[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[Barbarian]

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution. ~ Stephen Gould

Let's restore the part you (or more likely someone you mistakenly trusted) cut out of that statement:

(Gould continues)
Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.
Stephen J. Gould Evolution as Fact and Theory

D

o you agree with Gould – could perfection have been imposed by a “wise creator” as easily as it could have “evolved by natural selection”?

It's true. But the imperfections and jury-rigged evolved things that are suboptimal, those show what really happened. The highly-evolved and perfected things obscure what happened, because they could happen by evolution, or just be poofed into existence by magic. It's the not-yet perfect things that show the process at work.

If not, why not? How about the related question - can homology support common design as well as it does common ancestry?

No, for the reasons Gould makes clear here. You might want to look at my discussion with Sparrowhawke, regarding the suboptimal adaptations of many caterpillars, compared to the really good adaptations. A gradual trend toward better and better mimicry is demonstrated. Consistent with God the creator, but not some "designer" demiurge.

 

[zeke]

Barbarian observes:
That can be done without any fossils at all.



I'm pointing out that the evidence for common descent can show a lineage of all living things on Earth.

Only in Darwinian mythology and other bedtime stories. I thought we were discussing biological evolution. You do know the difference between science and metaphysics - right. The question continues to beg - can you or can you not take a line of fossils and show via the scientific method that they represent a lineage from tetrapods to humans?

 

[zeke]

Let's restore the part you (or more likely someone you mistakenly trusted) cut out of that statement:

Nothing is 'cut out', mate - the essay I referenced is on line in its entirety for anyone to read. The point made - in context - remains, "perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection". Do you agree with that statement?

 

[zeke]

No, for the reasons Gould makes clear here.

If Gould made the statement that homology can support common design as well as it does common ancestry was he in error? Do you agree with Francis Collins when he admitted that genetic similarity does not prove a common ancestor because an intelligent designer could have “used successful design principles over and over again�

 

[Sparkey]

Nothing is 'cut out', mate - the essay I referenced is on line in its entirety for anyone to read. The point made - in context - remains, "perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection". Do you agree with that statement?

"perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection". Do you agree with that statement?"

Sorry to but in, but I don't agree. What "perfection" are we talking about? That ideal was lost when man sinned and cannot be regained through "natural selection".

We are promised that restoration after the return of Jesus the King of Peace in the famous verse from Isaiah 11:6:
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatted calf together; and a little child shall lead them."

Job 5:23 For you will have a covenant with the stones of the field, and the wild animals will be at peace with you.

Isaiah 2:4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war
anymore.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

Hosea 2:18 In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.

 

[zeke]

Sorry to but in, but I don't agree.

Clarification please - what is it exactly that you do not agree with? Do you not agree that perfection could have be imposed by a wise creator or do you not agree that perfection could have evolved by natural selection? Is the "promised restoration" noted in Isaiah 11 literal or allegorical as it relates to the natural world?

 

[Barbarian]

Zeke tries quote-mining again:

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.

~ Stephen Gould

Barbarian chuckles:
Let's restore the part you (or more likely someone you mistakenly trusted) cut out of that statement:

(Gould continues)
Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.
Stephen J. Gould Evolution as Fact and Theory

Nothing is 'cut out', mate

It's right above. You (or more likely whoever misled you) cut it out of the essay to make it appear that Gould believed things he did not. Notice, in the part that was edited out, Gould says the same thing I've been telling you.

the essay I referenced is on line in its entirety for anyone to read.

Just so we all know, I put the next paragraph up so the deception is obvious.

The point made - in context - remains, "perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection".

But as Gould writes (in the part you didn't show us) the imperfections show the fact of evolution.

Do you agree with that statement?

 

[Barbarian]

"perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection". Do you agree with that statement?"

Sparrowhawke writes:
Sorry to but in, but I don't agree. What "perfection" are we talking about?

Actually, biologist prefer "optimal." Which means "the best under the circumstances." Highly evolved and fitted features are optimal. Human hands, for example, are optimal for grasping and manipulating objects. Austalopithecine hands are slightly less so, and ape hands much less so. And yes, there is anatomical data for that.

The point is that we can learn more about evolution from suboptimal structures than optimal ones.

 

[Sparkey]

(Thanks for the explaination, Barbarian - that makes sense)

Henry Gee's book, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life," can be found online here: Beyond the Fossil Record

It was a challenging read. Barbarian? Have you read it? His basic idea is that we cannot scientifically state that there is any proof of direct ancestry between fossils that are separated by such vast amounts of time. He discusses the science of cladistics as a way of arranging evidence rather than constructing trees of ancestry.

The book seems to go counter to your arguments and I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. I'm still reading it, and it's a worthwhile read, but I don't think I'm grounded enough in the subject to be able to have a perspective that is my own.

 

[zeke]

You (or more likely whoever misled you) cut it out of the essay to make it appear that Gould believed things he did not.

Lol - are you saying Gould was self-deceived when he noted correctly that "perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection" or did he mean what he wrote? Please explain your misunderstanding of his words? Are you saying perfection could not have been imposed by a wise creator? Please explain why you would think this. Do you have science that would prove Gould's statement to be in error?

 

[zeke]

(Thanks for the explaination, Barbarian - that makes sense)

Henry Gee's book, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life," can be found online here: Beyond the Fossil Record

It was a challenging read. Barbarian? Have you read it? His basic idea is that we cannot scientifically state that there is any proof of direct ancestry between fossils that are separated by such vast amounts of time. He discusses the science of cladistics as a way of arranging evidence rather than constructing trees of ancestry.

The book seems to go counter to your arguments and I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. I'm still reading it, and it's a worthwhile read, but I don't think I'm grounded enough in the subject to be able to have a perspective that is my own.

Do you think the facts that Gee presents in his work would be in conflict with Barbarian's notion that he can take a line of fossils and show via the scientific method that they represent a lineage from tetrapods to humans? Do you think humans are descended from tetrapods?

 

[Sparkey]

Do you think the facts that Gee presents in his work would be in conflict with Barbarian's notion that he can take a line of fossils and show via the scientific method that they represent a lineage from tetrapods to humans? Do you think humans are descended from tetrapods?

I've just made it through the introduction of the book and you're asking for my analysis? I'm no expert. The book clearly makes a distinction between the stories that people tell (that are not scientifically supported) and the evidence.

Here's an example from page 8 of the introduction:

Whether you believe the conventional wisdom that our own species Homo spaiens descended in seamless continuity from the preexisting species Homo erectus depends not on the evidence (because the fossil evidence is moot) but on the deferment of your lack of knowledge to the authority of the presenter or whether the presentation of the evidence resonates with your prejudices. The assumption of authority is profoundly, mischievously, and dangerously unscientific. It conflicts with how we are taught science from our earliest years, that the scientific method should be rigorously democratic; that statements from authorities in a field should be subject to scrutiny as those emanating from the most humble sources, even a beginning student. Nobody should be afraid to ask a silly question.

He goes on to discuss "what scientists find out is conditioned at least as much by their cultural heritage as by objective reality," and says, "It is hard to argue with this point of view, borne out, for example by the way our approach to fossils has changed over the ages."

 

[zeke]

Actually, biologist prefer "optimal." Which means "the best under the circumstances." Highly evolved and fitted features are optimal. Human hands, for example, are optimal for grasping and manipulating objects. Austalopithecine hands are slightly less so, and ape hands much less so. And yes, there is anatomical data for that.

And that anatomical data can support common design - yes?.

 

[Barbarian]

It was a challenging read. Barbarian? Have you read it? His basic idea is that we cannot scientifically state that there is any proof of direct ancestry between fossils that are separated by such vast amounts of time.

I hope he didn't use "proof", unless he was making the point that science is inductive, and never involves logical certainty. All scientists with any knowledge of epistemology would tell you that science proves nothing. It only shows things to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

He discusses the science of cladistics as a way of arranging evidence rather than constructing trees of ancestry.

That is the point of cladistics. It uses the principle of parsimony to find the commonalities. This is what Linnaeus did, inadvertently. The point is that such nested hierarchies are only found in cases of common descent.

The book seems to go counter to your arguments and I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.

I hope that was Gee's argument, in which case we agree. If he says that science can "prove" things, or that the investigations of biologists are somehow different than those of other scientists, I'd have to conclude he's stuffed with prunes. I suspect the former, since Gee seems to admit the fact of common descent.

Moreover, the fossil record in itself is not conclusive evidence. Indeed, Darwin hardly mentioned it, depending on other evidence. And the relatively few cases where we can trace a lineage step by step, are not nearly as important as the large numbers of predicted transitional fossils (and of course, none at all where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any). This is compelling evidence.

I'm still reading it, and it's a worthwhile read, but I don't think I'm grounded enough in the subject to be able to have a perspective that is my own.

If I remember correctly, you have a pretty good understanding of philosophy. Have you read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I wouldn't buy all of his ideas, but he has some insights into the way a change in thinking can illuminate things that seemed formerly impenetrable.

Perhaps telling you about a difficulty I've had will help. As you know, there has been a lot of evidence coming in on dinosaurs around the time birds appeared. Lots of feathered dinosaurs, intermediates with lungs like birds and bones that are pneumatized, and so on. So it looks like Huxley's prediction was right. But a few scientists, like Alan Feduccia, think that it's birds and dinos with a common thecodont ancestor. And there's some evidence for that; a thecodont reptile with "sceathers", and the issue of which digit was actually reduced in birds and dinos (or possibly different ones).

I'm largely of the opinion that birds are descended from dinosaurs, but I can't yet rule out Feduccia's idea. Both ideas are working hypotheses in my mind, and I evaluate other evidence, keeping both in mind. Genetic evidence does limit birds to the archosaurs, like crocodiles, and the genetic/biochemical nature of bird and reptile scales again only indicates a common archosaurian descent (thecodonts were archosaurs, as were dinosaurs, pterosaurs, crocodilians, and birds).

Does that help?

 

[Barbarian]

And that anatomical data can support common design - yes?.

In theory, it could. But reality shows us something quite different. We see new structures being modeled out of old ones, like fins to legs and legs to arms, diggers, wings, and fins again.

That sort of thing. Any human engineer could figure out a way to avoid human spinal problems. So, you can understand why Christians would be skeptical of the Unification Church, whose dogma is "god the designer."

 

[Barbarian]

Lol - are you saying Gould was self-deceived when he noted correctly that "perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection"

To the degree that perfection is not what we see in creation. Optimality is sometimes evolved, but no perfection. The point is in the part you removed, where Gould points out that the less optimal forms are more useful in understanding how evolution works.

Please explain your misunderstanding of his words?

As you see, when the excised part of his statement is restored, it makes sense.

Are you saying perfection could not have been imposed by a wise creator?

Could have, but He chose to do it another way.

Please explain why you would think this.

His evidence He shows us.

Do you have science that would prove Gould's statement to be in error?

As you see, Gould had it right. You just removed part of it. Or perhaps someone fooled you. But as you see, when the statement is restored, it's not what you presented it to be.

Again, it's quite possible someone did it to you, and you are entirely innocent in this attempted deception.

 

[Barbarian]

He goes on to discuss "what scientists find out is conditioned at least as much by their cultural heritage as by objective reality," and says, "It is hard to argue with this point of view, borne out, for example by the way our approach to fossils has changed over the ages."

For example, Darwin was outlawed in the Soviet Union because it contradicted Marxist beliefs, and Stalin saw the industrialists in it's English origins.

But Gee hopefully acknowledged new information coming available, had far more impact on our understanding of fossils than changing times. I don't buy the postmodern idea that reality is whatever we make of it.

 

[zeke]

I hope he didn't use "proof", unless he was making the point that science is inductive, and never involves logical certainty. All scientists with any knowledge of epistemology would tell you that science proves nothing. It only shows things to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

To which scientific 'theory of beyond truth' are your referring? Has science proven that the Earth is a sphere?

hat is the point of cladistics. It uses the principle of parsimony to find the commonalities. This is what Linnaeus did, inadvertently. The point is that such nested hierarchies are only found in cases of common descent.

Nested hierarchies can also be evidences for a common designer. If not, why not?

I hope that was Gee's argument, in which case we agree. If he says that science can "prove" things, or that the investigations of biologists are somehow different than those of other scientists, I'd have to conclude he's stuffed with prunes. I suspect the former, since Gee seems to admit the fact of common descent.

You are still grossly misunderstanding Gee's point regarding fossil lineages.

 

[zeke]

For example, Darwin was outlawed in the Soviet Union because it contradicted Marxist beliefs, and Stalin saw the industrialists in it's English origins.

Over simplification. Stalin outlawed almost everything and sent almost everyone to the gulags - or worse. Vladimir Lenin loved Darwinism and it finally became the state religion after 1961.

 

[zeke]

I don't buy the postmodern idea that reality is whatever we make of it.

And yet you accept Darwinian myth as reality - go figure.