Dino’s Whiplash
| April 2, 2009 | Posted by Tim under Comp. Sci. / Eng., Culture, Evolution, Just For Fun, Philosophy |
A short article in the popular press reports that certain sauropods with long necks could not have held those necks upright. I read the article, leaned back in my chair and did a lot of serious thinking. . .
I don’t actually know (or care) much about dinosaurs but wondered about the relationship between evolutionary stories and the “long-neckedness” of some of these creatures. I thought it might be interesting to discuss the explanatory strength of such theories of evolution in light of this new discovery. First, two stipulations:
1. For now, let’s go with good ol’ neo-Darwinism, no Lamarckism, or other sidelights. Let’s just assume that neck after neck got longer and higher as random mutations in genetic information for “long-neckedness” conferred a selective advantage, i.e. access to more food higher up, for some of the luckier sauropods.
2. Let’s also say that the referenced article was like, totally peer-reviewed, man, and published by the most prestigious “Journal of Scientific Excellence,” not on Yahoo! where I actually happened across it. 
Ok, so Mr. Seymour ran some numbers and found out that a dino-heart for these long-, and upright-necked creatures would have to be as strong as a cement boom pump! Look, his numbers are right: they were vetted! I exaggerated, but if not a boom pump, well, close enough. Cement-boom-pump-hearts and even hearts that maintain dino-consciousness are out of the question for upright eight meter necks.
I note that Mr. Seymour is an evolutionary biologist, and evolutionary biologists aren’t precluded from using techniques from other fields to further their research. That’s as may be. What I don’t get is where evolution played a role in Mr. Seymour’s use of engineering concepts. Notice that thus far, I have been unencumbered by reading his paper found in “Biology Letters”. As an advocate for ID, I am tempted to wonder aloud about how much evolutionary verbiage was attached to or meant to be foundational to the original paper. Let’s just suppose it was the standard amount.
Why didn’t the “alleged” foundational evolutionary theory, if any, make it over to my “Journal of Scientific Excellence”, i.e. the popular news article?
Here is my point. The evidence that “points necks in a new direction” is derived from engineering, i.e. design. The explanatory power is found in the engineering. I am unencumbered by any firsthand knowledge of how evolution was supposed to have explained the occurrence of upright sauropod necks, so I am curious to know if a simple engineering-based research paper has now overturned all of that evolutionary information. I doubt it. Somehow, I think the story will just be re-imagined.
I would prefer that the discussion not focus on prior competing evolutionary theories concerning dino-necks. Rather, I am interested in the relative strength of engineering concepts versus evolutionary theory in terms of explanatory power for the occurrence of upright and non-upright dino-necks.
I understand that it may be an oversimplification to say that the selective advantage was to reach higher in the canopy, but that is what the general population has been “taught.” Also, there are currently stories about that explain how the long necks of some dinosaurs would help them hunt while in water, but that has no bearing on what has been “taught” concerning the upright-necked herbivorous sauropods.
If, because of engineering (read design) research, the “upright” hypothesis is not sustainable, how easily are Darwinists “allowed” to dump it for another? If moving to a new theory is easy, how much stock are we to put to the old theory’s explanatory power? What did it explain, and how did that explanation move neo-Darwinism up the epistemic ladder of explanatory power? How many rungs down should it move now?
The lack of internal consistency and any sort of staying power is remarkable, so as for explanatory power, when waxing official over the fossil record, the whole story of evolution becomes nothing more than a game of Chutes and Ladders.
Looking back over this, I see that I have interspersed hypothesis, theory, analogy, story and such. I would prefer that comments not overly focus on my failure to write with precision. But, to each his own . . .
Khan (#29),
Thanks for your comments. They are revealing.
If one believes in astrology, one believes that the position of the stars influences human personality and behavior. That’s what astrology is. Whether those influences exist is at least theoretically a testable question. That makes it science (perhaps bad science, but science).
What you’re saying is that if you ran academia, scientists could believe in astrology as long as they didn’t actually believe in it. What would happen if a scientist tested an astrological theory? Would you allow publication of the results only as long as the results showed that astrology was discredited? If so, what good are such cherry-picked results in discrediting astrology? Can’t you see that this way of proceeding reduces science to precisely what postmodernists claim science is? Science then does become nothing more than a power struggle, and loses all valid claims to truth.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe in astrology. But if astrology doesn’t lose in a fair fight, it can’t be truly said to have lost.
I see. Anyone that believes that an “intelligent force” can do anything, or even suggests such a force, must be banned from the scientific community. You must have hated Star Wars!
(Or maybe it’s okay as long as we are doing make-believe. 
)
Let’s tease that apart.
1. Should SETI researchers be banned from the scientific community? (They do believe in intelligent forces that are empirically detectable.)
2. Should believers in panspermia be banned from the scientific community? If Fred Hoyle came up for tenure, or Chandra Wickramasinghe, or Francis Crick, and your vote decided, would you a) allow them because otherwise they are good scientists, b) count it against them but let them pass if their credentials were otherwise excellent enough to outweigh this flaw, or c) deny tenure regardless of their other accomplishments and abilities? After all, Dawkins thought that an extraterrestrial origin of life, as long as the extraterrestrials were naturalistic, was “an intriguing possibility”.
3. Should believers in God be banned? If Francis Collins or Kenneth Miller came up for tenure, would you pass them, make them jump through extra hoops, or fail them?
4. Should believers in an interventionist God be banned? If Guillermo Gonzalez (who didn’t even challenge evolution in the biological world) came up for tenure, would you pass him, make him jump through extra hoops, or fail him?
5. Should believers in young earth creation be banned? If Isaac Newton came up for tenure, would you pass him, make him jump through extra hoops, or fail him?
After you have thought about those questions, may I suggest a possible policy. In the movie Expelled, William Provine is quoted as saying he doesn’t care what people believe as long as they understand the theory. His actions at Cornell, where he teaches a course and invites various members of opposing viewpoints to present with him, suggests that he really means this. Stephen J. Gould actually allowed a YEC (Kurt Wise) to get his Ph.D from Harvard. Is it really that wrong to allow tolerance and plurality into science, and put the lie to the claim that it’s all about power and not about truth?
Paul,
Here is the deal. being a scientist is about two things: getting grant money and publishing papers. if you don’t do those things, you get fired or become a full-time teacher or administrator.if you can do those things, you can believe in whatever you want. if you can find a way to research astrology and get funded and published, good for you. it would be extremely hard to do, bc astrology has been debunked numerous times already, so it would be a foolish thing for, say, an untenured professor to do. despite your reading into my words, all i’m saying is that if you want to be a professional scientist you have to do science. your beliefs are irrelevant.
I appreciate all of the comments. I will be closing down the comments for this thread now as I feel that we have adequately if not comprehensively discussed the matter. Special thanks to Timothy V Reeves for an openness that speaks to his character and to Paul Giem for writing what I meant!