pz

I was reading through a book I'm using in one of my classes, Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, and ran across a quote that is apropos. This book is entirely about macroevolution, and focuses on the fish-tetrapod transition and the evolution of whales, both of which are well-represented in the fossil record.

In this bit of a paragraph, Zimmer is summarizing the cetacean lineage.
He then briefly describes other species, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, and Dalanistes, and makes the point that these are contemporaries of Rhodocetus that followed different evolutionary strategies.
It's a very good book, engaging and readable. I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.

Clutch

Scigirl,

Here, I think, is how the Dawkins discussion fits into the bigger picture. It has to do with the reasoning of IDologists, YECers and their ilk.

1) Evolutionary theory is false.
2) But to the nearest approximation, scientists universally believe it the correct explanation of speciation.
3) So we need some account for why all the best-informed people believe something the falsity of which is transparent to lawyers, pastors, theologians, and others who have made no detailed study of the phenomena.
4) One account would be this: all those scientists secretly want to bolster atheism, and advocating evolutionary theory is their way of doing this.
5) So let's canvass evidence for this conjecture: See here, where Dawkins says that you can't be an atheist without Darwinism!
6) See? Hmm? Right? Need we say more?

As with all things creationist, this line of thought is refutable in uncountably many ways; it is quite literally an embarrassment of riches, with respect to fallacies. And one of the ways to embarrass it is to point out the vast ignorance it displays regarding the history of these ideas.

Rationally speaking, the atheism bit was borne out with Hume (or earlier). Even Dawkins -- no philosopher, and often having a tin ear for the relations between ideas -- recognizes that what Darwinism adds to the already established atheism is a positive explanation, which is what scientifc intellectual fulfillment requires. Hume had long since observed the worthlessness of Design in that role.

Bane

Actually, blood cells haven't been found. Only heme has.

An e-mail from Jack Horner about the find:

scigirl

Thanks clutch.

Hmm, I'm trying to remember if I met Mary when I was studying in montana. I did know several of Jack Horner's (former) graduate students. . .

scigirl

Doubting Didymus

Thank you kindly, Nic Tamzek. Here was me thinking that it was some kind of complicated theoretical concept. These terms are just labels for some unbelievably well known concepts, and as I suspected, they refer to absolutely different things to what pz is thinking of.

Shall I point out the differences for DNA union? I think I shall!

'direct' evolution in the two cases you are looking at, are different things to 'direct' evolution in the sense that pz means. The paper you cite is a (quite basic) refutation of Behe's irreducible complexity argument, by demonstrating the variety of different evolutionary pathways that features can follow.

'Direct serial' evolution in this sense refers to the simplest, (and probably least common) evolutionary path, with a new feature mutating 'into place', 'adding' to a growing group of mutational changes. A simple example I can think of (that is, without going into horrible biochemical systems), might be the neck of the giraffe. If the neck evolved with 'direct serial' evolution, then we are looking at a short neck, then a mutation that adds a vertebrae-sized section, then another and another on top of that. (Dear pz, here I am using an entirely hypothetical history and NOT suggesting that this evolutionary history was so simple. This is just a simplistic example of this 'serial' thing. Don't get angry.)

'paralell' evolution is almost the same thing, but with multiple features evolving together simultaneously. The example in the cited paper is the pinhole eye, where it is neccessary for the retina and the eye cup/sphere to evolve simultaneously.

These are not 'direct' in the sense that pz and rufus mean when they say 'no biologist thinks that...'. They are referring to a much larger scale. pz's example is whale evolution, where 'direct' evolution of the whale from ambulocetus would imply that ambulocetus became swimming, became legless, became finned, became big, became a whale. It simply does not happen that way. Evolution roams blindly all over the place, it bumps into things, speciation breaks out like a plague. It is entirely impossible to connect any two points in this tangled, bloated, confused pattern and call the evolution 'direct' without being perverse. In fact, it is most likely these historical evolutionary patterns that really define the animal as it is today, rather than any direct, one mutation - two mutation, route.

E_muse

Hi Albion. Further to my reply to this previous post I wished to expand slightly on my arguement as the previous one (like many) was written in a hurry!

One of the key things that informs Johnson's ideas and views are the comments of scientists like Professor Richard Lewontin. A comment made by Lewontin is often referred to in creationist literature and used as a defence for the view that methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are the same thing. The statement by Lewontin goes as follows:

Once again, this is from a qualified person and an atheist.

The fact that Lewontin refers to 'we' seems to suggest that, in his mind, he is not just speaking for himself but for the scientific community. He also clearly sets out the idea that scientific explanations are the result of an a priori commitment to materialism and avoid supernatural explanations.

Again, if there is misunderstanding in the theist camp, atheists like Lewontin must bear the burden of responsibility in fuelling the misunderstanding with comments like this.

I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to reply to your other comments yet.

RufusAtticus

The only problem is that Lewontin has a socio-political axe to grind. You have to be careful when quoting him to make sure you are citing Lewontin the respected scientist or Lewontin the radical activist. Sometimes it's really hard to disect the two. He might think he's speaking for scientists when he really is not.

~~RvFvS~~

DNAunion

DNAunion: No, DNAuion gets it, why can’t Nic and Didymus?

DNAunion: Uhm, it is YOU, Nic, who keeps adding words/phrases/ideas to PZ’s original statement, not me. It is YOU who keeps trying to get it to say “whatever Nic thinks the words mean”.

My “interpretation” of PZ’s statement is a completely literal reading of his statement. I don’t throw things like “ALWAYS” or “IN GENERAL” in there – that’s you doing that.

DNAunion: Three things.

(1) According to what you just said, if PZ meant ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER of those possible multiple meanings, then he should have phrased his original statement properly, such that it excluded the possibilities he did not want. But he didn’t restrict his statement (furthermore, it was a response to what I had just said about direct evolution, so surely he was considering the terms to have the meaning that I intended!).

(2) And when asked multiple times if he stated things precisely, pz said yes. And this was during and after the time I made it clear what all his statement, taken literally, involved. Thus, he implicitly confirmed that he was not restricting his statement to only a limited number of possibilities (that would be inconsistent with his replies to my questions). He also implicitly confirmed that he was not excluding the meaning of DIRECT that I used, or that Behe used; and that he was not excluding the meaning of evolution that I and/or Behe used.

(3) PZ’s statement was a response to what I had just said about Behe’s claim about the inaccessibility of IC biochemical systems by DIRECT EVOLUTION. Therefore, if any context is to be considered in order to restrict what the words EVOLUTION and DIRECT mean, it must be that which I (and indirectly Behe) used. If PZ goes off talking about some other meaning, then it is clearly HE who is playing semantic games!

Thus, all I have to do to demonstrate PZ to be wrong is to provide just one counterexample.

Do biologists EVER argue that evolution is direct? Yep, they sure do. I provided a link to an article written by anti-IDists that was published in a mainstream biology periodical and that article clearly demonstrated that those biologists argue that direct evolution occurs.

DNAunion: No. PZ's words, at his own emphatic command, are to be taken literally. And if there is any leeway in interpreting of the words DIRECT and EVOLUTION (while keeping everything literal), they should be based on what I - and indirectly Behe - meant, since I was the one who brought it up, and it was to those statements of mine that pz was responding.

DNAunion: PZ has attempted to wiggle out of the hole he dug himself into: he's been unsuccessful (and always will be).

DNAunion: And you are distracting everyone from my having a perfect score in this thread! I win!!!! :-)

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

Albion

Lewontin can refer to "we" all he likes, and in his mind he may be referring to the entire scientific community. That, however, doesn't make it so. Phillip Johnson is one of the main academics at ARN and an advisor at DI. He's a recognised spokesman for the ID movement. When a person who is a spokesman for these groups states an opinion, it's assumed taht he isn't talking just for himself. In the same way, if Eugenie Scott were to make a statement in public about the creation-evolution debate, she would be considered to be talking on behalf of the community. Richard Lewontin wouldn't. There are scientists out there who think that science implies atheism, but there are a lot more who don't, and there are some (such as Miller and Lamoureux) who think it's the method that scientists use to study God's creation. I dare say you could find a few "we's" in their writings too. Why would crationists glom on to one paragraph of one piece by one writer and claim he speaks for the entire community while ignoring all the statements by all the other scientists?

And until I've seen that quote in its context (which apparently isn't possible without a subscription to the NY Review of Books), I'm not going to assume that it says what it appears to say when presented alone. There have been too many creationist distortions of scientific writing for their quotes to have any credivility. It's sort of a shame, because once in a while they'll be quoting quite correctly, but their track record is against them, and they have nobody but themselves to blame for that.

pz

You might be a bit shocked by it. It's from a review of Sagan's Demon-haunted World, and it is actually a negative review. The creationists who use this quote, of course, have it all wrong: Lewontin is criticizing common attitudes in the "scientific establishment", attitudes that he saw reflected in Sagan's book. In part, what he is complaining about is the idea that truth (even scientific truth) is something that must be imparted to the people by an elite; science is a process, not a body of recieved knowledge.

The concluding paragraph is this bit:
I think it's a great article. It's good because it will make you think, and should make us all a bit uncomfortable, but the subtleties of Lewontin's argument are completely lost on the creationists. He is criticizing scientists all right, but he's doing so on the basis that many of them have unconsciously assumed the mantle of a priesthood.

I get the impression that E_muse has not read the article himself, but is only getting it filtered through the babblings of Philip Johnson, who is a wretchedly evil little toad. If you want to see it, drop me an e-mail and I can send you a pdf.