Denialism.com - A resource for countering denialist organizations, tactics and arguments. Don't Confuse Denialism with Debate!
About Denialism.com Who are we?What is Denialism? Who are the Denialists? The Denialist Deck of Cards
|
Monday, April 2, 2007
Denialism at UC (are we surprised)
Again, not to harp too much on the creationists, but the tend to be the more prolific of the WWW denialists. Today alone they have a wonderful example of "poisoning the well"/ad hominem, they're propagating that tiresome Al Gore smear (again poisoning the well/ad hominem), but those logical fallacies are too easy. Instead let's talk about this article, "Who doubts common descent? You’d be surprised" by Denyse O'Leary as a perfect example of selectivity, or in this specific instance, quote-mining.
She selects two quotes in particlar, the first from Malcom Gordon of UCLA in his essay The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay. "The phenomenon of a monophyletic origin for the universal Tree of Life probably did not occur ... At the macro-scale life appears to have had many origins." The second from W. Ford Doolittle's inaugural address to the NAS "Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true." Why don't we do these fine scientists a favor and publish the full quotes. Here's the full abstract from Malcom Gordon's paper. The concept of monophyly is central to much of modern biology. Despite many efforts over many years, important questions remain unanswered that relate both to the concept itself and to its various applications. This essay focuses primarily on four of these: i) Is it possible to define monophyly operationally, specifically with respect to both the structures of genomes and at the levels of the highest phylogenetic categories (kingdoms, phyla, classes)? ii) May the mosaic and chimeric structures of genomes be sufficiently important factors in phylogeny that situations exist in which the concept may not be applicable? iii) In the history of life on earth were there important groups of organisms that probably had polyphyletic, rather than monophyletic, origins? iv) Does the near universal search for monophyletic origins of clades lead, on occasion, to both undesirable narrowing of acceptable options for development of evolutionary scenarios and sometimes actual omission from consideration of less conventional types of both data and modes of thought, possibly at the expense of biological understanding? Three sections in the essay consider possible answers to these questions: i) A reassessment is made of major features of both the concept and some of its applications. Recent research results make it seem improbable that there could have been single basal forms for many of the highest categories of evolutionary differentiation (kingdoms, phyla, classes). The universal tree of life probably had many roots. Facts contributing to this perception include the phylogenetically widespread occurrences of: horizontal transfers of plasmids, viral genomes, and transposons; multiple genomic duplications; the existence and properties of large numbers of gene families and protein families; multiple symbioses; broad-scale hybridizations; and multiple homoplasys. Next, justifications are reassessed for the application of monophyletic frameworks to two major evolutionary developments usually interpreted as having been monophyletic: ii) the origins of life; and iii) the origins of the vertebrate tetrapods. For both cases polyphyletic hypotheses are suggested as more probable than monophyletic hypotheses. Major conclusions are, as answers to the four questions posed above: probably not, yes, yes, and yes. And, for Dr. Doolittle's sake let's just tack on the next sentence in that paragraph that O'Leary smartly left out. This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation. Hmmm. Pretty typical denialist tactic there. Neither of these scientists is really expressing skepticism about evolutionary theory, or evolutionary mechanisms being responsible for things like increasing biological information, bacterial resistance, or speciation, all of which the DI denies. They're criticizing the tree-of-life model as incomplete in describing all the ways new species branch off from their ancestors. The implication being that if there are scientists who feel that the current model of phylogeny or whatever is not fully descriptive, clearly that means that evolution is "controversial" or there is reason to throw out the whole thing. It also highlights the fundamentally deceptive nature of the denialist. What do you think? Did O'Leary accurately depict these scientists statements? Or does this feel deceptive to you? Labels: Denyse O'Leary, Discovery Institute, Evolution denialism |
Denialism (n): the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.
NY Times LA Times The Guardian BBC News SF Gate WSJ Science Links NatureScience NEJM JCI PLOS Biology PLOS Medicine Science Blogs A Blog Around the ClockAetiology Bad Science Conspiracy Factory Deltoid Give Up Blog Good Math, Bad Math The Intersection Pharyngula Respectful Insolence The Scienceblogs network Anti-Denialist Autism/Mercury Autism DivaNeurodiversity Bronze Dog Not Mercury Evolution The Panda's ThumbPharyngula Sandwalk Evolgen Evo Wiki Talk Reason The Talk Origins Archive Global Warming Real ClimateA Few Things Ill-Considered How to talk to a sceptic (AFTIC) Deltoid Stoat ClimateDenial Daily Grist Integrity of Science HIV/AIDS AetiologyAIDStruth.org AIDS.org AIDSmyth The Body - on denialists Alternative Medicine Respectful InsolenceCSICOP QuackWatch What alternative health practitioners might not tell you Skeptico NCCAM 9/11 Conspiracy busting Scientific AmericanPopular Mechanics Screwloosechange Debunking 9/11 Orac's Deconstruction Animal Testing Animal Crackers (archives) Research Defense Blog AnimalRights.net Pro-Test General Skepticism SkepticoConspiracy Factory Geek Counterpoint Photon in the Darkness Bad Science Respectful Insolence CSICOP Snopes Wiki Denialism Wiki
resources |
33 Comments:
Hay Mark,
If you actually read the quotes, you will note that they aren't talking about evolution per se but are commenting on the likelihood of Universal Common Descent (UCD). Believe it or not, quite of few prominent evolutionists are beginning to publically doubt UCD (particularly Carl Woese, who suggests that the three realms may have had different origins). So these quotes are neither unremarkable, taken out of context nor even expressing doubt about evolution. They are simply expressing doubt about UCD, which is what O'Leary was pointing out.
It seems that the ad hominem is on your part, specifically the genetic fallacy, suggesting that if the argument came from O'Leary then it must be false.
April 2, 2007 3:58 PM,
Oh, so now intelligent design's only problem with evolution is that the tree of life has more than one trunk? You're going to tell Egnor to stop saying bacteria don't evolve, and that information doesn't increase over time, as long as we acknowledge we're not sure of a single common ancestor?
Nice try. Notice how each of the quotes was crafted to just say enough to express doubt about the TOL while leaving out that both views aren't inconsistent with one trunk but are critical of the inability of later branches to incorporate horizontal gene transfer? This is consistent with the cherry-picking tactics of UD and the DI in their attempts to allege their is internal controversy among biologists about evolutionary mechanisms.
The representation here is one that totally misses the point of both of these authors statements, and besides that, it represents the continuous tactic of the DI in attempting to highlight disagreements in the field in order to create controversy over evolution as a whole.
Also, nice projection defense by the way. Why don't you guys actually come up with some data rather than pathetic inductive arguments? And again, who was it that was called a liar in federal court? Was it the evolutionary biologists? Oh, wait, no, it was the proponents of intelligent design, who pretend to some scientific legitimacy while making basic mistakes of scientific reason, providing no data, rely on denialist tactics and lie about their creationist objective.
April 2, 2007 4:51 PM,
Mark said,
"Oh, so now intelligent design's only problem with evolution is that the tree of life has more than one trunk?"
Of course not, but the point of O'Leary's quotes seems to have been limited to just this one point. As one who claims to value proper polemics and good rhetoric, perhaps you should try to stick with the issue at hand rather than "load the boat" with a whole caucophony of arguments not presently at issue.
You won't see O'Leary and other ID folks making this mistake so you need to be more careful if you want to be taken seriously. At the end of the day, you run the risk of coming across as an alarmist who is unable to deal with the merits of an opponent's arguments and must attempt to quell them by either screaming or ridiculing them. It's pretty unbecoming for one who considers themselves a serious scientist.
Just a friendly criticism. Love your blog!
al wallace
April 2, 2007 5:25 PM,
Mark,
re Al Gore's house, you have to admit that it's pretty embarassing when the presumed global warming guru lives in a (based on public perception) extremely wasteful, palatial mansion and the anti-green president (please don't make me say his name) lives in exactly the sort of home Al Gore suggests we should all live in.
I fail to see how pointing this out is necessarily a smeer to Al Gore (just an embarassing fact). Afterall, he does buy carbon offsets, although most people have no idea what that actually means. (Can *you* explain what carbon offsets are and what good they do?)
At the end of the day, as a greenie who tries to live responsibly wrt the environment, I would feel better if Al Gore would adopt a greener lifestyle. Carbon offsets are nice but lower consumption is better. Afterall, if we all consumed as much as Al Gore, carbon offsets wouldn't help at all.
April 2, 2007 5:55 PM,
Of course not, but the point of O'Leary's quotes seems to have been limited to just this one point.
Not as far as her audience is concerned, and she damn well knows it. The ID/creationist movement has gotten a lot of mileage out of deliberately confusing terms such "Dariwinism" and "evolution", and using quotes from actual scientists to cast doubt. If a scientist criticizes "Darwinistic" mechanisms -- by which he means adaptationalism alone -- then dollars to donuts a creationist has quote-mined it as a criticism of evolution.
In other words, they use genuine scientific debates over mechanisms of evolution to cast doubt on the whole idea of common descent. And these quotes quite clearly say nothing relevant to ID's typical arguments, which are mechanistic in nature -- ie, "chance can't create information!" So... what was the point of using these quotes again? Oh yes, just what Mark said: casting doubt on the entire idea of evolution/common descent. Which has been the whole point of ID all along, contrary to the limp protestations of Behe, Egnor and others that they accept "some" common descent.
I don't see how anyone the tiniest bit familiar with creationist tactics can believe that O'Leary wasn't trying to create the impression that those scientists are critical of evolution, perhaps even sympathetic to ID.
April 2, 2007 8:55 PM,
First we have the argument that "orthodox" scientists just blindly believe what they are taught and then we have the argument that "orthodox" scientists can't agree on anything. Which one is it?
The real irony is that in the big tent of evolution denial there are ID proponents and young earth creationists. I guess they'll get down to ironing out the "small" differences between the various creationist subgroups when their common enemy evolution is vanquished.
The same hypocrisy is seen in HIV denial. Researchers that argue that iatrogenic transmission of HIV is much higher than commonly accepted are counted as HIV "rethinkers". Nevermind that iatrogenic transmission is accepted by mainstream (only the percentage is disputed) most other HIV "rethinkers" deny that iatrogenic transmission takes place at all. Duesberg goes to great (insufferable) lengths to argue that iatrogenic transmission of HIV does not take place.
April 2, 2007 11:09 PM,
Tim,
As a friendly criticism, your argument suffered from a fallacy known as the genetic fallacy. You are assuming that because O'Leary was making the argument that, even though she only said "A", she also intentionally meant "X, Y, and Z." And, in the process of attacking her for stuff she didn't say, neither you nor mark actually dealt with her point, which is the notion that universal common descent is perhaps falling out of favor.
This is the sort of sloppy, fallacious reasoning that causes O'Leary, Dembski, et al to snicker at the knuckleheads over at PT. If this is to be a serious blog, you guys really need to deal with the specific issues and not chase phantoms. Of course, if you want to be just another juvenile attack blog, then, by all means go for it.
AW
April 2, 2007 11:40 PM,
Chris,
If you can have SJ Gould and S Conway Morris in the same "big tent" of evolution without hypocracy, how is having ID advocates and YEC's in the same "big tent" a hypocracy? SJ Gould and S Conway Morris are about as polar opposite as Behe and Gish, afterall.
April 2, 2007 11:57 PM,
I still think Tim's got the idea best Al. We aren't going to respond to each attack as if it's in isolation, part of the point of describing denialist tactics is acknowledging that it's not just an individual with a wacky idea but a campaign against science. By only focusing on a single blog entry as the entire battle, then we're giving ourselves tunnel vision for the sake of some idealized debate.
But there is no debate to be had so ask yourself.
1. She doesn't believe in any evolutionary mechanisms, so why would she quote these guys if not to misrepresent the level of doubt about evolution.
2. The way she quoted them, in particular Doolittle, quoted as much doubtful phrases as possible without including anything that supports evolution.
3. The first quote I think was a complete misrepresentation of what Gordon was saying, he was complaining about the inability of hierarchical descent to account for things like lateral gene transfer, which is not inconsistent with believing in a common ancestor, just that the branching isn't 100% linear so a tree formation is not accurate (Doolittle is saying something similar).
Remember there isn't a real debate to be had with denialists so don't act as if they're honest brokers that are bringing something to the table. These are fundamentally dishonest movements run my people who are not interested in legitimate debate. They are campaigners for doubt and should be treated as such.
April 3, 2007 6:57 AM,
Al,
Mark covered what I would have said, so I'll just sum up by saying that what you call the genetic fallacy, I call (in this case) pattern recognition.
anonymous,
Among other things, Behe and Gish disagree over the age of the Earth. One position is fully supported by evidence, one is not. There is a difference on the order of at least six degrees of magnitude between these positions. This is not, as Dawkins would say, a trivial error.
Behe and Gish also disagree about the overall operation of evolution, both for their own arbitrary reasons. Behe has said, in Darwin's Black Box, that he accepts common descent as being strongly evidenced, and clarified in a later publication that his problem is with the mechanism of natural selection (as I said above). Gish rejects common descent and "macroevolution" out of hand.
If Gould and Conway Morris have opinions that differ to that monumental degree, I'd like to hear about them. Their most famous tiff was over an interpretation of the Burgess Shale, and while such debates are on significant points (not to mention crucial to the advancement of science), implicit in this debate are the following facts:
* both accept common descent
* both accept the age of Earth and the fossils in question, as well as the timescale of evolution
* both accept the mechanisms of evolution (though they may differ over the relative importance of these mechanisms)
Their primary bones of contention were:
* how strongly environment can constrain evolution (that is, the extent to which similar environments can produce convergent structures)
* the relationship between the Burgess fossils and modern species
Both positions accept the same body of evidence, which as yet is incomplete enough to allow for varying interpretations (which can be sifted through and tested, as science does). This is nowhere near the level of difference between "young earth" and "old earth" since the former position entails ignoring every scrap of evidence out there.
You can read one exchance in the Gould/Conway-Morris debate here, and judge for yourself. But "polar opposites?" Pah.
April 3, 2007 8:12 AM,
One also has to remember that in order to be a denialist of evolution, and specifically a young earth creationist, you're rejecting:
1. Astronomy/astrophysics
2. Geology/Paleontology
3. Genetics/Evolutionary biology
Comparing debates among cranks to debates among scientists in which both accept at the very least the existence of these scientific fields is pretty specious. Again, this is the amplification of doubt tactic of the denialist. Debates about specific interpretation of data are taken to mean the the entire theoretical framework, or whole swaths of science are suspect. This is simply not the case.
Further, it's interesting to see the IDers debate whether they should reject young earth creationism. They won't, of course, because ID exists as a bridge between the far right ideologues and the more intellectual conservatives of the country. But if they were being intellectually honest they wouldn't just give the young earth creationists a waiver for not believing in every major scientific discipline's findings.
April 3, 2007 9:57 AM,
SJ Gould and S Conway Morris are about as polar opposite as Behe and Gish, afterall.
As others have pointed out. YEC rejects most of modern science. The difference between YEC and ID is not at all trivial and can not be glossed over by any honest person. The only thing they have in common is that God/Designer did it.
There are differences in opinions of "orthodox" scientists in every field. It is a common aspect of Denialism of every type to focus on these disputes within science and to attempt to argue that this should cast doubt on science in general.
These disputes are a normal and healthy part of science. Scientists do research and attempt to convince their colleagues that their ideas are better. Over time science progresses.
On the other hand YEC proponents and ID proponenets do not attempt to convince each other. IDers are happy to have the broad lay support from YECers and YECers are happy to have the "scientific" support of ID. They gloss over the huge differences between the two groups for purely political reasons.
I see the same thing in HIV denial. Duesberg claims that HIV exists but cannot cause AIDS because it is just a regular retrovirus. The self styled Perth Group claim that HIV does not exist and therefore cannot cause AIDS. The two groups are fundamentally opposed and yet they do not bother to debate the other.
April 3, 2007 7:41 PM,
As a friendly criticism, your argument suffered from a fallacy known as the genetic fallacy.
I think the question here is about inferring design. The same pattern of selective quotation is seen over and over again in Denialism. I think it is a completely valid inferral that there is some degree of concious or unconcious deception here.
The basic pattern is that Denialists imply that any small argument within a science is evidence that the entire field is suspect. Mostly the Denialist do not explicitly spell this out but the clear implication is there. You only have to look at the responses of the Denialist audience to see that this form of deception is very effective. Primarily because most of the target audience wants to be deceived. Perhaps O'Leary is trying to convince herself as much as her audience. This doesn't make the tactic any less deceptive and dishonest.
April 3, 2007 8:12 PM,
Tim is right here, basically what the ID proponants are doing is to construct a straw man, namely that there is only one dogmatic theory of evolution by natural selection. Having created this straw man they then use the real academic debate about evolution to knock down the straw man they have just created...I mean intelligently designed.
Of course they refer to this non-existant dogma of evolution as "Darwinism".
Classic denialist tactics.
Paul Browne
April 4, 2007 7:50 AM,
Chris Noble said:
"On the other hand YEC proponents and ID proponenets do not attempt to convince each other. IDers are happy to have the broad lay support from YECers and YECers are happy to have the "scientific" support of ID. They gloss over the huge differences between the two groups for purely political reasons."
darwin denier responds:
Exactly the same scenerio exists on the evolution side. The majority of the scientific community adheres to some form of Darwinian gradualism. Stephen Jay Gould broke ranks (quite significantly) with his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. He also had some significant problems with the importance of natural selection. And yet the broader community tolerated his views because he was such an apt populizer of science. Tellingly, after his death, a number of papers and books came out that attempted to show that Punc Eq was just gradualism with short spurts of "faster change" but still lots of gradual change. In light of his endorsement of Goldschmidt's "Hopeful Monster" theory and macromutation theory, this is a stretch at best. I seriously doubt he would have abided such a characterization when he was alive.
The truth of my assertion can be seen in his running debate with Simon Conway Morris. Gould insisted on a completely random form of evolution, which he espoused in Wonderful Life with his metaphor of "turning back the clock" and getting an entirely different result. SCM, however, favors a more teleological view of evolution and insists that if we did turn back the clock, a similar (if not identical) result would obtain. Recently, experimental data with thermophilic bacteria suggests that SCM was correct in spades.
I will anticipate that your response will be to attempt to trivialize Gould's differences with the community at large and with SCM. To do so is to fundamentally misunderstand Gould's position on the fossil record and the role of teleology.
April 4, 2007 5:42 PM,
Stephen Jay Gould broke ranks (quite significantly) with his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
Bullshit.
You will find it hard to find any version of evolution where the rate of change is exactly constant over time. This is a strawman. Gould just emphasised (and in most peoples opinion overemphasised) the non-uniformity of the evolution rate.
Compare this difference in opinion with that between YECs and IDers. There is no comparison.
It is also worthwhile contrasting the way that differences of opinion are resolved in science. In real science people do research to support their theories. In this manner disputes are resolved.
How exactly are the differences between ID and YEC being resolved?
April 4, 2007 7:11 PM,
Darwin Denier,
I've already been over the Gould/Conway-Morris thing above. The post is right there for you to read it, if you wish.
You might also be surprised to learn that neither Gould, nor the rest of the scientific community view evolution as "random".
April 4, 2007 7:44 PM,
How exactly are the differences between ID and YEC being resolved?
I understand quite a bit of winking is involved.
April 4, 2007 7:45 PM,
Darwin Denier, selective pressure is non-random. Nobody including Gould says that evolution is totally random.
If you take a virus culture and apply a specific selective pressure then you will most likely select the same specific mutation on different occasions. This does not imply teleology.
April 4, 2007 8:10 PM,
Whoops, above I invented the word inferral. Of course everyone knows the correct word is inferism.
April 5, 2007 12:27 AM,
Tim said:
"You might also be surprised to learn that neither Gould, nor the rest of the scientific community view evolution as "random"."
darwin denier responds:
*SIGH* In chapter 5 of Wonderful Life, Gould carefully builds his argument, contra Simon Conway Morris, that if we "replay the tape" of evolution, we would get a completely different result. Why is this? Because the critter that survives to pass on its genetic material isn't necessarily the best adapted, it's simply the luckiest. It simply managed to not get killed before it could procreate. Random chance, in Gould's world, played as much, if not more of a role as natural selection. Why is this? Because Gould recognized that natural selection and adaptation implied a directionality to evolution, which was to uncomfortably similar to teleology for Gould.
Simon Conway Morris' view, called Adaptationism, on the other hand, is extremely directional and teleological. In fact, Wonderful Life and Simon Conway Morris' book Crucible of Creation form an extended argument between these two over the relative importance of random chance (favored by Gould) and a preset, directed outcome (favored by Conway Morris and, recently, by experimental evidence).
darwin denier
April 5, 2007 1:45 AM,
Darwin Denier previously wrote:Gould insisted on a completely random form of evolution...
Now you modify that to a difference in the relative importance of random mutation.
Yes, various researchers have different opinions about the relative importance of random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and numerous other mechanisms that are usually ignored by evolution Deniers.
You initially said that Gould favoured a completely random form of evolution. That is not true.
Natural selection does not imply teleology anymore than water flowing downhill does. There is a directionality to rivers. Howver, rivers don't flow downstream because of some special purpose.
Why is that you have to misrepresent SJG (completely random) and SCM (teleological) to manufacture your storm in a teacup?
April 5, 2007 2:46 AM,
And, to the surprise of absolutely no-one, DD is specifically misrepresenting Gould's statements in Wonderful Life (which I own). Gould is very clearly, and repeatedly, referring to mass extinction events such as probably happened post-Burgess Shale era.
These events are, naturally, uncommon, but Gould cites as support for his position a certain event, a "mini-mass extinction" event on some island where avian species, rather than small mammals, won out after the death of large top-end predators. That's one instance where Gould feels that "the tape was rewound" and a different result obtained. (I feel for various reasons that this is a somewhat specious comparison, but it's a nice idea nonetheless.)
The crucial thing here is that in mass, rapid events such as these (which, he hastens to point out, are rare), there simply is no time/room for natural selection to work and hence no particular group will be consistently favored every time. The rest of the time, conventional mechanisms such as natural selection apply fully. And in fact I distinctly recall that he specifically uses the term "random" in order to repudiate it.
I can post relevant excerpts when I get home, if DD wants to argue. But I doubt whatever creationist site he got his information from about the book will be much help against the book itself.
April 6, 2007 9:14 AM,
Tim,
I have copies of both Wonderful Live and Crucible of Creation sitting on my shelf. In fact, WL was in my lap as I typed my last post. Perhaps you would care to review your copy before you fall back on your "mini mass extinction" silliness.
Aside from being something of an oxymoron ("mass extinction" has a specific definition and "mini" doesn't apply to it), this is not at all what Chapter 5 was speaking of. Chapter 5 was talking about the random nature of evolution, as exhibited by various results obtained when the clock is "turned back" and allowed to run again.
Rather than lob ad hominems (which I thought was a denialist tactic), why not re-read the chapter and provide a substantive response.
April 6, 2007 6:35 PM,
DD,
Consider your bluff called.
Mass extinctions may not comprise the majority of Chapter 5, but it is the most important (and most dramatic) mechanism he proposes for the mass loss in diversity occasionally seen in the fossil record (such as the post-Cambrian). As such it is very significant to mention.
One thing he doesn't say is that "randomness" is a mechanism. The entire chapter refers to "contingency", but I'll leave it to the reader to investigate the difference on their own time. For now, I'd like to focus on the one time he specifically uses the term "randomness".
Under the subsection entitled "Mass extinctions" (page 305 in my edition). He describes two possible models to account for the changes in species diversity after such events: "the random model" and "the different-rules model." First he describes the random model, and then:
2. The different-rules model. I don't, myself, believe that true randomness predominates in mass extinctions (though it probably plays some role, particularly in the most profound of the great dyings). I think that most survivors get through for specific reasons, often a complex set of causes. But I also strongly suspect that in a great majority of cases, the traits that enhance survival during an extinction do so in ways that are incidental and unrelated to the causes of their evolution in the first place.
This contention is the centerpiece of the different-rules model. Animals evolve their sizes, shapes and physiologies under natural selection in normal times, and for specifiable reasons (usually involving adaptive advantage). Along comes a mass extinction, with its "different rules" for survival. Under the new regulations, the very best of your traits, the source of your previous flourishing, may now be your death knell. A trait with no previous significance, one that had just hitchhiked along for the developmental ride as a side consequence of another adaptation. There can be no causal correlation in principle between the reasons for evolving a feature and its role in survival under the new rules. (The key issue for testing this models therefore lies in establishing that new rules do, indeed, prevail.)"
Pretty nuanced stuff, in contrast to your simplistic interpretation, and in fact he pretty directly repudiates your "random" interpretation right at the beginning there.
In fact it's exactly as I summarized it before: in the short term, natural selection and other directional mechanisms shape the basic and most important aspects of the organism: "sizes, shapes and physiologies" as he says. But his main point is that it is a mistake to see this as a uniform, adaptation-oriented process over long periods of geological time, because an event such as a mass extinction can throw a wrench into our interpretations, if we insist on seeing every change as a consequence of a specific reaction to the environment. Doing so leads to excessively adaptationalist "just-so stories" that can completely miss the possible real reasons for survival.
Gould, in fact, is careful to point out that we really don't know the whys of why some events happened, but slapping together an answer like "oh obviously it's because of trait X" can be pretty arbitrary and not helpful.
Really, in the broadest sense, Gould's whole point really isn't that far off from the mainstream view of evolution, which is that
* evolution is not some linear "march of progress"
* evolution consists of a random element (variation/mutation) filtered via a directional, non-random process (natural selection) which ultimately makes evolution non-random.
Gould's main point is to apply this to a larger scale than many scientists had previously considered.
All of which is really a distraction from the main point, though, which is that both Gould and Conway Morris accept the same body of facts, but differ in their interpretation -- and their public debates over these interpretations serve the purpose of hammering out the truth.
As we've been saying, contrast that with the "big tent" ID approach, where YECs rub shoulders with OECs and God-of-the-Gappers. YEC is a position that requires denying massive swaths of well-accepted facts, many of which are at least accepted by OECs and Gappers, yet there is zero interest in internal debate, research, or generally trying to hammer out the truth.
You know, the things that distinguish genuine science from crankery.
April 6, 2007 9:18 PM,
All that and you still managed to miss my point, which was the specific dissagreement that seperated Gould and Conway Morris.
You're right. It is nuanced. You just about have to read WL and CoC together to catch the disagreement although it's pretty clear by the way they answer each others points.
Is their disagreement as large as Behe and Gish? Of course not. I never claimed as such. However, neutral theory and adaptationism are indeed opposing views, which has been my point all along. Indeed, any evolutionary biologist knows this distinction. Of course, you have been so focused on proving me wrong that you haven't bothered to see what I've been attempting to argue.
April 7, 2007 1:43 AM,
DD, you're the real denialist here. First of all, just using an ad hominem attack doesn't make one an instant crank. If all you have for your argument are things like ad hominems then you're a crank. An occasional attack exists just to exemplify how pathetic we think these arguments are.
Yes, scientists disagree with each other. But it's not about big things, like the earth being 6,000 years old versus 6 billion. This tactic of using debates over interpretation of data to try to say that there is "controversy" of some kind in evolutionary theory is an old and boring tactic. Just look at the recent attacks on Leakey. In the end, our side has data and facts and that we argue about them is beside the point. You guys have a book of myths that you're insisting is scientific fact and a variable willingness to accept any data or facts.
I think before tim continues feeding the trolls we should get some information to see what we're dealing with here. DD, do you believe the earth is 6000 years old? Do you believe, like Ken Ham, that dinosaurs co-existed with humans and died because they wouldn't fit on the ark?
April 7, 2007 5:51 AM,
Apologies, Mark, but I can't let this slide:
DD,
Funny how you focus so much on your ass-whupping that you neglected to see that I did address your point, in both of my previous posts.. I did not think it necessary to dwell on it because it's pretty self-evident, but I'll repeat again for the benefit of the slow students: Gould and Conway Morris agree on the facts and are debating over the interpretations. This is how science operates. Contrast this with the YEC/OEC/Gap IDers who not only disagree on established facts, but are unwilling to attempt to correct each other, have debates, or test their competing ideas.
Address this and answer Mark's questions, or at least have the good graces to bow out. Your weaseling is embarassing even me.
April 7, 2007 7:50 AM,
If all you have for your argument are things like ad hominems then you're a crank.
Insults are not necessarily an ad hominem fallacy. Most cranks do not know the difference.
An ad hominem is when you reject somebodies argument by attacking the person.
Saying "your argument is wrong for reasons a,b,c,d,e,f... and you are an idiot" is not an ad hominem. The insult may be unnecessary but it is not a fallacy.
All of posters have been dealing with Darwin Deniers arguments in detail.
April 8, 2007 6:59 PM,
It's interesting that you guys seem to think that I must be some sort of YEC'er just because I disagree with Darwin. For the record, I am not a YEC'er at all. I believe the universe to be billions, not thousands of years old, man didn't see dinosaurs, etc.
Tim, I think we are talking past each other at this point.
April 10, 2007 1:07 AM,
*sigh*
Look.
This whole argument started when an anonymous poster, and then you, tried to argue that "big tent" ID/creationism and arguments within the scientific community are similar, and therefore it's dishonest for scientists to criticize the ID creationists.
I have been explaining the difference between these situations -- over and over and OVER again -- in my last several posts.
If we are "talking past each other" it is only because my point seems to be sailing over your head at a cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, and you're mumbling into your shoes.
April 10, 2007 9:05 AM,
Tim,
True, you have been explaining the difference from your pow and I have been explaining the similarity from my pow and we're now talking past each other. Shockingly, we just don't seem to agree.
dd
April 10, 2007 12:45 PM,
DD,
Maybe it would help if you explained exactly what your "pow" is. From here, it seems to be:
1.) Differences over fundamental facts are only slightly more serious than differences over interpretations of those facts,
and
2.) It's totally unfair to point out that creationists don't publicly debate, criticize, or otherwise try to improve their science, when there are "mainstream" scientists like SJG and SCM who are, uhhh, publicly debating and criticizing one another, the way science does.
April 11, 2007 12:19 PM,
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home