Saturday, September 20, 2014

The Influence of Biogeography on Evolutionary Thought

Let’s Reevaluate Where We Are

It is not that evolution is not true. Of course evolution is true—I evolved when I had breakfast this morning. As evolutionists like to say, evolution is mere change over time. Thus the changing of gene frequencies is a favorite proof text for evolution. But by broadening the definition of evolution to include anything and everything aside from absolute stasis, the term becomes essentially meaningless and ripe for equivocation.

One of the scandals of evolutionary thought is that it actively trades on this equivocation. The result is a false dichotomy where the falsification of a silly foil—absolute stasis—is equated with the truth of evolution in the Darwinian sense. That is, that the biological world arose spontaneously. The biological world, and by extension everything else because evolutionary thought is by no means limited to biology, arose by itself as the chance outcome of the strictly blind interplay of natural law.

For instance, Isaac Asimov once wrote that mere color changes in the peppered moth prove evolution. How could such trivial change prove evolution? Of course it doesn’t—this is an equivocation on evolution.

Similarly Steve Jones wrote that the changes observed in HIV (the human immunodeficiency virus) contain Darwin’s “entire argument.” According to science writer Jonathan Weiner, the changes in the beaks of birds show us “Darwin’s process in action.”

Likewise Professor Marta Wayne tells us that “Evolution is change in gene frequency” and science writer Emily Willingham defines evolution as “a change in population over time.” Professor Pamela Bjorkman states that a mutating virus is “evolution at work” and that “In the same way, people have evolved, but over a much slower time scale.”

These are at best irresponsible mistakes. At worst they are simply lies. I’m not here to apologize for this conduct. However, as usual these lies do not arise out of nowhere. There is a history behind evolutionary thinking, and it helps to understand that Jones, Bjorkman and the rest are operating in a larger tradition that goes back for centuries. One of the strong influences on that tradition is biogeography. Here is a brief recounting of that influence, from evolutionist and science historian Frank Sulloway:

Darwin’s revolutionary theory was that new species arise naturally, by a process of evolution, rather than having been created—forever immutable—by God. According to the well-established creationist theory of Darwin’s day, the exquisite adaptations of many species—such as the hinges of the bivalve shell and the wings and plumes on seeds dispersed by air—were compelling evidence that a “designer” had created each species for its intended place in the economy of nature. Darwin had wholeheartedly accepted this theory, which was bolstered by the biblical account in Genesis, until his experiences in the Galápagos Islands began to undermine this way of thinking about the biological world.

[…]
Legend has it that Darwin was converted to the theory of evolution, eureka-like, during his visit to the islands. How could he not have been? In retrospect, the evidence for evolution seems so compelling. Darwin tells us in his Journal of Researches, first published in 1839, that his fascination with the “mystery of mysteries”—the origin of new species—was first aroused by a chance discussion on Floreana with Nicholas Lawson, the vice governor of the islands. Based in part on differences in the shape of a tortoise’s shell, Lawson claimed that “he could at once tell from which island any one was brought.” Darwin also noticed that the mockingbirds seemed to be either separate varieties or species on the four islands he visited. If true, he speculated, “such facts would undermine the stability of Species”—the fundamental tenet of creationism, which held that all species had been created in their present, immutable forms.

[…]
Gould’s taxonomic judgments finally caused Darwin to embrace the theory of evolution. Stunned by the realization that evolving varieties could break the supposedly fixed barrier that, according to creationism, prevents new species from forming, he quickly sought to rectify his previous collecting oversights by requesting island locality information from the carefully labeled collections of three Beagle shipmates. Two of these collections, by Captain FitzRoy and FitzRoy’s steward, Harry Fuller, contained 50 Galápagos birds, including more than 20 finches. Even Darwin’s servant, Covington, had done what Darwin had not, labeling by island his own personal collection of finches, which were later acquired by a private collector in England. The birth of the Darwinian revolution was a highly collaborative enterprise.

For Darwin, creationism was the dominant idea. And by creationism, as Sulloway explains, we mean the idea that the species were created forever immutable.

As Ernst Mayr has pointed out, “The fixed, essentialistic species was the fortress to be stormed and destroyed; once this had been accomplished, evolutionary thinking rushed through the breach like a flood through a break in a dike.”

Sulloway recounts Darwin’s famous journal entry that tiny variations between birds and tortoises from the different islands in the Galápagos Islands “undermine the stability of Species.”

That was an epiphany for Darwin. As Sulloway writes, Darwin was later “stunned” by the realization that evolving varieties could break the supposedly fixed barrier that, according to creationism, prevents new species from forming.

If there is anything that is stunning it is that a scientist could conclude that tiny changes between birds and tortoises would imply that the entire biological world must have spontaneously arisen by itself.

So strong is the influence of religious ideas.

There was no scientific evidence here for Darwin’s broad, sweeping conclusions about evolution. Darwin had no idea how those tiny differences could have arisen, much less how the entire biosphere could have been spontaneously generated. Yet that is what he claimed, on the basis of a one-dimensional, black-white, simplistic dichotomy.

Darwin was operating from an assumption that he knew all of the possible alternative explanations. And there were two: either the species were forever immutable, or they arose from blind chance. This is the problem of unconceived alternatives (see here and here for examples).

It is no different today. As exemplified above, evolutionists continue to operate from this false dichotomy. This is sad because today we understand far more about biology. Today we know what Darwin did not know, that from physiological changes taking place in less than a second to genetic adaptations spanning decades and multiple generations, the story of change in biology is far more exotic, creative and nuanced than anything Darwin imagined. The built-in capacity organisms have for directed, responsive change is profound. There is still more to the story we do not yet understand, but let’s move on from nineteenth century religious convictions.

41 comments:

  1. If the idea of fixity of species originated with creationists, it shows how Christians shoot themselves in the foot by imposing their own ideas on scripture. If not, then it was simply a straw man because the Bible isn't the source of that idea.

    The term "kind", as translated into English and in "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind", clearly has much broader meaning than the idea of species which came thousands of years later. How many species of cattle make up the cattle kind? I think all cattle species, from yak to buffalo to dairy cow, can interbreed with fertile offspring and there is no evidence for them being anything but cattle with no potential of ever becoming something else.

    Genesis 30 tells of how Jacob tried to induce the birth of streaked and speckled livestock, Darwinian-peppered-moth-style changes, by setting rods of poplar and other wood branches in front of the females as they drank while mating. Not even Jacob believed in fixity of species.

    As crazy as that story sounds, late 19th and early 20th century scientists have done much worse. See phrenology and eugenics. Margaret Sanger, drawing on information from scientists of her day, believed there were glands that enhanced intelligence whenever one had sex.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius Hunter: There was no scientific evidence here for Darwin’s broad, sweeping conclusions about evolution.

    Of course there is, including the nested hierarchy, fossil succession, and direct observations of evolution.

    Cornelius Hunter: Thus the changing of gene frequencies is a favorite proof text for evolution.

    It's direct observation of evolution, something that Darwin couldn't directly observe, but which he inferred from the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! Gradual evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy and Darwin never said that it did. Gradual evolution would produce a smooth blending of traits and that would ruin any attempt at an objective nested hierarchy. Also all observations of evolution definitely call into doubt the claim of universal common descent.

      Obviously Zachrel is confused or dishonest.

      Delete
    2. Joe G: Gradual evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy and Darwin never said that it did.

      Darwin explained the observed nested hierarchy by hypothesizing common descent.

      Joe G: Gradual evolution would produce a smooth blending of traits and that would ruin any attempt at an objective nested hierarchy.

      Turns out there is evidence for extinction.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel lies as Darwin did NOT explain any nested hierarchy by hypothesizing common descent. Common descent does not produce a nested hierarchy. And extinctions don't explain nested hierarchies either.

      Delete
    4. Joe: Zachriel lies as Darwin did NOT explain any nested hierarchy by hypothesizing common descent. Common descent does not produce a nested hierarchy. And extinctions don't explain nested hierarchies either.

      J: Zachriel doesn't seem to realize that an explanation of a nested hierarchy would be a set of propositions that imply the nested hierarchy. Apparently he's unaware of what many evolutionists ARE aware of: There is NO such set of propositions known to exist. Only the particularly emotion-driven evolutionists think there emotional attachment to a belief constitutes inductive evidence for that belief.

      Delete
  3. Zachriel:
    Of course there is, including the nested hierarchy, fossil succession, and direct observations of evolution.

    A nested hierachy and fossil succession do not provide demarcation evidence for evolution and intelligent design. (I assume you are familiar with Berra's Blunder.)

    The only evolution that has been obseved is microevolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doublee: A nested hierachy and fossil succession do not provide demarcation evidence for evolution and intelligent design.

      Nothing precludes a vague claim of intelligent design. The nested hierarchy and fossil succession support incremental diversification, and direct observations of evolution is a prediction of that claim.

      Doublee: The only evolution that has been obseved is microevolution.

      Which Darwin predicted from the evidence for macroevolution.

      Delete
    2. Zachriel is so full of it- Intelligent Design makes specific claims, unlike evolutionism. Gradual evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy and actually has to do mental gymnastics in order to explain one. And there aren't any microevolutionary events that can be extrapolated into macroevolution.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel,

      Doublee: "The only evolution that has been obseved is microevolution."

      Zachriel: "Which Darwin predicted from the evidence for macroevolution."

      And macroevolution is an extrapolation of the observance of microevolution. But of course, this is NOT circular reasoning in Zachriel's world.

      Delete
    4. Nic: And macroevolution is an extrapolation of the observance of microevolution.

      Darwin couldn't directly observe microevolution. He inferred it from the evidence for macroevolution.

      Doublee: "The only evolution that has been obseved is microevolution."

      Which is a confirmation of Darwin's prediction.

      Delete
    5. Zachriel,

      Zachriel: "Which is a confirmation of Darwin's prediction."

      If circular reasoning was an acceptable form of confirmation, then I guess it would be. However, circular reasoning is useful in confirming absolutely nothing.

      Delete
    6. Nic: If circular reasoning was an acceptable form of confirmation, then I guess it would be.

      It's not circular, or it would be a tautology. Darwin's theory predicted microevolution. If microevolution does not occur, then Darwin's theory would be falsified. As microevolution has been observed, Darwin's theory is supported (not proven).

      Delete
    7. Zachriel:
      Darwin couldn't directly observe microevolution. He inferred it from the evidence for macroevolution.

      And yet there isn't any evidence for macroevolution. Also Darwin's "theory" requires more than microevolution.

      BTW baraminology is supported by the observed microevolution. Why didn't you mention that fact?

      Delete
    8. Joe G: And yet there isn't any evidence for macroevolution.

      Sure there is. There's the fossil succession and the nested hierarchy.

      Joe G: Also Darwin's "theory" requires more than microevolution.

      Or course, but the successful prediction is support for the theory.

      Joe G: baraminology is supported by the observed microevolution

      But baraminology lacks and adequate explanation for the fossil succession and the nested hierarchy.

      Delete
    9. Zachriel:
      There's the fossil succession and the nested hierarchy.

      Neither is evidence for macroevolution. For one the nested hierarchy has nothing to do with macroevolution and the fossils don't say anything but what once existed, died and was fossilized.

      But baraminology lacks and adequate explanation for the fossil succession and the nested hierarchy.

      Baraminology is the best and only explanation for the nested hierarchy. As for the fossils, well they do whatever biased people say.

      Delete
    10. Joe G: For one the nested hierarchy has nothing to do with macroevolution

      The nested hierarchy is implied by furcating descent with modification.

      Joe G: and the fossils don't say anything but what once existed, died and was fossilized.

      Heh. Yes, they tell us that. From that, we can reconstruct their order, time, and place of appearance.

      Joe G: Baraminology is the best and only explanation for the nested hierarchy.

      The nested hierarchy is not implied by baraminology.

      Delete
    11. Zachriel,

      "But baraminology lacks and adequate explanation for the fossil succession and the nested hierarchy."

      In what way?

      Delete
    12. Nic: In what way?

      Baraminology posits distinct kinds.

      Delete
    13. A nested hierarchy should be evidence against Darwinism and only baraminology predicts a nested hierarchy. Linnean classification, ie the observed nested hierarchy, was constructed based on the theme of a common design, Linne was trying to figure out what the Created Kinds were.

      Delete
    14. Zachriel:
      From that, we can reconstruct their order, time, and place of appearance.

      Only if one makes many untestable assumptions

      Delete
    15. Zachriel:
      Baraminology posits distinct kinds.

      And a nested hierarchy requires distinct sets. That means no blending allowed and blending is what evolutionism predicts.

      Delete
    16. Joe G: A nested hierarchy should be evidence against Darwinism

      No. The nested hierarchy is a direct consequence of furcating descent with modification, along with extinction.

      Joe G: only baraminology predicts a nested hierarchy.

      How so?

      Joe G: Only if one makes many untestable assumptions

      Geolotical succession, among other findings, is strongly supported by a large variety of evidence.

      Joe G: That means no blending allowed and blending is what evolutionism predicts.

      Extinction and competition lead to distinct groupings.

      Delete
    17. Zachriel:
      The nested hierarchy is a direct consequence of furcating descent with modification, along with extinction.

      That is incorrect.

      only baraminology predicts a nested hierarchy.

      How so?

      Linnean taxonomy

      Extinction and competition lead to distinct groupings.

      Special pleading

      Delete
    18. Joe G: That is incorrect.

      "Is not" is not an argument.

      Joe G: Linnean taxonomy

      That's the observation. Now what is the entailment from your proposed theory?

      Joe G: Special pleading

      Extinction is hardly special pleading, but a well-observed phenomenon.

      Delete
    19. Zachriel:
      "Is not" is not an argument.

      Your continued lies are not arguments.

      Extinction is hardly special pleading, but a well-observed phenomenon.

      Just-so extinctions are special pleading and just-so extinctions are all you have. Not only that evolutionism does not predict extinctions.

      Delete
    20. Joe G: Just-so extinctions are special pleading and just-so extinctions are all you have.

      We have a record of extinctions.

      Delete
    21. Zachriel:
      We have a record of extinctions.

      So what?

      Delete
    22. Joe G: So what?

      It's not "just-so extinctions". The evidence indicates that extinction is a natural part of the history of life.

      Delete
    23. More dimness- they are just-so extinctions because they got rid of all of the transitionals that would have ruined any attempt at an objective nested hierarchy. They are also just-so because they were not predicted.

      Delete
    24. Joe G: they are just-so extinctions because they got rid of all of the transitionals that would have ruined any attempt at an objective nested hierarchy.

      There's substantial evidence of extinction, including a long historical record. Not sure your point, if you have one.

      Delete
    25. Obviously your point is obfuscation. My point is and always has been that you are ignorant wrt nested hierarchies and your ignorance leads you to lie about nested hierarchies.

      Delete
    26. Apparently you have abandoned any pretense to defending your position.

      Delete
    27. Obviously all you have are pretensions. OTOH I have defended my claims wrt your ignorance on many occasions

      Delete
    28. Zachriel,

      Zach: "But baraminology lacks and adequate explanation for the fossil succession and the nested hierarchy."

      Nic: "In what way?"

      Zach: "Baraminology posits distinct kinds."

      That does not answer the question.

      Does baramionology posit there will not be changes within those kinds? That would be a necessity for your critique to be correct.

      Delete
    29. Nic: Does baramionology posit there will not be changes within those kinds? That would be a necessity for your critique to be correct.

      Sure. And if it is by divergence, then we might expect each kind to produce its own nested hierarchy, but that doesn't explain the nested hierarchy of the various kinds, nor does it explain the fossil succession of kinds.

      Delete
    30. Zachriel,

      "but that doesn't explain the nested hierarchy of the various kinds,..."

      I see you're still of the opinion that so-called 'nested hierarchies' can only be explained via common descent. You just simply refuse to believe there is another way to interpret evidence.

      Delete
    31. Nic: You just simply refuse to believe there is another way to interpret evidence.

      The claim we were addressing was that baraminology doesn't explain the nested hierarchy or fossil succession.

      Nic: I see you're still of the opinion that so-called 'nested hierarchies' can only be explained via common descent.

      There are an infinitude of possible explanations for any set of data, however, common descent offers a parsimonious and elegant explanation of both the nested hierarchy and fossil succession, which baraminology doesn't explain at all.

      Delete
  4. Zachriel, I never thought I would say I am glad to see you posting again. But we had a guy in the previous thread that makes you look thoughtful and considerate.

    I'm so glad you have actual arguments to make blind though they may be.

    I don't agree with you but at least you don't act like someone driving 100 mph down the wrong side of the freeway.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent thread.
    Indeed Darwin did not imagine other options but welcomed a rejection of the bible etc.
    In fact he didn't believe in the flood story which also destroys the GOD placed species theory.
    It is taking a special case of possible natural selection and then simply extending it to create the glory of biology.
    Its a hunch that seems plausible based on simple ideas of how easy it is to create biological change.
    Where is the biological scientific evidence for evolution Chuck.??

    ReplyDelete
  6. Finally getting back to this. For the record, you originally claimed, several posts back, this:

    ===========
    A predetermined narrative is what influenced Darwin in concluding that the species must have arisen as a result of the blind actions of natural processes. As Darwin historian Janet Browne explained, Darwin, as well as evolution co-discoverer Alfred Wallace, came to believe in transmutation and so they then sought a suitable mechanism. The reason they came to believe in transmutation was the biological world was too gritty, too unseemly, and lacking in elegance. In a word, too evil.
    ===========

    I pointed out that this was silly, and that it was actually things like observations of biogeography that were the primary things that pushed Darwin and Wallace to put together evolutionary theory.

    Note that in his various biogeography posts, Hunter has at least abandoned the "evil" claim, and switched to other claims.

    ReplyDelete