporting that claim?
Which textbooks have you read that include those drawings? How exactly do you conclude that Haeckel’s drawings undermine modern evolutionary theory?
Finally, please allow me to rephrase my question: What, if anything, would convince you that modern evolutionary theory is the best currently available explanation for the genetic, biogeographic, and fossil evidence (to pick just three broad areas) we observe?
It’s not evidence of selective hyper-skepticism.
Tell me wich is the right dose of skepticism.
Lizzie:
I think it’s a mistake to think of saltation as referring to a large change in phenotype.
To make any sense, saltation should refer only to the change in the underlying genome. Sequence changes. Other kind of genomic changes are rather common. Polyploidy has been observed in historic times. Translocation and lateral transfer happen all the time.
Borrowing, and hopefully not mangling, Mike’s lectures on chemistry, the definition of a saltation event would be one that is extraordinarily unlikely in chemistry.
What should probably count as saltation — should it occur — are three simultaneous mutations conferring a new function. Lenski in one step.
There really are hypothetical scenarios where Behe’s edge and the tornado in a junkyard metaphor would make sense. But you are contributing to Blas’ misconceptions if you accept a definition of saltation that includes events that require no divine intervention.
My subjective but at least consistent rule of thumb: Is the evidence for the claim of the same quality that I would require to make investment decisions for my retirement fund?
Modern evolutionary theory clears that bar. Intelligent design creationism doesn’t come close.
Why? You can try to change my idea of science.
Yes, but evolution needs a “naturalistic” origin of life.
Specie is a conventional definiton, that examples are just genetical isolation. I see uncompelling extrapolate that to from the bacteria to the whale.
Theories about unique events in the past are unfalsiable or untestable then ID or crationism are not scientific theories.
What af the claims I did in that sentence you needd references?
Search in internet in creationist sites, they have plenty of references of textbooks with that draws on them. And if you look at discussion on posts where evolution is discussed you will see many comments of darwinist defending Haeckel, the draws and his ideas. I do not record the web directions but it happened to me. Beleive me you or not will not change my mind. Probably if you not believe me I will add another darwinist to my list.
The evidence is there, genetics is better explanable by a seeded life in multiple genetics forms. You do not have the c` value paradox, not need of LGT, simbiosis, convergent evolution.
Biogeographic you do not need the miracolous rafting of animals or plants between continents.
Convergent evolution do not support ToE is a nice accomodation.