75 Theses ~ Science Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Punctuated equilibrium is not a "splinter group". There is no dogma in the sciences. People do not attack others for heresy. All that punctuated equilibrium is is a refinement of the theory. The same basic laws apply, the same procedures go on. The only major difference is that the rate of evolution is not constant.

The view of science by creationists seems to mirror how they view religion, with different factions within a religion cropping up and new religions cropping up, though less often. The apply a model based on the office politics aspects of religion to science, but it just doesn't fit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

thought not

Does what Raup wrote refute the theory of evolution or even the theory of natural selection?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Agre


^ Agree entirely

And If you look back at how the quote first came up, this was my original comment


"In Darwin's time, the gaps were believed to be artifacts of an incomplete record, which would be filled in as new fossils were discovered.
In contrast, the gaps have become ever more well defined, explosive, abrupt- hence the emergence of Darwinian splinter groups like punctuated equilibrium
....


Someone not so familiar with the point we both agree on, asked for a credible source for this change to an increasingly 'staccato' understanding of the fossil record

Most of us are aware that this is hardly a controversial observation these days, and so I used Raup precisely because he was one of the most notable pioneers of it- that it's not just a recent 'whacky' splinter group but a trend that has been emerging in main stream evolutionary biology for quite some time

Raup may have stated the lack of transitional examples more emphatically than others, but it is this dearth of smooth transitions relative to Darwinian predictions that is central to the point, so it could harldy be more solidly within context.

If you think I was saying something else, then you are the one taking the quote out of context! I still don't consider anyone a liar here, or any of the names I've been called, i think honest intelligent people can come to different conclusions. At the very least that assumption tends to make for a more interesting discussion than merely ad hominem, so I don't generally enage/respond to those

Many of the gaps still are artifacts. That really hasn't changed except that some/many have been filled in. The problem isn't filling in the gaps as Raup explains. It is that what fills in the gaps doesn't always fit gradualism as the only mode of evolution. Smooth or not, there are still transitions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You've had several paragraphs already but..


For those still unable to find this, give it a read- you won't find any change in context here I promise you, he makes the same points over and over- not ambiguous-

after all the paper itself is titled Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology which should give you some sort of a clue as to context! - it would take a lot of cherry picking to try to re purpose this as a paper about 'Harmony between Darwin and Paleontology but give it a go!

Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology


From the 2nd page


.. instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists in Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record, that is species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find...


Think all this is STILL somehow quoting out of context? everyone take a deep breath, take break from the name calling, and just have a read, judge for yourself, it's really quite interesting.

Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology could mean it is a paper defending Darwin. What the title tells us is that there are claimed conflicts. They are claimed to be between Darwin and paleontology. The title tells us something, but it isn't obviously a full disclosure of the context.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You've had several paragraphs already but..


For those still unable to find this, give it a read- you won't find any change in context here I promise you, he makes the same points over and over- not ambiguous-

after all the paper itself is titled Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology which should give you some sort of a clue as to context! - it would take a lot of cherry picking to try to re purpose this as a paper about 'Harmony between Darwin and Paleontology but give it a go!

Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology


From the 2nd page


.. instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists in Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record, that is species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find...


Think all this is STILL somehow quoting out of context? everyone take a deep breath, take break from the name calling, and just have a read, judge for yourself, it's really quite interesting.

It is out of context if you are trying to use it to show that the theory of evolution is being refuted or is refuted based on the text.

I think what is clear to all of us is that quotes can be taken out of context and have been to demonstrate something that the out of context quote isn't really demonstrating. Perhaps we can recognize that it does happen and henceforth, either expand the discussion of Raup's paper or avoid quote mines or the hint of them. I for one am glad you brought Raup up. The one thing I get out of it, is that it doesn't represent a rebellion against the theory of evolution.

Keep in mind that scientists may not like the idea of a well supported theory being ousted, unless they are the ones doing the ousting, but it isn't a default win for creationism. It means that science would need to formulate or devise a revised or alternative theory. They aren't going to go with the flavor of the day religious claim as the answer.

Wouldn't you say that either gradualism, punctuated equilibrium or a mix of these is still evolution?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology could mean it is a paper defending Darwin. What the title tells us is that there are claimed conflicts. They are claimed to be between Darwin and paleontology. The title tells us something, but it isn't obviously a full disclosure of the context.

I appreciate all the thoughtful responses, sorry I haven't had time to respond

If merely referencing the title of the paper is an 'out of context quote mine'... again I don't think I'm the one twisting the context here!

If you read the whole paper, the title is clearly not meant to be ironic or a rhetorical device
Titling the paper 'conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology' means he thinks there are conflicts between Darwin and paleontology, I agree, so do many scientists.

Point being: many Darwinists are simply unaware of this conflict- evident here by those convinced, that all these opinions of renowned scientists are some sort of devious misleading 'creationist trick'.

I posted the link to the entire paper earlier, anyone can read for themselves- there is no trick here.

As I said, there is no slam dunk argument either way, it's an extremely interesting and complicated question- life itself- does it get much more interesting? and to me, important to understand.

Many of the gaps still are artifacts. That really hasn't changed except that some/many have been filled in. The problem isn't filling in the gaps as Raup explains. It is that what fills in the gaps doesn't always fit gradualism as the only mode of evolution. Smooth or not, there are still transitions.

If we found a clear, smooth, perfectly steady incremental transition over billions of years, from single cell to man, that would have been a great validation of Darwinian predictions

If we found fully formed humans appearing overnight with nothing that could possibly be an ancestor anywhere in the record, that would be a pretty emphatic refutation

We are somewhere in the middle, with lots of uncertainty and margin for error, but as Raup and others point out, the public perception is that the record is far more Darwinian than it actually is:

Raup
'A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is out of context if you are trying to use it to show that the theory of evolution is being refuted or is refuted based on the text.

I think what is clear to all of us is that quotes can be taken out of context and have been to demonstrate something that the out of context quote isn't really demonstrating. Perhaps we can recognize that it does happen and henceforth, either expand the discussion of Raup's paper or avoid quote mines or the hint of them. I for one am glad you brought Raup up. The one thing I get out of it, is that it doesn't represent a rebellion against the theory of evolution.

Keep in mind that scientists may not like the idea of a well supported theory being ousted, unless they are the ones doing the ousting, but it isn't a default win for creationism. It means that science would need to formulate or devise a revised or alternative theory. They aren't going to go with the flavor of the day religious claim as the answer.

Wouldn't you say that either gradualism, punctuated equilibrium or a mix of these is still evolution?

Definitions are important yes, and again I think Raup answers this question as well as I can-



"Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be"

and here

" This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent"


evolution=change. This is the definition Raup repeatedly uses, and both intelligent design and Genesis comply with this definition,

the natural selection of a significantly superior -(better suited for it's environment)- design goes entirely without saying, it's why we still have Ford Mustangs but not Ford Pintos, so it's a wash and utterly moot point

i.e. The arrival of the fittest is the real question, not it's mere survival once it appears by any mechanism

 

[ChristineM]

I appreciate all the thoughtful responses, sorry I haven't had time to respond

If merely referencing the title of the paper an 'out of context quote mine'... again I don't think I'm the one twisting the context here!

Titling the paper 'conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology' means he thinks there are conflicts between Darwin and paleontology, I agree, so do many scientists.

Point being: many Darwinists are simply unaware of this conflict- evident here by those convinced all these opinions of renowned scientists are some sort of devious 'creationist trick' that misrepresent what they are saying

I posted the link to the entire paper earlier, anyone can read for themselves- there is no trick here.

As I said, there is no slam dunk argument either way, it's an extremely interesting and complicated question- life itself- does it get much more interesting? and to me, important to understand.



If we found a clear, smooth, perfectly steady incremental transition over billions of years, from single cell to man, that would have been a great validation of Darwinian predictions

If we found fully formed humans appearing overnight with nothing that could possibly be an ancestor anywhere in the record, that would not be.

We are somewhere in the middle, and as Raup and others point out, the public perception is that the record is far more Darwinian than it actually is:

Raup
'A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."

Please note, paleontology is an ongoing science, Darwin published origin of species over 150 years ago. Of course conflicts exist, the study of evolution has progressed considerably in the last century and as half

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Please note, paleontology is an ongoing science, Darwin published origin of species over 150 years ago. Of course conflicts exist, the study of evolution has progressed considerably in the last century and as half

It certainly has, in the exact opposite direction from the Victorian age predictions is the point- science was wrong about a lot of things back then, we had an entirely different model of reality pre QM and DNA

 

[Subduction Zone]

It certainly has, in the exact opposite direction from the Victorian age predictions is the point- science was wrong about a lot of things back then, we had an entirely different model of reality pre QM and DNA

Nope, you are completely wrong. The fossil record is much more filled in than it was in the past. An inability to understand an article does not refute a concept.

 

[ChristineM]

It certainly has, in the exact opposite direction from the Victorian age predictions is the point- science was wrong about a lot of things back then, we had an entirely different model of reality pre QM and DNA

Science has not proved Darwin wrong in any significant way. It has improved on his theories, it has found evidence to build on his theories

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science has not proved Darwin wrong in any significant way. It has improved on his theories, it has found evidence to build on his theories

That's one opinion certainly, and as above, according to a renowned paleontologist and curator of the Chicago Field museum, paleontology conflicted with Darwin's predictions

I have to agree with the latter. Though I'm sure your opinion is very well educated also, it's an entirely speculative theory so there is lots of room for different beliefs, as long as we recognize them all as such, nobody gets too upset!

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's one opinion certainly, and as above, according to a renowned paleontologist and curator of the Chicago Field museum, paleontology conflicted with Darwin's predictions

I have to agree with the latter. Though I'm sure your opinion is very well educated also, it's an entirely speculative theory so there is lots of room for different beliefs, as long as we recognize them all as such, nobody gets too upset!

Yes, some of Darwin's minor predictions were wrong. No one has denied that. You appear to be trying to make a case against evolution based upon a misunderstanding, at best.

 

[ChristineM]

That's one opinion certainly, and as above, according to a renowned paleontologist and curator of the Chicago Field museum, paleontology conflicted with Darwin's predictions

I have to agree with the latter. Though I'm sure your opinion is very well educated also, it's an entirely speculative theory so there is lots of room for different beliefs, as long as we recognize them all as such, nobody gets too upset!

Superficial conflict, conflict in minor details, to clarify what i said previously he is comparing an evolved (no pun) scientific discipline with first principals.

Evolution is not speculative. Is is proven beyond doubt in several different fields of science.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Superficial conflict, conflict in minor details, to clarify what i said previously he is comparing an evolved (no pun) scientific discipline with first principals.

Evolution is not speculative. Is is proven beyond doubt in several different fields of science.

If we define the first principles of evolution as Raup does: merely change, then yes. You, I , Raup, Darwin and Genesis are all in agreement.
as above

' evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent"


For Darwinism, there is no way to observe, measure, repeat, the design of a single cell, morphing into a human being, using only blind chance to make revisions in the design

To call this theory 'speculative' I think is pretty generous!

 

[ChristineM]

If we define the first principles of evolution as Raup does: merely change, then yes. You, I , Raup, Darwin and Genesis are all in agreement.
as above

' evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent"

For Darwinism, there is no way to observe, measure, repeat, the design of a single cell, morphing into a human being, using only blind chance to make revisions in the design

To call this theory 'speculative' I think is pretty generous!

Raup defined the first principals of evolution? I thought the modern theory of evolution was defined by Darwin. 1

Yet you are here,

Evolution is not there to tell the mechanism of change, only that change has occurred. Having said that, understanding of some of that mechanism natural selection, genetic drift, genetic mutation and gene flow has been discovered in the last 150 years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we define the first principles of evolution as Raup does: merely change, then yes. You, I , Raup, Darwin and Genesis are all in agreement.
as above

' evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent"


For Darwinism, there is no way to observe, measure, repeat, the design of a single cell, morphing into a human being, using only blind chance to make revisions in the design

To call this theory 'speculative' I think is pretty generous!

What makes you think that Raup thought that evolution was merely change? Raup knew that life was the product of evolution. And no, the Genesis myth was shown to be wrong a long time ago.

Quote mining someone that you do not understand will not help you. By the way, you are repeating a creationist lie. Evolution does not rely on "blind chance". I am pretty sure that this has been explained to you. People could explain that to you again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since Raup is continually being quote mined I will copy a large section of an article that may help :

"From: Evan Yeung

Let me congratulate you on a fantastic website! I have been thoroughly impressed with the articles and information presented here. It's too bad that many of this information seems to be deliberately ignored by many people who post on this feedback board...

I do have a question...

In a number of articles that I've read from pro-creationist or intelligent design theorists, they have quoted David Raup from the Field Museum, who reportedly stated in 1979 that "We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." Did David Raup really say this, or is he being taken out of context like so many other paleontologists when they are quoted by creationists?

Thanx! Evan

Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (p. 25, emphasis mine)

Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.

And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. (p. 22)
The transitions Raup seems to be talking about, in the quote creationists use, are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf). Not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about. This seems to be the case here as well:

There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . . (p. 23, emphasis mine)
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are favorite targets for this creationist tactic because their hypothesis of punctuated equilibria is intended to explain why, from a biological point of view, we should expect species level transitions to be rare in the fossil record. Thus in their writings they frequently state the problem(s) they are attempting to solve. Creationists quote them stating the problems but not the solutions they propose. This seems to be the nature of the quote they have taken from Raup. The beginning of the very next paragraph after the one they quote tends to confirm this:

Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works. (p. 25)
He then moves on to the fossil record:

Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent. (p. 26)
He then goes on to discuss natural selection versus other possible explanatory mechanisms and how they might relate to the fossil record. He also discusses the effects of historical contingency as it relates to extinction pointing out that sometimes species may become extinct due more to "bad luck" than bad genes (this by the way is the basis for Raup's 1991 book Extinction - Bad Genes or Bad Luck?). Raup concludes this article stating:

The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance! (p. 29)
Not particularly damning. Perhaps the more interesting question is where do creationists get the idea that lists of such (out of context) quotations are a valid form of scientific argument?

For Raup's views on creationist arguments I suggest you look up one or both of the following:

"Geology and Creationism", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Mar. 1983, Vol. 54 No. 3 pp. 16-25)

"The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism" in Scientists Confront Creationism (1983), Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor), pp. 147-162"

On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Raup defined the first principals of evolution? I thought the modern theory of evolution was defined by Darwin. 1

Yet you are here,

Raup: We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible* with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be"

of course direct quoting of scientists is an 'out of context creationist trick' the words 'superficial' and 'minor' must be added to his own words to give them better context right?

Evolution is not there to tell the mechanism of change, only that change has occurred. Having said that, understanding of some of that mechanism natural selection, genetic drift, genetic mutation and gene flow has been discovered in the last 150 years.

^ as above

 

[Subduction Zone]

Raup: We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible* with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be"

of course direct quoting of scientists is an 'out of context creationist trick' the words 'superficial' and 'minor' must be added to his own words to give them better context right?



^ as above

If you understood that quote you would see that he is merely saying that the constant rate of change posited by Darwin was not to be observed. Why do you keep doing this? Raup knew that life was the product of evolution. He merely disagreed with a slow and steady rate of evolution.