dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/21/85)
In response to my article on the "Honesty" topic, Greg Kuperberg writes: > Firstly, in my article, I was not talking about "some creationists" or > even "a creationist". I was talking about Mr. Alan Ray Miller himself. > My posting was no guilt by association. It was a direct accusation... > ... > Since you're discussing my charges of dishonesty (and Bill Jefferys'), > please look for dishonesty in our writings rather than Mr. Patterson's. Greg, when I submitted my posting, I did not have your article, or indeed any particular article in mind; I was thinking of the topic in general. However, I will respond here to the invitation to discuss your charges of dishonesty. At the outset, however, let me say that you seem to expect me to show that *you* are dishonest. I'm not going to do that. I see no need to do so. But neither do I think that you are correct in your assessment of Ray's article, particularly in the accusatory manner in which many of your remarks are framed. Some of my general reasons for this were presented in the previous article. More specific reasons may be found below. --------- > [Greg Kuperberg] > Dear Mr. Miller (an open letter): > In your SOR pamphlets, you usually cite all of these sources which I > haven't read, and thus I cannot dispute what you claim that the > paleontologists say. SOR pamphlet #4, however, is different. I happen to > be taking a course from Steven Jay Gould, and I am well acquainted with his > essays, the lectures from which the essays are derived, and his view of > natural history. Thus, I will first present what his case for punctuated > equilibrium is about. > Professor Gould started off by talking about Darwinism. He noted that > Darwin was a gradualist, and that gradualism was not a necessary part of > the theory [of] evolution, or even a necessary part of the theory of natural > selection. In fact, Huxley made this very point in his oft-quoted > letter to Darwin about evolution. He said, roughly, "Look, it's going to > be hard enough for you to convince people that natural selection is the > driving mechanism of evolution, so why throw in gradualism with it?" Gradualism may not be necessary, but as a vital part of evolutionary theory in the minds of many, it is subject to criticism. While one may not agree with the criticisms, it is incorrect to say that evolution may not be attacked by attacking gradualism. It may, because evolution subsumes gradualism. We in this newsgroup might distinguish the punctuationalists and the gradualists, but does the general public, or even most educated people? No. Since the intended audience for the pamphlets (college undergraduates) lies mainly within the latter group, your point has some merit but is overstated. If Ray had discussed gradualism with the purpose of implying that all evolution is gradualistic and that there are no evolutionary alternatives, then yes, that would be improper. But he discussed it because that's what most people think of when they think of evolution; there is nothing wrong with that. Also, don't forget that punctuationalism also depends on gradualism; just not exclusively. If gradualism goes, PE has a hard time of it as well. > Anyway, a decade or so ago Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge proposed a > non-gradualistic model of evolution. Whereas in the standard theory, > evolution might look like this: [Greg supplied diagrams here, I have left them out--pd] Fine, Gould and Eldredge propose an alternative to gradualism. Ray proposes another. But notice that by retreating (or advancing) to punctuated equilibrium, you only lend support to Ray's contentions regarding gradualism. So you help him to prove his point. > There are a bunch of technical reasons, which I won't go into, as to why it > might look this, but in any case, the point is that evolution is like a > staircase rather than an inclined plane. From looking at the above > picture, you can see that on a five-million year scale, speciation is > abrupt and without warning, while on a thirty-million year scale, it is > not; there are definite trends and lineages. Professor Gould repeatedly > emphasized this point in lecture. You may draw all the pictures you want, but it would be more convincing to bring up a few of the actual cases leading to the inference that the punctuationalist picture has some basis in fact. You must know what they are if you sat under Gould's tutelage. Frazetta [1970], with his argument that it's adaptive for snakes to have broken jaws would be a good candidate. Also, keep in mind your statement that "there are definite trends and lineages"; I will bring this up later. > Now let's look at some of what the SOR pamphlet says: >> [Ray Miller] >> Evolutionists believe that all life forms descended from the same source. >>If this is true,then the fossil record should show the various kinds of plants >>and animals converging to a common source. Creationists, on the other hand, >>believe that all life forms have always been separate,with only limited poten- >>tial for viable variations. If this is true, then the fossil record should >>show life appearing suddenly,with no evidence of gradual step-by-step develop- >>ment through transitional forms... > While the genealogies in the fossil record are usually incomplete, they are > not non-existent. Even if there are gaps, it doesn't mean that there are > zero intermediate forms, just that there are not very many of them. You can > see this clearly from the chart above. Yes, you can, but as I said, a drawing doesn't prove a thing. You cite no specific instances, provide no references, and in general fail to back up your assertions except with more assertions. Please try again. > Also, you are (probably > deliberately) confusing the two meanings of "all at once". "Species appear > all at once" can mean either: 1) they all appear suddenly *and at the same > time*, or 2) they all appear suddenly, but not necessarily at the same > time. You further fog the issue by using the term "life" rather than "each > species" or "all life forms". Look at the chart for more insight. Either 1) or 2) would be consistent with creation, and there *are* creationists of both persuasions. (You will not, I trust, require us to be a monolithic group, since you insist that evolutionists not be so characterized?) So this objection is irrelevant or at least misdirected. I would suggest therefore that the accusations "deliberately confusing" and "fogging the issue" are overly strong, and unwarranted. >> Each time a particular kind of plant or animal appears in the fossil >>record, it does so fully formed, with no evidence of transitional forms indi- >>cating how it evolved. Gaps are large, systematic, and continuous throughout >>the fossil record, confirming the predictions of the creation model... >>Even the prominent Stephen Gould wrote: ``The extreme rarity of transitional >>forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The >>evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and >>nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the >>evidence of fossils'' [5]. Relying upon ``inference'' and ``not the evidence'' >>is not the mark of an objective scientist. > Professor Gould was leading up to punc. eq., which is a beautiful attempt > to resolve the whole issue of gaps, which in turn do not contradict > evolution. How could you miss punctuated equilibrium if you read Steven > Jay Gould's article? Why did you take his quote out of context? Sounds > like intellectual dishonesty to me. "Which in turn do not contradict evolution"? Clearly at one time it was thought that they *did*. For example, Darwin thought so. Others must, too. Why else should Gould (Eldredge, Agar, Stanley ...) be so concerned to explain them? If they do not contradict evolution, it is only *after* Gould gets done, not before he starts, because the gaps *do* conflict with the gradualist orthodoxy, and this, again, is what evolution means to many people. "Intellectual dishonesty" is not a valid charge here. > Lastly, objective scientists can use > inference all they want, as long as there is evidence. You fog the issue > again by implicity assuming that evidence and inference are mutually > exclusive. Surely you know better. You are correct, scientists can use inference all they want, as long as it is consistent with observation. I believe Ray is saying that the inferences he was discussing are made in spite of what one would infer *from* the observations, i.e., based on the fossil record. (I think this could have been made more clear in the pamphlet.) Gould is in agreement with that conclusion, if not with creationists in general. ("Culteral and methodological preferences had as much influence upon any decision as the actual data ... In exposing its culteral and methodological roots, I wish on no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never 'seen' in the rocks." [1977, p. 12,13]) If he doesn't like being quoted for saying things that creationists agree with, well, that's too bad. He shouldn't say them (but see note [1]). >> The famous horse series is often found in museums as one of the classic >>cases of evolution. However, the observer is not usually told that all of the >>various forms appear suddenly in the fossil record, the presumed reduction in >>the number of toes has many contradictions in order,Eohippus is almost identi- >>cal to the living African hyrax, and that modern horses have been found in the >>same strata with their supposed ancestors. In fact, as more fossil evidence is >>collected, it becomes clear that all of these various animals did not evolve, >>but were merely contemporaries of each other... > The horse series looks just like the model picture that I gave above. If > you look at the picture above, you can clearly see that some species are > almost identical to their ancestors, and ancestral species can coexist with > their modified descendants. Evolution is a *branching bush*, not a ladder. > Stephen Jay Gould often emphasizes this. How could you miss it in his > article? To a certain extent you and Ray are simply offering differing interpretations of agreed-on facts (the agreement consisting of the acknowledgement that gradualism is not shown by the record). In other ways you and Ray assert that the facts themselves are different (the disagreement being whether the record shows a bush or not). Gradualists of course assert that they are different than *either* of you suggest. As to what those facts *are*, neither you nor Ray present a sufficiently detailed base upon which to make a determination as to which is correct. But I do think that Ray did make an attempt to give some examples of aspects of the fossil record that are not consistent with the orthodox account, and I find that preferable to proof by "look at the picture". In light of this, I certainly do not think that charges of dishonesty are warranted. One could, if one wished, assert that you are giving a proof-by-handwave, regurgitating your educational input. Whether this would be deliberate or through simple failure to check what you were spoon-fed, I do not know. As neither alternative is particularly attractive, I will refrain from suggesting it. >> Not all evolutionists, however, are so quick to again repeat the mistakes >>of the past. For example, Charles Oxnard's multivariate statistical analysis >>indicates that Australopithecus probably did not walk upright and was not on >>the main human lineage [9]. Furthermore, posture is not critical to the dis- >>cussion, as the living pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus spends a great deal of >>time walking upright. > Since human evolution is also a branching bush, *no species* is on the main > human lineage. Furthermore, the chimp can walk on two feet, but one could > hardly call it upright. You confuse (probably deliberately again) walking > on two feet with walking with a straight posture. You stated previously that there are "definite trends and lineages". Are there? Or not? What do you mean? >> In fact, the fossil record so strongly supports the creation model's pred- >>ictions, that Solly Zuckerman conceded that if humans had evolved from some >>ape-like creature,then they had done so ``without leaving any fossil traces of >>the steps of the transformation'' [10]. > That may or may not be true. You overlook the fact a chimpanzee is > physiologically very close to a human. This seems to imply that the lack of a trace is illusory, that it's there and we just don't know it because we couldn't tell the difference between the two species. I find this immensely implausible in view of the tendency of paleontologists to split hairs, multiplying species at the drop of a hat and making fine distinctions on little evidence to support their own particular view of ancestry. This has been generally noted by, for instance: Theodosius Dobzhansky [1962, p. 171]: "A minor but rather amazing difficulty for a biologist is the habit human paleontologists have of flattering their egos by naming each find a new species, if not a new genus. This causes not only needless cluttering of the nomenclature, but it is seriously misleading because treating as a species what is not a species beclouds some important issues." Robert Eckhardt [1972, p. 96]: Notes problem of splitting, caused by paleontologists making fine distinctions on little evidence, and failing to properly recognize morphological variability of living species. "[A]re there any grounds for assuming that morphological evidence alone makes it possible to draw a valid distinction between the majority of these early hominids and some ancestral hominid that may be concealed among them? In view of the morphological variability among living hominoids, I think not. It would appear that, by scarcely considering the role of variability in evolution, paleontologists have emphasized taxonomic 'splitting' at a time when the record of man's animal ancestry might better be clarified by considerable 'lumping'." For some specifics: J T Robinson [1965]: Gets on Louis Leakey's case for inventing a new species of the genus Homo [1964], without apparently even being very sure about it himself. Robinson feels he should have exercised more reasonable caution. Also raises the same point as Eckhardt, that inter-species dental variation in living human populations is greater than some inter-*genus* variations (between Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Homo erectus, where those groupings are based on paleontologists' estimations). So some of the fine distinctions made on the basis of dental characteristics are likely quite specious. Louis Leakey [1970]: Gets on Pilbeam's case for "recognizing" a "previously unidentified" mandible in the British Museum as belonging to Ramapithecus [Pilbeam, 1969]. The identification was made on the basis of dentition and jaw structure. Leakey observed that Pilbeam must not have had a very good memory, since the mandible *had* been identified before, as Dryopithecus - by Pilbeam! Pilbeam had even gone so far as to say then that the jaw could not possibly be Ramapithecus. I guess it's allowable to change your mind, but it might be held that Pilbeam was not very honest in turning around and acting like he never heard of the thing before. Simons and Pilbeam [1965, p. 81]: To top it all off, Pilbeam gets on *everyone's* case. In reference to dryopthecine naming, for instance: "There has been a tendency to diagnose new material as new genera and species usually for reasons which are untenable by the criteria of modern systematics. That is, posited new taxa have not been compared adequately with the closest previously known species." > And even if evolution > did not happen, it doesn't mean creation. And even if creation were true, > it doesn't mean Biblical creation, which is what the creationist textbooks > use. This strict dichotomy between Darwin and Genesis is the most > unscientific part of the creationist pap, and it makes a large number of > Christians very disappointed when you consider the Bible a book about > science instead of a book about morality. Was Genesis mentioned in SOR4? I will make an observation here that I would like non-creationists reading this to consider carefully. It has been objected a number of times that the creationists set up an artificial, unnecessary and false dichotomy between Darwin and Genesis, presenting the view that evolution equals gradualism. Now, remembering that I have defended discussion of evolution in these terms on the grounds that for large numbers of people, the equivalence is where they're at, I also know that likewise when most people think of creationism, they think "Genesis", and so I cannot really complain too much if people characterize creationism that way, and criticize it as such. Fair's fair. But let me ask you non-creationists this question: if we creationists are to take your objection seriously and discuss different evolutionary views (e.g., gradualism, punctuationalism, neo- Lamarckianism, etc.) in terms of their relative merits and weaknesses, are you going to do *your* homework and treat different creationist views (e.g., young/old earth, progressive/instant creation, geocentrism (ugh!), etc.) on *their* relative merits and weaknesses? Or are you going to continue to trot out Genesis as a club to beat over the head those of us who never use it as an argument? From what I have seen on this net and read elsewhere, I wonder how many non-creationists even know there *is* more than one creationist view? Bill Jefferys does. Anybody else? I realize that I'm perhaps a bit disingenuous in writing the above few paragraphs, since I haven't presented *any* particular creationist view, even though I've been challenged to, and often. Guilty as charged! It gives me great trepidataion, though, to discover what amazing propositions non-creationists expect me as a creationist to defend, on a scientific basis of course. Like the problem of evil. > Now for some scolding. Half of my reply can be found in Stephen Jay > Gould's writings on punctuated equilibrium, and most of the rest can be found > in his other essays, never mind the other authors that you cited. You have > misrepresented the man's theory; you have taken his sentences out of > context; you have changed the meanings of the words of his sentences. If > you read the above-mentioned book about morality carefully enough, you'll > know that you're not supposed to misrepesent others, if even if you oppose > them. I would like to see you post his essay in full in net.origins, so > the others can also see how you operate. I strongly suspect that you > are doing the same thing to the other evolutionists as well. You wanted > suggestions? Quit writing these stupid pamphlets and sell shoes instead. Gould's theory wasn't misrepresented, because it wasn't *represented*, for reasons already discussed. Are Gorczynski and Steele similarly misrepresented? How about Prigogine, or Ho and Saunders? Besides, if Gould's quote was really taken out of context, you have failed to demonstrate that it means anything substantially different than was implied in Ray's article. You might have said, for instance, that intermediates are generally missing at the species level but that they abound between higher-order groups. But you didn't. And, frankly, in the reference in question, neither did *Gould*. So I find myself unable to work up much enthusiasm for the "out of context" objections. Another thing: If you're so anxious to have Gould's essay on the net, *you* can type it in. You are, after all, the one making the accusation of dishonesty. Is the plaintiff required to prove his charges true, or does the defendent have to prove that anything the plaintiff comes up with is false? --- References [1] T Dobzhansky, "Mankind Evolving". Yale University Press, New Haven, 1962. [2] Robert B Eckhardt, "Population Genetics and Human Origins". Scientific American, 226(1), Jan 1972, 94-102. [3] Tom Frazetta, "From Hopeful Monsters to Bolyerine Snakes?" American Naturalist, 104(935), 1970, 55-72. [4] Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace". Natural History, 86(5), May 1977, 12-16. [5] L S B Leakey, P V Tobias, J R Napier, "A new species of the genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge". Nature, 202(4297), 4 April 1964, 7-9. [6] L S B Leakey, "'Newly' recognized mandible of Ramapithecus". Nature, 225, 10 January 1970, 199-200. [7] David Pilbeam, "Newly recognized mandible of Ramapithecus". Nature, 222, 14 June 1969, 1093-1094. [8] J T Robinson, "Homo 'Habilis' and the Australopithecines". Nature, 205(4967), 9 Jan 1965, 121-124. [9] E C Simons, D R Pilbeam, "Preliminary Revision of the Dryopithecinae (Pongidae, Anthropoidae)". Folia Primatologica, 3, 1965, 81-152. --- Notes [1] I think we can admit, however, that at times Gould's ideas *have* been caricatured by people not understanding him very well and this is deplorable. But I will make two additional points. First, I was concerned to show that Ray Miller did not do this. Second, one of those not seeming to understand Gould's ideas is Gould himself. He contradicts himself on occasion, and on fundamental points. This makes it much more difficult for a reviewer to understand just what he is saying, and increases the likelihood of misrepresentation of his views. That's unfortunate, but part of the problem is his own fault. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but | the honor of kings is to search out a matter" | Proverbs 25:2