Evolution in Action
Oct. 19th, 2002 08:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynI was reading an article about theOhio school board's decision to change the way evolution is taught. As with most assaults on evolution, this one seems populist-motivated, rather than science-motivated. Even this article, which seems pretty favorable toward the whole idea, doesn't try to poke holes in the theory of evolution.
The trouble with evolution as a theory is that it doesn't quite fit the facts, at least as I was taught them. (I'm not sure what new findings have emerged on the subject in the last decade or two.) We can look at fossil evidence, date it, and determine that certain species existed millions of years ago that are similar, but not the same, as modern species. We can look at evidence today and see how certain differing species share various similarities. From this, we logically postulate that the species must be related; they have a common ancestor. A now-extinct ancient species evolved into a modern-day species. This is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis
Stephen J. Gould used the panda's thumb as a fine example of evolution in action. The chain, as I recall, went something like this: the panda started with a hand like ours, which evolved from four fingers and a thumb into five fingers at the front of the paw. Later in the game, the panda needed to use its forepaws to strip bamboo, a task better suited to a paw with a thumb. But the panda had already lost its thumb. The modern panda now has a 'sort of' thumb. It's actually one of the bones from the wrist, pushed up and forward to make shift for the specialized task of bamboo-stripping Gould offered that intelligent design might well produce the elegant perfection of a bird's wing, but only 'whatever works' evolution would come up with using a wrist bone for a thumb.
And this is all good.
My trouble with evolution has always been following the jump between one distinct species and the next. Scientifically, species are not defined by their similarities in appearance or function, but by biological compatability. If two animals can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, then they are of the same species. Thus, a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard are members of the same species, while a fox and a beagle are of separate ones. As are horses and donkeys, which can mate, but whose offspring (mules and hinnies) are sterile.
Genetic studies, and the very existence of umpteen varieties of canines, more or less prove the whole mutation theory -- that is, that the offspring of two animals can, on rare occasion, exhibit qualities not present in its forebears, or at the very least, not at all observable in any of its distant ancestors.
Evolutionary theory goes one of two ways from here. Either we get 'gradual change' whereby, say, the offspring of two given lynxes is somewhat cat-like, and then that cat-like lynx has offspring which are even more like housecats, and so on, until finally we get housecats which are not able to breed with lynxes. (Example purely facetious; I have no idea what housecats purportedly evolved from, but I doubt it's lynxes.) Or there's the 'evolutionary leap' version, which says that one day, a pair of lynxes produce a housecat.
The difficulty I have with the 'gradual' version is that, well, why are Great Danes and toy poodles still genetically compatible, even after thousands of generations of being bred apart, and for totally different qualities? If we are to postulate that everything evolved from protofish species, what use was the half-a-wing non-flying version of a bird?
And the 'evolutionary leap' has its own problems. If one day a bird hatches from a raptor egg, where does the newly mutated bird find a mate? What are the odds of two new creatures mutating in exactly the same way so that they can breed with each other but not with their forebear species?
As I recall, fossil evidence isn't just missing a link between man and apes, but the links between most old and new species, if you're going by the 'gradual change' version of the theory.
The theory of evolution isn't a proven fact. Most scientists recognize this, and their response is: 'So, you got a better idea?'
'Intelligent design' is not, in my humble opinion, a 'better idea.' That doesn't mean it's wrong. Lemme give an example (I think this was from Gould, too):
Say you are sitting in a room, and suddenly, the light goes out. Now, you can postulate many different reasons for why the light went out.
1) The light bulb burned out
2) You forgot to pay your power bill
3) Your state has adopted California-style utility deregulation and you are now reaping the benefits
4) The gods want you to sit in the dark.
Based on the information I have given about the situation, all of these possibilities are equally likely. However, assuming that you don't want to sit in a dark room, you should always start with (1) as your working hypothesis, because it's the theory which is most easily tested and leads to the quickest resolution.
It's entirely possible that (4) is right, and there's no way to prove that it is, or isn't. That's what makes is a bad working hypothesis: you can't do anything with it.
That's my problem with "intelligent design" as a working hypothesis--I can't work with it. Evolution, as an explanation for how the human race came into being, may well be entirely wrong. But it's led to many discoveries in numerous different scientific fields. Even flawed, it's been a useful working theory.
But, given that there are clear flaws in evolution, I am surprised by the vehemence with which some people assert that it is fact. That suggests a lack of serious examination, an unwillingness to question and to explore alternatives. Saying 'Evolution is just true' isn't any more useful than saying 'Intelligent design is just true.' Neither one leads to new tests, new discoveries, new insights.
New understanding.
Anyway, having written all of this off the top of my head (which is a nice way of putting it than 'pulled it out of my ' -- er, never mind), does anyone know if the troubles I've mentioned have been addressed? Have vestigial-winged proto-bird fossils been unearthed? Is there a 'third path' on evolution that I'm not familiar with? Is there a provable explanation for 'simultaneous mutations into a new species' or some such?
The trouble with evolution as a theory is that it doesn't quite fit the facts, at least as I was taught them. (I'm not sure what new findings have emerged on the subject in the last decade or two.) We can look at fossil evidence, date it, and determine that certain species existed millions of years ago that are similar, but not the same, as modern species. We can look at evidence today and see how certain differing species share various similarities. From this, we logically postulate that the species must be related; they have a common ancestor. A now-extinct ancient species evolved into a modern-day species. This is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis
Stephen J. Gould used the panda's thumb as a fine example of evolution in action. The chain, as I recall, went something like this: the panda started with a hand like ours, which evolved from four fingers and a thumb into five fingers at the front of the paw. Later in the game, the panda needed to use its forepaws to strip bamboo, a task better suited to a paw with a thumb. But the panda had already lost its thumb. The modern panda now has a 'sort of' thumb. It's actually one of the bones from the wrist, pushed up and forward to make shift for the specialized task of bamboo-stripping Gould offered that intelligent design might well produce the elegant perfection of a bird's wing, but only 'whatever works' evolution would come up with using a wrist bone for a thumb.
And this is all good.
My trouble with evolution has always been following the jump between one distinct species and the next. Scientifically, species are not defined by their similarities in appearance or function, but by biological compatability. If two animals can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, then they are of the same species. Thus, a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard are members of the same species, while a fox and a beagle are of separate ones. As are horses and donkeys, which can mate, but whose offspring (mules and hinnies) are sterile.
Genetic studies, and the very existence of umpteen varieties of canines, more or less prove the whole mutation theory -- that is, that the offspring of two animals can, on rare occasion, exhibit qualities not present in its forebears, or at the very least, not at all observable in any of its distant ancestors.
Evolutionary theory goes one of two ways from here. Either we get 'gradual change' whereby, say, the offspring of two given lynxes is somewhat cat-like, and then that cat-like lynx has offspring which are even more like housecats, and so on, until finally we get housecats which are not able to breed with lynxes. (Example purely facetious; I have no idea what housecats purportedly evolved from, but I doubt it's lynxes.) Or there's the 'evolutionary leap' version, which says that one day, a pair of lynxes produce a housecat.
The difficulty I have with the 'gradual' version is that, well, why are Great Danes and toy poodles still genetically compatible, even after thousands of generations of being bred apart, and for totally different qualities? If we are to postulate that everything evolved from protofish species, what use was the half-a-wing non-flying version of a bird?
And the 'evolutionary leap' has its own problems. If one day a bird hatches from a raptor egg, where does the newly mutated bird find a mate? What are the odds of two new creatures mutating in exactly the same way so that they can breed with each other but not with their forebear species?
As I recall, fossil evidence isn't just missing a link between man and apes, but the links between most old and new species, if you're going by the 'gradual change' version of the theory.
The theory of evolution isn't a proven fact. Most scientists recognize this, and their response is: 'So, you got a better idea?'
'Intelligent design' is not, in my humble opinion, a 'better idea.' That doesn't mean it's wrong. Lemme give an example (I think this was from Gould, too):
Say you are sitting in a room, and suddenly, the light goes out. Now, you can postulate many different reasons for why the light went out.
1) The light bulb burned out
2) You forgot to pay your power bill
3) Your state has adopted California-style utility deregulation and you are now reaping the benefits
4) The gods want you to sit in the dark.
Based on the information I have given about the situation, all of these possibilities are equally likely. However, assuming that you don't want to sit in a dark room, you should always start with (1) as your working hypothesis, because it's the theory which is most easily tested and leads to the quickest resolution.
It's entirely possible that (4) is right, and there's no way to prove that it is, or isn't. That's what makes is a bad working hypothesis: you can't do anything with it.
That's my problem with "intelligent design" as a working hypothesis--I can't work with it. Evolution, as an explanation for how the human race came into being, may well be entirely wrong. But it's led to many discoveries in numerous different scientific fields. Even flawed, it's been a useful working theory.
But, given that there are clear flaws in evolution, I am surprised by the vehemence with which some people assert that it is fact. That suggests a lack of serious examination, an unwillingness to question and to explore alternatives. Saying 'Evolution is just true' isn't any more useful than saying 'Intelligent design is just true.' Neither one leads to new tests, new discoveries, new insights.
New understanding.
Anyway, having written all of this off the top of my head (which is a nice way of putting it than 'pulled it out of my ' -- er, never mind), does anyone know if the troubles I've mentioned have been addressed? Have vestigial-winged proto-bird fossils been unearthed? Is there a 'third path' on evolution that I'm not familiar with? Is there a provable explanation for 'simultaneous mutations into a new species' or some such?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-10-19 10:29 am (UTC)All scientific theories are falsifiable. It just takes one experiment to show that a theory is wrong.
The "intelligent design" theory is not falsifiable. If we come across something that doesn't seem to be used (the appendix, for example), then they can shoot back, "We just don't know why the Creator invented that."
There's much more to say, but I fear that I don't have time. We should talk more later.
On Speciation
Date: 2002-10-19 10:51 am (UTC)Of course, it takes many mutations before a new species is created, and there may be an intermediate stage when the proto-species is possibly fertile with it predecessor species. This intermediate stage is not stable, however. It's not an advantage to be able to possibly interbreed with another species (and possibly not successfully breed at all), so we would expect the normal forces of evolution to lead to one extreme or the other. I don't know of any solid evidence that this occurs, though. There was a famous fossil of a bird with some reptilian traits, but later research found that it coexisted with true birds, so that doesn't qualify as proof.
One thing to keep in mind is the sheer size of the times involved. If a typical species will survive for a period on the order of millions to tens of millions of years, the few thousand years that humans have spent selectively breeding dogs is minor by comparison.
Re: On Speciation
Date: 2002-10-19 06:49 pm (UTC)Re: On Speciation
Date: 2002-11-04 03:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-10-19 01:44 pm (UTC)1. Uniformitarian, Darwinian evolution is not supported by the evidence.
2. Punctuated equilibrium fits the evidence, but is unverifiable and frankly ridiculous. (Animals transform completely in a single generation all by themselves?)
3. Young-earth Biblical creationism sort of fits the evidence, but is unverifiable, as it demands unverifiable conditions (e.g. that the radiocarbon decay constant has changed).
4. Old-earth creationism is a little more believable, but is just as speculative in its own way as Darwinian evolution.
5. I don't know enough about how "Intelligent Design" is different to talk about it.
6. All of the above theories are potentially in concord with the theological concept, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
Therefore, my answer to the Origins Question, from a scientific standpoint?
I DON'T KNOW.
Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2002-10-19 06:48 pm (UTC)I've never been quite clear on why one had to believe every word of the Bible was literally true in order to be a good Christian. What, the LORD can't use metaphors? :)
no subject
Date: 2002-10-19 11:03 pm (UTC)Whether Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are meant to be "literal" or "metaphorical," they are definitely THEOLOGICAL in nature, not SCIENTIFIC. Taking a theological work in a scientific sense is just as bad as those goofy calculations showing that Heaven would be hotter than Hell...except that everyone knows that those are a joke.
Not sure where this fits.....
Date: 2002-10-19 03:26 pm (UTC)But one of the reasons folks are so enthused on evolution (aside from the firm desire to bash Christians, or bash them back, in some cases) is things like this....
Black forest in germany used to have this one species of light barked tree. This one species of moth made said tree (some part of it) their staple for diet. Then industrial pollution turned all the trees grey-black. Suddenly, the moth's camfolauge (a white pepper pattern) was worse than useless, it was a beacon to predators. However, rather than becoming extinct, the dominant form shifted to that of an identical species, save the coloration was dark grey pepper....this seems to be a clear and observeable case of Darwin's theory about how a trait that previously had no use, or was a detriment is suddenly selected for by the environment and becomes the norm, because species can change.
I may be partially garbling this, but it really stuck in my mind and is the reason I tend to lean towards it, though like the average xmas and easter Christian, I haven't learned as much about my beloved theory as I should :) thank you for sharing.
However, I hope it remains that the religious sponsored "Godly alternatives" are as the poster above notes, not scientific theories and so it's like comparing apples and oranges. There may arguably be a place to teach this viewpoint, but it certainly is not in a science class.
Re: Not sure where this fits.....
Date: 2002-10-19 04:20 pm (UTC)Yes, you and Chip hit the nail on the head. There is good cause for emphasizing that evolution is "theory, not fact." But that doesn't mean religion or philosophy ought to be taught in science classes.
no subject
Date: 2002-10-19 11:16 pm (UTC)prester_scott
2002-10-19 23:10 (link) Delete
"Godly alternatives" are as the poster above notes, not scientific theories and so it's like comparing apples and oranges. There may arguably be a place to teach this viewpoint, but it certainly is not in a science class.
That isn't exactly what I said.
I think that if a science class is an appropriate place to bring up evolution, it's an appropriate place to bring up the scientific theories of creationism, intelligent design, etc. Yes, these theories have a certain worldview underlying them, but then, so does evolution.
Frankly, I don't think theories of origins should really be taught in science class at all. They're ALL inadequate, and ALL unnecessary to the study of biology, geology, et al.
But what we ESPECIALLY must avoid is teaching myth as though it were science; and this applies to "both sides." At least the Bible is well-known to be a religious book, so when you start talking Biblical creationism, there's no surprises. Yet how many schoolchildren know that the diagram in their textbooks - you know, the one with protozoans on the left, arrows connecting various phyla, until you end up with Homo sapiens on the right - is about 99.9% speculation?
no subject
Date: 2002-10-20 06:30 am (UTC)I think that's because I was replying to Strangess, and she was refering to ChipUni's post, not yours. :)
On your point: My trouble is that no one ever talks about the science behind the alternatives to evolution. I would be very happy for a provable/disprovable theory which addressed at least some of the shortcomings of evolution, to be taught along with evolution. But the all the alternatives I've seen lack that crucial test ChipUni noted: they can neither be proven, nor disproven.
Whenever I see articles (pro or con) refering to evolution alternatives, they offer at best 'evidence' such as the flaws in evolution, or logical-sounding but ultimately meaningless arguments like "The world is too complex to have evolved by chance." These are good points, but they only prove that evolution has problems, not that any particular other theory is correct. And if one's answer to contrary evidence is "The Creator put that in as a test", there's no basis for scientific debate, either.
Really, I think the Creator is quite clever enough to have fashioned a mechanism for creating life which is both wonderfully complex and amazingly simple, which works perfectly and which would offer even aetheists an explanation they would understand. If only we could figure it out ... :)
Anyway, if you happen to know of any scientific studies on an alternative to evolution, I'd be happy to take a look at them.
no subject
Date: 2002-10-19 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-10-20 06:38 am (UTC)If one simply accepts macroevolution because it seems logical based on the existence of mutations and natural selection -- well, that's really not a lot different from accepting intelligent design, because it seems logical given the enormous chain of luck which has to take place over a fairly short period of time, in order to get to humans from primordial soup via evolution.
(gah, that was a long sentence.)
Yes, it's important to be consistent....
Date: 2002-10-21 05:38 am (UTC)Evolution precedes from a _scientific_ discussion of hypotheses based on the reality of speciation. Yes, owing to political and social biases, these hypotheses and their testing is fatally flawed. But not always. While no conclusive answers have been found yet, a search by the rules of evidence is still being conducted.
Though I will grant the _theory_ and _incomplete_ part of evolution need to be emphasized a lot more, or we impede teaching the scientific method and viewpoint.
On the other hand, as someone noted above, the creationist position cannot be falsified, and is not a competing scientific process. And presenting it _in a science class_ as "an opposing _theory_" is bullocks. This is an attack every bit as underhanded as the manipulations of "blind faith" evolutionists.
And there aren't even people within the large segment of "creationists" who are even pursuing true science, if they can't even stay in the parameters of science, even if more in the breach than the observence.
Now, you can say "science is wrong". That's great, get the conflict out in the open. But don't try to make a value decision masquerade as the beginning of a legitimate scientific debate. That is a question of ethics, the study of truth, and philosophy.
I won't say I'm proud of the lack of intellectual honesty and the manipulativeness of some people on "my side". In fact their stupidity in not pursuing a better standard of fidelity to fact and impartiality is deadly poison in the long run to the values they claim to revere. Both by weakening a position that is already being beseiged by pre-modernist forces. (Modernism in the sense of a belief in progress and the fruitfulness of an eternal process of critique and investigation of the way we do things), and by being hypocrites and contaminating the idea they claim to want to transmit.
But I still find bad science less relevant than the fact they're going another round in dirty tricks in the fight against science. Religionists understand that this is the one main advantage of their opponents is that science has trumped the mystical worldview, and they will do anything to win that fight. So will many "scientists". But it's a case of evil fighting greater evil, a common story in the history of humanity.
Just because evolution has hypocrites, liars, and power hungry manipulators distorting the truth does not make the opposing position a whit more respectable or valid. Which is what I guess I'm steamed about. I know that you serve Truth as one of your highest values, and I'm not trying to trivialize the crime you're calling attention to, Rowyn. But I feel that between the lines you're saying "so maybe the creationist point of view isn't all that bad, after all, it's just one set of lies stacked against another".
(looks wry and sighs and tries to soften the possibly chip on her shoulder stance here. It's late, she couldn't sleep, and it hurts to be reminded that her side is going to lose because the f*ckheads remora-ing on the essential values at the core of it are like dry rot.
In my lifetime, everything I care about for values and principles will be discredited and reviled and cast aside, and with it the one last brief hope of a fair, just and egalitarian world. An imperfect world, but one that might have been better than the abbatoir we're in. And I just want to scream in frustration and pain at it.
But I have good drugs now. Effexor is my friend. I'll remember to shove my awareness of this bitter vision to the back of my mind, and concentrate on what I can have before the corpse of civilization stops moving. I found Kirzen. I'll have my roses, at least......)
Re: Yes, it's important to be consistent....
Date: 2002-10-21 07:31 am (UTC)No, I am not, sweetie. I meant just what I said, and nothing more.
My regret is that there are imperfections in evolutionary theory and no one seems to be trying to fix them. You have evolutionists on one hand who refuse to acknowledge any flaw lest they give the creationists ammunition. You have creationists on the other hand who aren't interested in advancing any theory that might be proved or disproved.
What I want is a scientist to say "Hey, I've studied the issue of origins and I've got this new hypothesis that could explain the leap from dinosaurs to birds, and here's how I'm going to test it."
That's all I'm asking for: an explanation for the flaws in macroevolution as a theory. A testable explanation.
If creationists or the advocates for 'intelligent design' offers such a testable hypothesis, then I am open to hearing it. To the best of my knowledge, neither camp does. But I'm not an expert, and I am willing to listen to evidence that I am wrong on this.
I hope you can see that saying "I am willing to hear evidence" is a far cry from "Evolution is no better a theory than intelligent design." Please don't read between my lines for sentiment which isn't there, dear.