Outsider Meddling — Skeptics Need Not Apply (or, Just Have Faith)
| March 28, 2009 | Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design |
Someone by the name of skeech is cluttering up UD with impervious sophistry and wasting a lot of our time.
His/her latest thesis is that “according to biologists…” there is a “credible possibility that small incremental changes could have developed massive increases in biological information in a short time — followed by stasis.”
So, skeech assures us that “biologists” are universally agreed upon this proposition?
How about this and this?
Darwinian evolutionary theory is a boiling, ever-changing, amorphous cloud that is impenetrable and completely immune to critical analytical scrutiny. It was designed that way, for obvious reasons.
It should be noted that the “scientific” consensus in the early 20th century was the steady-state universe theory (that is, the universe is eternal, and has no beginning and no end). Those subscribing to the consensus were wrong (including Albert Einstein), and they put up a big fight until the end, when the evidence became overwhelming.
Continental drift theory was also ridiculed.
Wegener was the first to use the phrase “continental drift” (1912, 1915)… During Wegener’s lifetime, his theory of continental drift was severely attacked by leading geologists, who viewed him as an outsider meddling in their field.
The criticism we always hear from Darwinists is: Outsiders are not permitted to question the dogma, because they don’t understand the subtleties and the “science.”
The essence of Darwinian philosophy, presented as “science,” takes about 15 minutes to learn and understand: Random variation and natural selection explain everything — never mind the details, we’ll make up stories later to explain away the anomalies, contradictions, and improbabilities.
In the meantime, just have faith, and don’t ask any annoying questions.
This is not science, it’s religious indoctrination.
323 Responses to Outsider Meddling — Skeptics Need Not Apply (or, Just Have Faith)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dave Wisker (#255),
Thanks for your answer. My purpose here is not so much to introduce new data (although I will do so), but to point out the difficulty with falsifying evolution.
You mentioned, following Haldane, a Cambrian rabbit, or actually, IIUC, a Precambrian rabbit. You (#210) quoted me (#198) as asking if the falsification would be that easy:
(To be fair, this was addressed to Alan Fox, not to you.)
Your response was,
This outlines clearly your answer to my first paragraph but does not address the paragraph you quoted. My point is that in practice, evolutionary theory is not susceptible to such falsifications, because what actually happens is that the data is challenged, and what cannot be challenged is forced into the evolutionary scenario, which then adapts to the data. Your latest post (#255) demonstrates this process well.
Your first paragraph argues that the Salt Range is late Cambrian, not Precambrian. That’s my point B. You then quote someone else (Stewart and Rothwell) arguing that the spores are not really of the plants they appear to be (point A), and that they are really contaminants (a variant of point B). Earlier (#210), you had discounted the problem of a Jurassic rabbit, as evolutionary theory could presumably swallow that one easily (my point C). Presumably that is why you did not respond to the data on Triassic shore birds.
We now have Cambrian chordates, and even vertebrates, and it is unlikely that we would ever find a Cambrian rabbit for an entirely different reason, namely, that the Cambrian is largely marine, and early on mostly bottom-dwellers, and rabbits are simply not found at the sea bottom. They have some problems with respiration there, I think.
So Haldane proposed a very safe bet as his test of falsifiability.
You grant that the Salt Range is Cambrian. You argue that spores are not good enough. This understates the controversy. There were those who argued that the Salt Range was Tertiary because of plant fragments, not just spores. For example,
It might be helpful to read some of the details collected at http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html (BTW, not, AFAICT, a creationist or even ID site). In fact, I will quote the abstract:
This would appear to be roughly equivalent to a Cambrian rabbit.
There is further evidence of what looks like Precambrian rabbit tracks in the plant world. See R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, No. 5033 (April 16, 1966), pp. 292–294. (I am indebted to Sean Pitman for drawing my attention to these references.)
My point is not so much that I have proven that the theory of evolution is wrong, as that it is for practical purposes impossible to prove it wrong. Data can be disputed, and the theory is flexible enough to swallow most data anyway, and if all else fails we can put the data on a shelf and work with it later. The myth that evolution is a falsifiable theory should be laid to rest. The Cambrian rabbit, or even Precambrian rabbit, is not an adequate retort.
Hi Paul,
Sahni’s results were, as I pointed out by the reference to Bose, best explained as contamination, since numerous core drillings in the same area (which would not be subject to contamination) not only failed to find any modern plant remains, but only found plant remains consistent with Cambrian deposits throughout the world. That is why the geological consensus lies with a Cambrian age for those rocks. Had they found Tertiary plant remains, then I agree, the results would have been comparable to a preCambrian rabbit.
I’m familiar with that paper, and the subsequent controversy, which as far as I know, hasn’t been completely resolved.
A good theory should be difficult to prove wrong from a practical point of view. That’s because a good theory is built from a large base of well-supported data. We don’t expect a PreCambrian rabbit for very solid reasons: the data indicate the origin of mammals in much later strata. Not only that, all the geological and paleoecological data indicate the PreCambrian environment could not support mammals, never mind vascular plants. To accept the idea of such a rabbit requires abandoning numerous rich lines of converging, mutually supporting evidence from different disciplines. So, in practical terms, rare announcements (and they are very, very very rare) proclaiming the discovery of angiosperm pollen in PreCambrian rocks should be treated with considerable skepticism, especially when more prosaic explanations (such as contamination) are known to be problems.
In principle, if PreCambrian rabbits were found (especially in significant numbers), modern evolutionary theory (and several other disciplines as well) would probably have to be discarded. The fact that this is difficult to do in practical terms doesn’t change that. Nor should it.
Hi Dave,
I’m still blown away by the ease with which a leaf from an oak strongly resembling Oligocene Quercus clarnensis can be dismissed as contamination. Are there claims that such oaks live in India or Pakistan at the present? If not, how can one contaminate rock with this kind of fossil?
If a drill core finds such a leaf, would you at that point surrender to the “Cambrian rabbit”, or would you soldier on, knowing that there must be an answer consistent with evolutionary theory, even if you don’t know it and can’t hazard a guess as to what it might be? Your dismissal of the Precambrian stuff about which the “controversy, which as far as I know, hasn’t been completely resolved”, suggests that you have a pretty large shelf on which to put things that do not fit.
It is probably fair to note that ideological preference plays a large part in the evaluation of evidence in these cases. As you note, in principle, Precambrian rabbits would disprove evolutionary theory. In practice, it doesn’t happen.
I never knew that the infamous “rabbit in the Cambrian ” was a quote by Haldane. It pops us frequently but it is nice to know the origin of it.
This quip by Haldane is an admission that the theory is not falsifiable. While apparently dismissing objections to the theory on technical grounds that it is not falsifiable, the quip was supposed I guess to be an amusing put down of those who have objections. But in reality it is an admission that there is really no way to falsify the theory. If there were, then Haldane would have provided some real examples. The clever absurdity of the rabbit in the Cambrian was in reality a way to hide any serious attempt to discuss the issue.
It is typically used by people on this site as a way of mocking those who oppose the Darwinian paradigm. Interesting technique to avoid the serious. Mock the attempt to do so.
Paul Giem,
Forbidden Archaeology-
There is allegedly a mortar and pestle found in sediments allegedly 25 million years old.
And that is just one case.
Hi jerry,
This quip by Haldane is an admission that the theory is not falsifiable. While apparently dismissing objections to the theory on technical grounds that it is not falsifiable, the quip was supposed I guess to be an amusing put down of those who have objections. But in reality it is an admission that there is really no way to falsify the theory. If there were, then Haldane would have provided some real examples
Haldane’s quip was amusing, but in principle it was absolutely correct. Just because the theory would never expect to see such a thing has nothing to do with the theory being falsifiable. If the theory is wrong, then evidence supporting it (from such disciplines as basic geology and paleontology) could very well be wrong too. Finding a confirmed mammal fossil in what current paleontology tells us are PreCambrian rocks behooves us to make sure of the fossil itself and the evidence for the rocks being PreCambrian. We need to do this because so much of the evidence (fossil and geological) indicates otherwise. Should the evidence solidly indicate it, then a rethinking and possible abandonment of the theory and/or some of its supporting evidence might be necessary.
Hi Paul,
Contamination does not always mean from extant material. Intrusions from younger layers can insert themselves into areas where older layers have been pushed up, especually in geologically active areas. The Salt Range lies in one of the most geologically complex areas of the world, right where the Indian plate crashes into the Eurasian plate. In addition, salt deposits can move like glaciers, due to what is called salt tectonics. Did Pitman’s source mention teh paper by Bhardwaj (1950) in Nature who examined sandstone (6292) given by Sahni, to look for evidence of land plants (carbonized wood, etc)? His results:
Bhardwaj goes on to say:
So, what does Bhardwaj have to say about Ghosh’s findings?
Bhardwal DC (1950). Examination of the Magnesian Sandstone beds of the Punjab Salt Range for plant microfossils. Nature 4203: 821
As for the genus Quercus, several species are known in Asia, but not Q. clamensis. One report suggesting a leaf “strongly resembling” Q. clamensis isn’t exactly confirmation, now is it? In paleobotany, misidentification of plant fossils is an occupational hazard, (see Noe’s “Paleozoic Angiosperm” as one excellent example), so I’ll wait for confirmation before jumping to conclusions, especially since all confirmed fossils of Q. clamensis are found in North America, not Asia, as far as I’m aware. Do you think one unconfirmed sample is enough evidence to have botany textbooks changed to declare this species having existed in Asia? Is that how you think science should work?
How is recognizing that a controversy hasn’t been resolved a dismissal? I have a pretty large shelf, yes. But it isn’t full of unresolved samples. Its crammed with examples contradicting those very rare unresolved samples you are bringing up.
David Wisker,
By defending the absurdity of the Haldane quote you are admitting the same thing that Haldane did and that is that his theory of evolution had no basis in reality. You are deflecting from the basic issue by saying we have to be careful about rock formation and fossils and we will be ok. When neither of these two issues is relevant in the current debate and should not have been relevant when Haldane made the comment. The quote assumes that any evidence of deep time automatically dismisses alternatives and you basically support this subterfuge.
The alternative is not 6,000 year old creationism but the basic mechanism of evolution itself and thus the rabbit comment is an embarrassment to Haldane and an admission that he could not defend his theory. If he had better defenses he would have used them but instead went for the mocking of the opposition instead. And you proceeded with the same irrelevant argument.
Hi Jerry,
Hyperbole isn’t the best way to discuss a scientific issue, in my opinion.
No, that is not a deflection at all. I was very clear in saying that a good theory will be difficult to falsify in practice, especially one with as many converging and supporting lines of evidence from so many disciplines. But for a theory to be falsifiable in principle, there has to be some way, some data that can conceivably disconfirm it. Haldane chose his example because it was extreme, and it’s extreme because it would unravel many lines of supporting evidence at once, as I outlined. In practice it would be very difficult, given the large amount of evidence, to disconfirm evolution in one stroke. But, as I said, that doesn’t change the fact that evolution is falsifiable in principle, which is the issue, I believe.
Haldane simply took the inferences from the supporting lines of evidence for evolution and came up with an example which would disconfirm many of them in one stroke, and he did it with panache as well (have you ever seen that picture of him in that crazy suit?)
I’m having a hard time seeing where Haldane’s example has anything to do with “6,000 year old creationism”.
What he used was perfectly serviceable.
He’s not mocking the opposition. The failure of the opposition to adequately comprehend his example makes mockery unnecessary.
I suppose I’ll just have to look to the good Dr Samuel Johnson:
Jerry, if someone found a single error or contradiction in the Bible, would you consider Christianity to be disproven?
Because that’s essentially what you’re demanding of science.
Joseph, I beg to differ. From “the the standard and accepted definition”:
Isn’t the requirement of containment satisfied by the ToE?
Cabal,
If defining characteristics can be lost then containment is also lost.
And seeing that evolution does not have a direction and defining characteristics can be lost, then you can see that the ToE dopes not expect a nested hierarchy.
Also as a matter of fact the ToE does not say that defining charcteristics have to be added.
This means that with evolution we may expect to see only one set.
And one set does not make a nested hierarchy.
Then there is the issue of transitional forms- where to put them?
For example say we have species X as having ten defining charcteristics.
And we have species why which has ten different defining characteristics.
X & Y also have ten defining characteristics in common.
Now on the road to each of these there had to have been organisms which do not fit into either X & Y, but had a mix of X and Y.
Ya see with evolution the best one can hope for is a lineage of branching lineages.
And a lineage is never to be confused with a nested hierarchy.
Spin-art-
The pattern expected from evolution is pretty much the same pattern expected from spin-art- pretty much all over the place depending on the circumstances.
“Jerry, if someone found a single error or contradiction in the Bible, would you consider Christianity to be disproved?
Because that’s essentially what you’re demanding of science.”
What an inane comment. First of all if you check anyone around here I would be the last person to use the bible to support anything having to do with intelligent design and rarely comment on anything religious. So what has the comment about the bible and Christianity got to do with anything.
Second, what kind of convoluted reason led you to your comment. It doesn’t compute from what I said. I was showing how Haldane was avoiding the issue about how to falsify neo Darwinism with his comment and somehow this means I expect zero contradictions from the bible or else Christianity is disproved. Talk about silliness.
Dave Wisker (#315),
What you are doing is a great way of arguing that the evidence I cited does not disprove evolution. What it is not is a convincing way of arguing that evolution is susceptible to disproof.
I discuss the problem of contamination of macroscopic fossils, of plants that as far as I (and presumably you) know do not live in the area now, and you propose that those plants lived there previously and got buried and placed in the Cambrian sediment because the area is geologically active. You go on to say later that “since all confirmed fossils of Q. clamensis are found in North America, not Asia, as far as I’m aware.” Thus there is no evidence that there were these particular oaks in the Oligocene, or apparently at any other time, that lived in the area, but you still write it off to contamination.
You then minimize the problem thus: Bhardwal was unable to find microfossils similar to those apparently found by Sahni (who argued for a Cenozoic age IIRC), so the fossil (partial) oak leaf is “unconfirmed”, and then you ask,
To put it another way, we found the paw of a rabbit in the Cambrian. We now need to find more rabbit parts, because one rabbit in the Cambrian isn’t really enough.
You minimize the Precambrian angiosperm example from Venezuela as “those very rare unresolved samples you are bringing up.” Precisely how many Precambrian rabbits do we need to find to disprove evolution?
You state that
In physics this is not true. The reason a good theory is difficult to prove wrong in physics is that nature behaves in ways that the theory describes. If one could accelerate electrons reproducibly to the speed of light in a vacuum and beyond, relativity would collapse. Period. If someone were to show that a body were to accelerate towards another one at a rate disproportional to the inverse square of the distance between them, gravitation would collapse as a theory. In fact, it did so when the motion of Mercury did not fit the theory. Gravitation may be a useful approximation, but nobody believes it any more as a complete explanation. Perhaps evolution is a useful approximation, but does not explain everything. Can one not be a little more tentative about the complete adequacy of the theory?
Joseph,
“You are an intellectual coward…”
Do you want to be moderated Joseph? Don’t call names, don’t be disrespectful, or you will be.