Thursday, August 2, 2012

"Is throwing out a lot of straw about predictions inviting the Egnors to make straw men?"

Commentor steven johnson on Steven Novella's blog Neurologica has a perceptive overview of the 'predictive power" of Darwin's theory.

Novella argues that my skepticism about Darwinism's "prediction" of the link between birds and dinosaurs that Novella had touted is misguided. Novella repeated his hysterical claims about the amazing power of 'things change and survivors survive' to predict the future. He admits that Darwinism predicts nothing specific about the bird-dinosaur link, except that some links should be found between some things, whenever, whatever. Potent theory.

He also makes no comment about the obvious inference that if the discovery of 'links' is evidence for Darwinism, then the failure to discover links is evidence against Darwinism.

There are virtually no 'links' at the species level-- millions of species-- in the fossil record. This lack of evidence for speciation is the explicit basis for the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium-- the theory that speciation occurs "off" of the fossil record, in tiny peripheral populations, that are invisible to paleontology. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that fossil evidence for speciation will never be found, which will count as evidence-- for Darwin's theory.

Evidence in favor counts. Evidence against doesn't count. Absence of evidence is evidence. Such is evolutionary science, 2012. You have to admire the audacity.

I'll try to respond to Novella's post in detail when I can, but commentor johnson's post is coherent and thoughtful, and worth spending some time with.


steven johnson:
Yes, Egnor erected a straw man, then still got confused while attacking it. But some of the confusion seems to be about prediction, testability and explanation.
The requisite 'Egnor is an idiot, but...' used by dissenters on Darwinist sites.
The principle of common descent would in another time or field of science would probably have been called a “law.” Scientific laws are commonly described as descriptions or generalizations about how things work in nature. Common descent was established on a mass of observations from morphology and embryology, and later confirmed further by genetic data.
Common descent is a problematic theory.
Scientific laws may be refined or possibly even wholly refuted by later observations. For instance, lateral gene transfer in bacteria seems to justify a refinement in the doctrine of common descent.
Lateral gene transfer is a proposed explanation for genetic evidence that casts doubt on universal common descent. Perhaps the genetic evidence is explained by lateral gene transfer, or perhaps common descent isn't true. Those would be the obvious scientific inferences. The Darwinist inference is to find an explanation-- any explanation will do-- to salvage the theory.
There are antecedents to this principle, for instance, the cell theory, which implicitly requires that all changes in descent be physically possible for cells to carry out. And there are consequences too, such as that new species must come from old species. But is it really useful or enlightening to call these predictions?
The inference to common descent is supported by some evidence, and weakened by other evidence. Common design or common teleology is consistent with some of the evidence now invoked for common descent.

In my view, the strongest evidence for common descent comes not from Darwin but from Pasteur, who was the greatest biologist of the 19th century. Pasteur destroyed the theory of abiogenesis, making it much less likely that life would arise de novo multiple times. Although Darwin hypothesized common descent, it was Pasteur who did the real science that made the theory of abiogenesis untenable and rendered multiple new arisings of life less likely than had been commonly believed.

Darwin worship obscures the good science that was going on in the 19th century, exemplified by Pasteur and Mendel and Ehrlich and Lister and Schleiden and Schwann and Remak and Virchow and Weismann and Koch, all of whom made actual contributions to biology in germ theory and genetics and cell theory that eclipsed Darwin, who besides authoring a few trendy books for lay audiences, specialized in the categorization of barnacles.
Natural selection, on the other hand, is what some would call a theory, a scientific explanation, although I gather others would define “theory” as an algorithm (or verbal/conceptual equivalent) for generating predictions.
If a theory makes no testable predictions, how can it be science?

What "predictions" does natural selection make? What is the evidence against it? Is it the only scientific theory supported by all evidence?
In that case, this link says that Popper’s claim is that natural selection, equating adaptation to fitness, is non-predictive because all organisms must be adapted to their environments, else they would be extinct.
Correct.
The [Darwinist] rebuttal is that 1) the unfit are extinct 2) physically impossible changes will not occur along the chain of common descent and 3) new species descend from old species. 
Note that 1) is merely a restatement, not a prediction while 2) & 3) are trivial “predictions,” because they are not unique to the theory of natural selection.
Correct.
At this point, the link goes on to explain that fitness is defined causally, functionally, statistically a posteriori, not logically and semanticaly a priori.
Fitness is defined as survival. Fitness has no logical or a priori cache. If it survives (reproductively), it was fit. If not, not.
And besides that, fitness is not determininistic but dispositional. What is not clear is how fitness being those things makes it possible to make predictions. There have been a number of experiments that have successfully tested predictions about natural selection’s effects on gene frequencies but it seems that the difficulties in defining fitness in a way that you can predict/control makes them the exception rather than the rule in evolutionary science. 
The thing worth thinking about, is that Darwin provided masses of evidence in favor of natural selection decades before experiments that teased out a prediction could be performed. Science since has provided masses more.
Apologists for Darwinism who have reservations about the theory have an amusing rhetorical tic. They express the reservation, usually something obvious-- "fitness is not deterministic but dispositional. What is not clear is how fitness being those things makes it possible to make predictions."

They immediately follow the quite correct critical observation with 'Darwin was a genius of course and was right about everything'-- "Darwin provided masses of evidence... science has since provided masses more."

'Comrade Lenin wasn't precisely right about the State withering away... but he provided masses of genius since proven right by all science..."

When you are in the Darwinist congregation and you sing the wrong hymn, you need to make penance and lay an offering on the altar. Before you leave the church.

But they weren’t predictions.
Correct, Comrade. But Darwin sure provided masses of evidence...
You can use natural selection to explain vestigial organs. An organ is no longer adaptive, nature selects agains the waste of resources for it. The mechanics of genetics may not permit an easy way to simply erase the organ, but the slow increment of genetic changes diverts resources from the less fitting organ, it gets smaller and smaller, that is, vestigial. As the resources diverted become less cumbersome, however, the intensity of selection pressure becomes less and less. The vestigial organ can then survive indefintiely until the vagaries of genetic change do possibly succeed in erasing the last trace. 
Natural selection (particularly gene-selection) says traits are adaptive, increase fitness. We can explain fitness-decreasing vestigial organs as above, using supplementary hypotheses and contingencies that explain away the violation of this prediction.
Nice story. Darwinism has all sorts of stories.
We cannot predict which organs will become vestigial; we cannot predict which will finally disappear; we cannot predict for which a new function might be found; we can not statistically predict incidence of vestigialization, time for vestigialization, rates of vestigialization or intensity of natural selection against vestigial organs.
Darwin's theory can't predict which organs will become vestigial. So how does it explain why organs become vestigial?
But, rather than throw up our hands, isn’t the real clarification, not that natural selection is scientific because it is predictive, but, because it is explanatory of massive amounts of data.
Darwinism explains everything and predicts nothing. Name the other scientific theories that explain everything and predict nothing.
Charles Darwin made a convincing case for natural selection before the experiments. And the kind of evidence he presented has only been added to.
Natural selection can be understood in three ways:

1) A tautology
2) An acausual statistical inference about changes in gene frequency
3) A causual assertion as to how evolutionary changes occur.

Which definition of natural selection is buttressed by the evidence?
Even more to the point, if there are experiments confirming predictions of natural selection about speciation (instead of change in gene frequencies,) they are a well kept secret.
Refreshing honesty. Evidence for intermediate forms between species in the fossil record is virtually absent. For millions of species.
I suppose it is likely that eventually science will find a way to conduct such experiments.
Until then, is it ok if we just say that Darwin's theory of speciation isn't supported by the evidence?
But even if no one were ever ingeniuous enough to find the way, we already have quite a bit of evidence showing that natural selection is a major factor in novel speciation,
Speciation is very rarely observed, except in novels.

and overwhelming evidence it is the major factor in maintaining species morphology (the forgotten aspect of speciation?)
"Maintaining species morphology" means net absence of evolution. So natural selection is 'the major factor in maintaining the absence of evolution'.

You have to admire the gall.
Is throwing out a lot of straw about predictions inviting the Egnors to make straw men?

Johnson understands something Novella doesn't, aside from the science. He understands that the hyperbolic paeans to Darwin-- predicted everything, indispensable to biology, the basis for all medical research, the best idea anyone ever had, on and on-- don't advance the ideology. Darwinism is best served by indoctrination and silence. Ask questions in school, Darwinists don't argue. They call the police. As questions in academia, Darwinists don't debate. They ruin you.

Praise Darwinism effusively, and people will ask-- did it really predict that? Is it really indispensable to research? Isn't there any evidence against it?

Hagiography endangers Darwinian orthodoxy. Hagiography exposes Darwin's theory to scrutiny, which is the one thing it cannot withstand. 

9 comments:

  1. Heh, more entertainment from Mike!

    Darwin's theory can't predict which organs will become vestigial. So how does it explain why organs become vestigial?

    When are you going to finally get it that science does not deal with the why questions? It deals with how. Evolutionary biology explains how organs become vestigial, not why.

    And on a general note, a good example of allopatric speciation was found by Darwin himself: Galapagos finches. There are other examples as well, for instance the snapping shrimp on the two sides of the Isthmus of Panama are quite similar but do not interbreed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This lack of evidence for speciation is the explicit basis for the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium-- the theory that speciation occurs "off" of the fossil record, in tiny peripheral populations, that are invisible to paleontology.

    The truly hilarious thing about your blog is that you consistently attempt to opine on science that you clearly don't have the slightest understanding of.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael,

    I've previously on several occasions explained to you what punctuated equilibrium means; common widespread small marine invertebrates with shells persisting apparently unchanged for tens of millions of years, which then abruptly go extinct to be replaced by another common widespread small marine invertebrate with shells, which are often very similar. Due to climate change, such as volcanic activity.

    The new species were hanging on in an isolated area, because the 'old' climate didn't suit it. The 'new' climate did, so it now thrived. Potentially punctuated equilibrium is testable. All you need to do is to find the sedimentary rocks of the right age and type from the right area of the Earth, and speciation should be demonstrable there.

    Creationists mistakingly love punctuated equilibrium because mistakingly they think that it means that species in general were created suddenly, and so too were humans. They weren't. Over the past 6 million years, there have been at least 20 species of hominids, all of which, save one, have gone extinct.

    You don't like evolutionary biology because it disturbs your delusion of a loving God who cares about the fate of individual humans. Nature doesn't care about individuals, there are plenty others around, or even species, because again there are also plenty of species too, at least 10 billion at the last estimation. The natural history of all species to changing climate is to adapt (evolve), migrate or more usually go extinct (the fate of at least 99.9% of species).

    You need to work a little on your preferred theory of God did something, somewhere, somewhen, for unknown reasons and by unknown mechanisms. It lacks testability.

    There's no teleology in nature. There's no impulse to be the fastest, strongest or smartest. Birds that are indifferent fliers survive just as well in their niche as birds we think are superb fliers, such as the peregrine falcon (the fastest) or perhaps the albatross, which never lands for months at a time. Species can just as easily become less complex as more complex.

    ReplyDelete
  4. bach:

    [I've previously on several occasions explained to you what punctuated equilibrium means; common widespread small marine invertebrates with shells persisting apparently unchanged for tens of millions of years, which then abruptly go extinct to be replaced by another common widespread small marine invertebrate with shells, which are often very similar. Due to climate change, such as volcanic activity.]

    The absence of intermediates in evolution of small marine invertebrates (and every other species) is not "the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium:, The ToPE is a proposed explanation for the absence of evidence for intermediates. The ToPE has the amusing property of hypothesizing that there will be no evidence in the fossil record for intermediates between species. The evolution that does occur is postulated to occur in tiny rapidly evolving populations that move in after a big extinction and take over, leaving no trace of their own evolutionary change.

    Notice that for the ToPE to be true, there must by no evidence for Darwinian-type evolution at the species level. And guess what? There isn't any.

    So the ToPE must be true, because there's no evidence for evolution of species!

    You guys are funny.

    [Potentially punctuated equilibrium is testable. All you need to do is to find the sedimentary rocks of the right age and type from the right area of the Earth, and speciation should be demonstrable there.]

    The ToPE was proposed in 1972. "Potentially testable" is not impressive for a 40 year old theory. What in the hell are we paying evolutionary biologists to do, anyway?

    So you admit that the ToPE is not testable, now, and thus there is no evidence for it. (If there were evidence for it, it would be really-- not potentially-- testable, and it would have been tested, with confirmatory results.

    Your theory is crap, and you're a fool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all relative, Mike. You can call evolutionary biology crap all day long, but it's the only game in town. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory now and won't ever be. A designer can do whatever he likes, especially if he is omnipotent.

      Delete
    2. Michael,

      Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Punctuated equilibrium is potentially testable, in the same way that Neil Shubin set out to find Tiktaalik rosea in sedimentary rocks of estuarine type of the right age. You don't have any way of testing your hypothesis that God willed species into existence after allowing similar ones to go extinct.

      A lot of scientific theories, anyhow, aren't directly tested. Testing is indirect, making predictions about the implications if the theory is correct. For example, no one doubts that the Earth orbits the Sun and not the reverse. And this was realized even before interplanetary rockets were employed.

      As an exercise, how do you know that the Earth orbits the Sun? There's a simple way of proving it, an indirect way, requiring little material, not even needing for you to go outside. The Internet or any other reference source doesn't count.

      Actually you're clueless. There's plenty of evidence of 'Darwinian-type evolution at species level'. It's only at the genus level that there's no evidence - lions turning into tigers for example, which wouldn't be expected in evolutionary biology

      Delete
    3. Oleg,

      Although Michael claims not to be an ID proponent. What sort of creationist he actually is is a complete mystery.

      Delete
    4. The ToPE has the amusing property of hypothesizing that there will be no evidence in the fossil record for intermediates between species.

      No, it doesn't. That you think it does just exposes that you don't know the first thing about punctuated equilibrium, or evolutionary biology.

      Delete
  5. I just posted this ditty on the Faustian before I hopped on here.
    Thought it may give some of you a chuckle...
    Original post here:
    http://daily-faustian.blogspot.ca/2012/08/taco-smology.html

    Taco-smology


    I was hungry when I first wrote this, as I am now...
    And so you shall suffer a supper analogy!

    The Taco - according to....


    Darwinism: The really is no such thing as a 'taco', but simply variations on a evolving theme of sandwich or flat bread foods. From the regions producing grains and corns came a need to eat more efficiently and faster than other workers and this flat bread meal was assembled by the mechanisms of various food group mutations, combined with the dietary selection of the workers - eliminating the less tasty and desirable taco models from the tortilla pool as the less tasty taco eaters perished without reproducing.
    All this talk of restaurants, chefs, and reviews (and even 'Mexico'!!! LOL!!) is absolute childish fantasy. Tacos just happen.

    Intelligent Design: Obviously the Taco is a designed and functional food stuff. It has within it a complexity and interdependency of parts (ie the cilantro and the onions in perfect harmony). There is a taco, the taco eater knows this. How the demand and food stuff available shaped the physical form is only half the equation.
    What about the intelligence behind the taco?
    ID is not creationism: We concede the taco has adapted and evolved - but to a plan, a purpose, a RECIPE! If people want to believe in Mexico, we say the data supports the case for a recipe and a chef... Could there be a Mexico? That is matter of personal faith.

    Creationism: Thank you Lord God for allowing me to live in such an interesting time and place where there are tasty nutritious foods called tacos and diverse and interesting lands such as Mexico to explore.
    Oh! And thanks for the Cervezas too. Here's to you Big Guy!

    ReplyDelete