In a previous post here at TSZ Mark Frank asked why people doubt common descent.
A more interesting question is why did Charles Darwin doubt common descent?
Stephen Meyer has written two books which I think adequately answer both questions.
Those two books are:
In this thread I am willing to discuss either book, but I’d prefer to limit discussion to Meyer’s most recent book, Darwin’s Doubt
While Signature in the Cell concentrated on the origin of life, Darwin’s Doubt concentrates on the “Cambrian Explosion,” the sudden appearance of numerous distinct phyla and their subsequent diversification.
Neo-Darwinism offers no realistic account of origins, with the difference being that Darwinists can in the case of the origin of life assert that their theory does not apply while that excuse fails to apply to the appearance of different animals in the Cambrian and their subsequent diversification.
Just to prove I can – [Edited 09/15/2013]
Deleted from the OP – [Edited 09/201/2013] – Just to prove I can. “The arguments are the same for both:”
I wonder if you would consider an analogy. Does the topology of land guide a river’s course to the sea? There is an accumulation of small changes due to the formation of the continents and subsequent tectonic movements, erosion and deposition, the water cycle. All of this produces the pattern of drainage and river valleys basins and flood plains.Guided? Random? Natural?
I think of evolutionary processes as various dynamic effects (prizes will be awarded for the most exhaustive list) combining, resulting in the niche environment into which populations of organisms that are shaped by that environment, environmental design. It’s clearer if you look at plants rather than animals. Plants have no muscles or nervous system. They only have the ability to grow in available spaces and produce seeds that rely on outside forces (for the most part) for distribution. But clear some ground and see how quickly plants arrive and fill up the space. There is no long term plan but there are short-term gains and losses. Selection by the environment reinforces change that has an immediate benefit, ignores change that is neutral (or not too detrimental) and weeds out deleterious change.)
Come on. There is no difference in the process. Plant or animal breeders are just part of the niche environment with respect to those plants or animals that are being bred.
And artificial election is not just the prerogative of humans. Look at the farming practices of leaf cutter ants. To say nothing of cats (who may indeed have a long term goal in producing more compliant humans).
ETA
I see Mike Elzinga mentions some people’s fascination with cats. Coincidence or cat conspiracy?
The point is that the evolutionists claim that ToE has huge support, explains everything and can perform usefull predictions is nothing but smoke. Because when you try to apply ToE at an individual case like the origin of the jiraffe you only get generalities and you do not get any preditions but generalities like we are going to change.
Exactly the same is true of meteorology.
Doesn’t make it non-predictive, nor does it make it not-science.
There’s actually a fair amount known about the evolutionary history of the Giraffidae in the scientific literature. Even Wiki has a decent overview.
Giraffidae
First you have to want to learn though.
At least meteorology has good explanation why it rains or not when ToE can`t say why there is a jiraffe. Meteorology also can do better predictions than ToE, this is the forecast for Monza this week:
http://www.yr.no/sted/Italia/Lombardia/Autodromo_Nazionale_di_Monza/langtidsvarsel.html
I bet it will be closer than any ToE predictins on future evolutions of life.
Actually William, I did understand this little slight-of-hand on your part, which is why I referenced “Evolutionary Theory”. Actual scientists, as opposed to folks like Meyer, base their work on actual theories. So I had a choice to make in responding to your comment as your complaint fell into one of two categories: 1) you were invoking a strawman and “Darwinism”, as you describe it above, was not a theory and is not used by anyone in science and thus your comment was moot, or 2) “Darwinism” was just another word for “Evolutionary Theory”, in which case as shown it, the theory explained the data.
As you are going with 1, then you aren’t making a valid argument anyway. So, why should anyone care if your strawman doesn’t explain any data?
ToE is excellent at predicting the filled gaps in our knowledge of the history of life past events. ToE makes no claims of predicting specific future events which are highly dependent on unpredictable changing environments.
After all these years of posting you still don’t understand that basic point?
Now that’s funny Blas! Please provide a link reference to even one evolutionary scientist or any scientist who supports evolutionary theory who claims that said theory “explains everything.” Yeah…I didn’t think you could…
As to “has huge support”, if you mean is supported by the majority of the scientific community, then yeah, but I don’t see what that has to do with whether it can explain all details. No theory can, yet most scientists run with the theories that can explain the most.
And as for perform useful predictions, see my link to Neil Shubin. I’d say it’s quite useful in its predictive power.
Well as all the predictions of ToE ended to be a posdiction. Tiktaalik is not exactly where it should be. Needed some time adjustments. Close enough comparing to the wether forecasts.
My point is we do not always know “why” a feature evolved.
The obvious reason for the long necks — competition for food — is not necessarily correct or complete.
Creationists love to take examples of incomplete knowledge and portray it as complete ignorance.
We don’t know every detail of giraffe evolution; therefore, goddidit.
That is SO WEAK. What about chromosome fusion as evidence for Human evolution?
Blas – as you’re our probability theorist, what are the odds of finding a rare transitional you’re looking for by accident in a random location?
Blas, I know that English isn’t your first language, but “excellent at predicting the filled gaps in our knowledge” isn’t the same as “knows everything”.
If you can’t understand such simple concepts, please ask.
“rare”? We have actual walking fishes.
“transitional”? There evidence of walking tetrapods way before the time titaalik is supposed to live.
No offense Blas, but you don’t understand ‘transitional’ or ‘rare’. The ‘transition’ didn’t happen on a Wednesday.
No the point is not your last sentence. The point is that Lizzie`s claim
“My response was that the mechanisms offered ARE predictive, and are therefore explanatory, not merely “placeholders for chance”
has no support.
It’s not a “slight-of-hand”, Robin. It is entirely consistent with the way I’ve used the terminology, and have defined it kept it separate from other aspects of the theory during my tenure her at TSZ and over at UD.
My argument has always consistently been about the RM & NS portion of evolutionary theory. I’ve never argued against Common Descent. ID theory has always only specifically called into question that aspect of the theory. Common descent is fully compatible with ID theory. Low level RM & NS is also fully compatible with ID theory. ID theory doesn’t really challenge those aspects of evolutionary theory.
However, it is quite apparent that what I have claimed is true, if the lack of on point response here is any indicator: there are no models of RM & NS that provide a probability distribution for variation and selection achievements – what they can, and cannot, be reasonably expected to do. There is no baseline parameter. No matter what the data is, it is simply assumed to be explicable via RM & NS without showing (explaining) that it is in fact explicable via RM & NS.
Thus, the Darwinism aspect (as I have defined) of evolutionary theory is nothing more than ideological faith. It’s certainly not science.
Yes off course, discussion with darwinists ends in a discussion about the meaning of the words.
You can keep asserting that, but you would continue to be wrong.
You are simply equivocating. Which is why we dance around the meaning of words.
I guess the irony of commenting on an ID board called uncommondescent has escaped you then.
Congratulations! Now why not write this achievement up, of defining something then showing that the thing you defined is as you defined it, and send it to the ID journals! I hear they are desperate for content.
Which could be easily avoided if you understood the meaning of words or current thinking around concepts. Again, the ‘transition’ didn’t happen on a Wednesday. THINK. Go on. It’ll be good for you.
Coooo-Eeeeee. Blas! I think we both understand these words?
I think you need to reread my response. Note the “explains everything” clause. Thorton’s comment does not support your claim. Care to try again?
Of course not. It took most of a week.
Oh don’t ask Blas about the meaning of words! that’s UNFAIR.
The reason is that scientists use words precisely to communicate specific meanings and to avoid either deliberate or unintentional equivocation.
I’ll leave you to work out for yourself why intelligent design creationists avoid rigorous definitions at all costs.
“theory” being the main offender.
That’s still a strawman in this case William. Theories are not module, particularly not the Theory of Evolution. So your complaint doesn’t address any actual science. You can complain about what you call “Darwinism” all you wish, but since that isn’t being used as a basis of any data investigation, it’s a moot complaint.
Here’s my response to the essence of the failure of your argument in this case:
Well duh! Why would any one make any models of just RM & NS covering probability distributions for variation and selection? Those are just a small part of of Evolutionary Theory and they do not operate in a vacuum anyway.
A confirmation that darwinists are not scientists, “evolution” means anything you want.
That’s exactly the opposite of what I wrote (and of reality).
I evolutioned into my evolution and evolutioned all the way to evolution where I evolutioned an evolution. It was evolution!
Please tell me that was intentionally ironic Blas.
Great! You made up your own custom definitions that have nothing to do with actual evolutionary theory, then get all huffy when no one in the scientific community pays your idiocy any attention. Another huge win for ID Creationism! 😀
Since every possible finding is compatible with ID “theory” (which isn’t a theory at all, just unsupported speculation) you don’t have much of a point.
The only things apparent are your complete ignorance of actual evolutionary theory and an ego that keeps you disconnected from reality. You were given at least half a dozen responses that explained in detail just how ridiculous your strawman claims are. But like a good Creationist you aren’t bothered by nasty things like facts. Just keep on claiming victory while the rest of us point and laugh.
The “Murrayism” that you defined certainly isn’t science. That makes it fit right in with everything else ID-Creationism has produced.
davehook:
If it’s not explanatory, or it fails to explain the phenomena within it’s supposed purview, the theory should be rejected. That’s the way science is supposed to work. And if we can keep the hands of the totalitarians out of science, Darwin’s theory too will be rejected.
May we all live to see the day, for it will surely be a great day for science.
Well, here I am again, for yet another “hit and run.”
In the meantime, if you’ve actually read the book, or at least the first couple chapters, I’m listening.
Chapter Two – The Burgess Bestiary
In chapter two Meyer introduces us to the discovery of the Burgess Shale and it’s relevance to the debate.
Meyer:
Meyer also introduces us to the pattern that is expected according to Darwinian theory and the actual pattern found in the fossil record. Elizabeth has started her own post to discuss the pattern so I’ll not revisit that here at this time.
The third item of interest that Meyer introduces in chapter two is “the artifact hypothesis,” an attempt to explain why we shouldn’t believe what our lying eyes are telling us.
Joe Felsenstein:
Right. Just like the micro/macro distinction was started by creationists.
Tell me Joe, is that the argument that Koonin puts forth in his book The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution?
Thank God Charles Darwin himself never referred to chance in discussing his theory!
Alan Fox:
But not organisms that reproduce asexually? And when did sexual reproduction first appear? And what’s the percentage, over time, of sexual to asexual? And what’s the percentage, even now, of sexual to asexual? What’s your point?
Elizabeth:
Why the quote marks around meaningful? How can a prediction be meaningful without being specific?
Right up there with “macro-evolution:” and “chance”.
I can’t count the times I’ve heard that particular terminology bluff — “… a term made up by creationists.”
It’s meaningful because it satisfies materialist/anti-theistic dogma. Not because it’s useful scientifically.
Joe Felsenstein:
I could buy your book, right? 😉
Seriously, Joe, if you want to start a thread to discuss your book, and how it establishes common descent, I’d buy it and go through it with you here at TSZ.
Then, after I’ve read something and commented on it, you could explain how I “know nothing” of the methods used “to infer states of ancestors in phylogenies.”
Is there something wrong with Sober’s books? We could discuss those.
I know. First time I heard it I took it seriously. then I investigated the allegation and found it to be false. Since then “invented by creationists” has generated skepticism.
They generally don’t make up the term, just their own stupid non-scientific definition.
It’s all part of their childish rhetorical games, like what one scientifically illiterate Creationist recently did with “Darwinism”.
Elizabeth:
Worthy of it’s own thread!
Remember, you asked me what I meant. You don’t get to set the terms of what I mean when I say something. So if it’s a straw man, it’s your straw man, not mine. And a deliberate one at that, seeing as you noticed I was using the term “Darwinism” and then changed it to the straw man “theory of evolution”.
Nonsense. Theories can be made up of many individual aspects or modules. The theory of evolution is made up of many such individual parts – common descent, natural selection, random mutation, adaption, heritability of traits, population genetics, neutral evolution, genetic drift and epigenetics to name a few.
The reason they have to come up with so many parts is because they keep having to patch holes in Darwin’s original theory.
There is no law that one must consider all true or none. Common descent could be true and random mutation/natural selection wrong.
In any event, in the following passage:
… you admit that I am correct. That mutation is random is assumed; that selection is “natural” (as opposed to intelligently orchestrated) is assumed. Thus they do not explain the pertinent data.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve encountered the “definition” bluff.
petrushka:
lol. But design is possible with evolution!. Yet we are able to read DNA sequences for meaning or effect. Else the genetic code would remain undiscovered.
Patently false.