dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/21/85)
In this posting I will clarify my own position regarding Ray Miller's SOR pamphlet #4. The purpose of this is to provide a backdrop for the comments in my next several articles, which are replies to the other responses that have been given to SOR4. Those replies were all by non- creationists; as a creationist, my perspective is somewhat different. However, I feel that some of the criticisms are valid, and indicate so below. I also raise a few objections not discussed by others. Before I begin, I would like to request of Ray that if/when he posts revised versions of these pamphlets, that he format them with a shorter line-length (say, .ll 72), so that the text may be >'d in follow-ups without making each line longer than a single screen line (and hence difficult to read). > 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. Extinctions would have occurred in the past, > as they do in the present, but the boundaries between various organisms should > always be apparent. Which model, creation or evolution, fits the fossil data > better? This paragraph immediately lends itself to the criticism that evolution is being equated with gradualism. This also brings up the charge (which I reject) that the author is dishonest, since not all evolutionists are gradualists. I can think of at least two reasons to present the discussion this way. First, it might be a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize all of evolution by portraying it monolithically as gradualistic. This approach allows one to attack *gradualism*, reject it, and then claim that *evolution* has been disproved. (This works only as long as one's audience does not realize the implicit equivalence, of course.) I do not agree with this approach because it is dishonest. However, this is not what Ray is doing. Ray's reviewers seem to have seized upon this explanation without considering whether there are any other possibilities. There are. As an alternative, evolution may legitimately be discussed as gradualistic on the strength of two simple observations. The first is that gradualism is, after all, the reigning orthodoxy (though its rule is challenged ever more vigorously in the scientific community). The second is that to most people, evolution means Darwin, and Darwin was a gradualist. Thus, to many if not most people (even educated ones), evolution *means* gradualism. This state of affairs will probably be different within a couple of decades, but I think that it can hardly be denied to exist at the present time. This being so, a portrayal (and critique) of evolution on gradualist grounds provides an analysis which begins where people *are*, not where they ought to be or where we'd like them to be. I see nothing wrong with this. It might be helpful to point out in the pamphlet, at least parenthetically, that while gradualism is the established view, not all evolutionary scientists chant the gradualist liturgy. But in a pamphlet intended for general consumption by undergraduates (who, at least for the time being, are more than likely gradualists if they are anything), there is little value in giving more attention to this phenomenon than observing that it exists. The punctuationalists, for example, even though they are the leading contenders for the ascendancy over gradualism, are not present in proportion to the force of their presentation - they are still a minority. (At least that is my own perception. Even if this is incorrect and punctuationalists outnumber gradualists in the ranks of the scientific community, it remains true that gradualism fills the public mind when it thinks of evolution. And this is no less true of the intended audience of SOR4: college undergraduates. Having taught a number of them, I have little faith in their degree of enlightenment.) When the day arrives that the punctuationalists carry the field (and it may not be long), then Ray's pamphlet must deal with them. But that moment is not yet upon us. Other groups, e.g., the neo-Lamarckians or the pattern biologists - sure, they exist, but not in sufficient strength to justify space in a short document of the nature of SOR4. So, overall, I do not think that Ray's emphasis is out of place. Discrediting gradualism doesn't discredit punctuationalism, true, but it may shake some gradualists from their lethargy and serve to clear the field a little (if the criticisms are valid, of course). It may also be said that punctuationalism cannot totally avoid the effects of a discreditation of gradualism, since punctuationalists seldom completely disavow gradualism (Gould, for instance, says "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], while his colleague Niles Eldredge asserts "The fossil record strongly suggests, however, that although change _can_ be slow, it is more frequently episodic" [1982, p. 75]). Punctuationalism still leans on gradualism, only to a lesser extent. Additionally, it is unreasonable to shake a finger at creationists for attacking gradualism, since a number of evolutionists do just that. (If one objects that creationists do so for a very different reason (and so therefore their analyis is correct), I refer you to Mike Huybensz [1984], who said: the motivation behind an investigation doesn't change the facts of an argument.) Let me add one more point, one which several people have commented on over the course of the last several months: the logical error of claiming that disproof of evolution constitutes proof of creation. That this is a fallacy is true. But it has also been said that Ray falls prey to this error, which is untrue. It is one thing simply to shoot down an opposing view and claim your own view proved. It is quite another to shoot down an opposing view *and* discuss observations said to be consistent with your own, and *then* claim your own hypothesis the better one. Ray used the latter approach, not the former, and so cannot be charged with committing that error. Some may feel that the observations are really *not* consistent with his hypothesis, but of course that is another question entirely. -------------------- > GAPS: THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION > One of the major problems for evolutionists is the sudden explosion of > complex life forms in the Cambrian rocks, including trilobites, brachiopods, > worms, jellyfish, sponges, etc. No transitional forms, indicating how these > complex creatures supposedly evolved, have ever been documented. Pre-Cambrian > sedimentary rock can be found which is identical with overlying fossiliferous > Cambrian, but the gaps are still present. The evolutionist Neville George was > forced to admit that: ``Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of > animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatso- > ever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains > as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin'' [1]. This quote could be criticized as somewhat out of date, although the a priori rejection of supernaturalism which it exemplifies is alive and well and living in academia. A certain number of simple organisms have been found in the Pre-Cambrian strata. Bacteria, for example, are thought to go back about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years, quite a bit older than the Cambrian/Pre-Cambrian boundary 600 - 700 My ago. Stromatolites, of possible algal origin, are also thought to be quite old. However, it remains true that the boundary was originally *defined* as that point where fossils stop (or begin, depending on one's direction), so it is in any case obviously not nearly as easy to find Pre-Cambrian fossils as Cambrian fossils. There also remains the discontinuity in the *type* of organisms one finds on either side of the boundary. It is not really clear to me what the status of the Pre-Cambrian strata are as regards metazoa. Certainly numerous authors may be cited to show that no metazoa exist in the Pre-Cambrian, i.e., that a sharp discontinuity is manifest between the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian periods, but most of these references are from the 1960's or before. More recent authors dispute this claim. Laurie Godfrey [1983] cites a few references that present some evidence for Pre-Cambrian precursors of Cambrian types. However, these papers have not been universally well- received. For example, a paper by Valentine [1977] (one chapter of an anthology), was given this review: "The chapter is characteristically derivative, repeating past platitudes even when outmoded, and is characteristically superficial in its theoretical part" [1978, p. 211]. It unclear exactly what importance should be attached to work of this nature. Less than that given to it by Godfrey, I expect. -------------------- > This pattern continues throughout the entire evolutionary tree. Paleon- > tologists from each specialty admit that their particular area does not docu- > ment evolution, while at the same time maintaining a faith that all of the oth- > er areas provide the missing evidence. For example, the evolutionary botanist > Edred Corner wrote: ``Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of > evolution - from biology, bio-geography, and paleontology, but I still think > that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special > creation'' [3]. This quote may be in somewhat the same position as the one from Neville George. Godfrey also takes up this issue, citing a number of more recent works purporting to show the evolution of angiosperms (flowering plants). I noticed, however, that none of the works she cited were by Corner, so it is uncertain whether he himself has changed his opinion. Godfrey also admits that Corner's statement about lack of evolutionary evidence was valid at the time that he made it. Since this conclusion was probably not the universal consensus back then (particularly in view of the "much evidence can be adduced" part of the quote), I'm not inclined to feel any additional degree of confidence in the situation today. Perhaps in another twenty-five years it will be said the the data as of this writing are insufficient to allow drawing of the conclusions being drawn today. > 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. ``Despite > the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it > has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of > which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires inter- > mediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them'' [4]. Here we have a partial answer to the charge that evolution is misrepresented by overemphasis on gradualism, since the above is characterization of evolution by an evolutionist. At least, I assume that author (David Kitts) is an evolutionist, as the article appeared in a respectable journal, and we know creationists abideth not therein. (For instance, Arch Biochem, 78(2), 1958, 433-450 isn't a real article.) -------------------- > 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. The last statement has produced the counter-assertion that inference is a perfectly valid procedure. I agree, it is. That is, it is valid when the inference is consistent with observations. I believe what Ray is saying here is that the reliance upon inference (i.e., intermediate forms exist) *in spite of* the observations (i.e., the gaps) is invalid. The sentence would perhaps be clearer if it were worded "Relying upon ``inference'' and ``not the evidence'' (when the two conflict) is not the mark of an objective scientist." Having written that idealistic paragraph, let me also acknowledge that it is a myth. Anyone who has been involved in any kind of research knows that theoretical frameworks very easily take precedence over missing or negative observations, and for what is often a very good reason: the experimental procedures need debugging. It is not always that the predicted observations refuse to present themselves and therefore the theory is wrong; sometimes the theory is right and we just don't know how to produce the observations to verify it. Sometimes we feel that we should even ignore negative observations. "And of course there is always the possibility that this may in fact be just the right thing to do. This may be precisely one of those cases when one has to disregard exceptions to start with and leave them for later consideration. His [the scientist's] emotion, born of an intuition which penetrates deeper than the day-to-day evidence, may be quite right, and his correct procedure may be to persevere in following its guidance, even against the apparent evidence" [Polanyi, 1964, p. 39]. Still, consistency between our theoretical framework and our observations is, in general, to be desired. This leads to a thorny problem, when one has a theory requiring proof by positive evidence. It cannot be disproved simply by failing to find that evidence; maybe it will be found tomorrow. Some kind of judgment must be made how long to hang onto a theory before it is discarded. We see one example of this problem in regard to the status of the fossil record today. The prognostications of the punctuationalists notwithstanding, the gradualists are not giving in without a fight. Nor should they, perhaps, unless at every presentation of a well-represented theory (Gould is a talented writer, after all), evolutionists find themselves chasing after what may turn out to be a fad. Yet the punctuationalists may have a point; gradualism requires the intermediates, i.e., requires positive evidence. Darwin defended himself against the evidence by appealing to the alleged imperfection of the record, but we see today more and more evolutionists becoming impatient with that idea and declaring that the jerky nature of the record reflects reality, and that no matter how long we look we are not going to find smooth transitions from one thing into another. The point in regard to the quote of Gould's that Ray used is that the inference that there must be smooth intermediates comes from a theoretical framework (gradualism), not from observation. "[G]radualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record" [Gould and Eldredge, 1977, p. 147]. In this regard, Ray's comments are appropriate. -------------------- Lastly (and certainly least), "Eugene DuBois" is a typo. His name is spelled "Eugene Dubois"; my name is spelled "Paul DuBois". Of course, Ray heard from me about that one immediately! :-) ----- References [1] Niles Eldredge, "The Monkey Business". Washington Square Press, New York, 1982. [2] Laurie R Godfrey, "Creationism and Gaps in the Fossil Record", In "Scientists Confront Creationism", ed. Laurie R Godfrey, W W Norton and Co., New York, 1983, 193-218. [3] Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace". Natural History, 86(5), May 1977, 12-16. [4] Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered". Paleobiology, 3(2), 115-151, 1977. Bauplane are "structural forms". [5] Michael Huybensz, USENET article <283@cybvax0.UUCP>, posted 21 Dec 84 05:14:28 GMT. [6] Michael Polanyi, "Science, Faith and Society". University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1964. [7] James W Valentine, "General patterns of Metazoan evolution", In Patterns of Evolution as Illustrated by the Fossil Record, ed. A Hallam, Elsevier:Amsterdam, 1977, 27-57. [8] Leigh VanValen, "A Price for Progress in Paleobiology". Paleobiology, 4(2), 1978, 210-217. Review of A Hallam, "Patterns of Evolution as Illustrated by the Fossil Record", 1977. (Don't be misled by the title of this review; it refers to Van Valen's conviction that Elsevier overprices its books.) -- 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