Evolution, testability and scientific dogma

[Sultan Of Swing]

No, a single observation does not nullify a theory based on a broad range of other observations. The archaeological record is one of a number of threads of evidence for evolution. A single observation is known as an anomaly. As I point out in another post in this thread, it becomes a problem to explain...but so far, no one has found any such evidence that is incontrovertible...and I can visualize several natural mechanisms by which modern fossils could end up in proximity to ancient fossils, and be difficult to separate. The theory of evolution is based on the patterns observed in nature: no rabbits have ever been found in older fossils, and the most recent fossils of rabbits (or cows, or humans) ONLY occur in more recent deposits, whereas no dinosaurs (except birds) are found in sediments much younger than 65 million years, and no modern mammals (or even mammals from shortly after 65 million years ago) have ever been found in sediments older than 65 million years.

If all animals existed together circa 6,000 years ago, it becomes very difficult to explain this segregation in the fossil record.

Isn't this confirming the original quote? Any observation can be fit into the evolutionary model, as you are now able to visualise 'several natural mechanisms by which modern fossils could end up in proximity to ancient fossils'.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Isn't this confirming the original quote? Any observation can be fit into the evolutionary model, as you are now able to visualise 'several natural mechanisms by which modern fossils could end up in proximity to ancient fossils'.

Really? That's what you're going to focus in on?
Okay, I can visualize several ways of it happening naturally, I can also visualize someone intentionally planting or falsifying evidence. The point is, a single observation (a human apparently in the same layer as a dinosaur) is a single observation. How did they get together? erosion and redeposition is one possible way. Is this at a transition layer between sediments of different ages? Can we tell. Is there evidence of disruption in the particular strata we are studying? All those are low-level theories to explain a single observation; the result may or may not be consistent with the overall theory of evolution, but the theory of evolution is based on much, much more than whether or not single examples exist. Now, in the currently HYPOTHETICAL CASE where such a sample occurs, yeah, there's some 'splainin' to do. But the overall pattern of the geological and fossil record is one in which, ya know what?, there have been no incontestable examples where fossils dated from 60 million or less years ago have been found in proximity to fossils from 70 or more million years ago, with the possible exception where disturbance or redeposition has occurred.

The higher level theory of evolution explains the actual observed pattern of fossil segregation by age, AS WELL AS the evidence from currently living lifeforms, from biochemistry, from genetics, from geology...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Isn't this confirming the original quote? Any observation can be fit into the evolutionary model, as you are now able to visualise 'several natural mechanisms by which modern fossils could end up in proximity to ancient fossils'.

I know Luis just posted this highlight from the extract in the OP, be it bears repeating:

The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more scepticism about many of its tenets.’

When you have lots of anomalies, such as humans and dinosaurs in what is clearly and incontrovertibly the same strata of rock, and date to the same age, etc., then you may have legitimate grounds to question some of individual tenets of the theory of evolution.

I repeat, evolutionary theory is a synthesis based in a number of lower- and middle-level observations and theories, from a number of different fields. To overturn it, you need to overturn ALL OF THOSE other observations and theories.

Now then, as this discussion has been moving along, I recall that in the 1960s, evolutionary theory was still grounded in the idea that evolution was always gradual. Then a new thread of the theory emerged, to explain some observations in the geological and biological (and later, biochemical and genetic) records that quite frankly weren't consistent with gradual evolution: punctuated equilibrium--the old "tenet" of evolutionary theory was disproven by a new understanding of the observational evidence. What does that mean? Evolution mostly works slowly because conditions are usually pretty stable, but on rare occasions (say, a giant meteor or comet smashing into the Yucatan), conditions will radically change and evolution will begin to take place more rapidly.

 

[Sapiens]

Charles Birch and Paul Ehrlich write in an article Evolutionary History and Population Biology, in Nature vol 214 (1967) pg 349:
’Our theory of evolution has become, as [Karl] Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more scepticism about many of its tenets.’

Thoughts?

If anyone had the full paper that'd be useful too, I'm not familiar with what the laws are on sharing research papers though which usually require subscription, I could only find the abstract:

"While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more sceptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past ? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions."

Three thoughts:

1. This is a quote, distorted by quote mining, of an archaic view that no longer holds water. Read the entire paper.
2. The changes, since 1967, in the ways and especialy the speed with which scientific communication occurs has all but destroyed the archaic sterotype of plodding academic dogmas.
3. Erlch was, after all, on the faculty at Stanford.

Well one of the points the authors make in the quote, is that it cannot be refuted because every conceivable observation can be fit into it, and further observations since 1967 would be expected to fit into the theory because that is the very nature of it.

You are missing the point. The ToE is so powerful a model based as it is on the coming together of so many disparate fields, that one would be better served, when faced with seemingly contradictory findings, to more closely examine those findings than to consider an attempt at falsification of the ToE. Falsification would require revision of so many fields that I simply can not imagine it. That is not to say that individual elements within individual fields will not change, that is how the model is refined. But ... at this stage, while refinement is always desirable and possible, rejection is highly unlikely. Either significant refinement or rejection would bring such fame and fortune that while IMHO it is a foolish aspiration, it remains a dream of some.

"Evolutionary dogma" well describes the ideas and claims made by evolutionists, IMO. Yet, the theory of evolution is taught and accepted as unquestionable truth by most, and any competing ideas, such as intelligent design, are met with hostility and scorn.

The IDers have yet to present a competing model. They snipe at the ToE, but most often simply reveal their lack of understanding of the ToE and of basic biology. ToE deniers are more creatures of the Christian blog-o-sphere and Pigeon Chess tournaments than they are participants in learned debate. If you removed strawman arguments, arguments from ignorance, and god of the gaps they'd have little or nothing left. Hostility and scorn are the result of the continued insistence of deniers that presuppositional belief systems may reasonably be duplicitously applied to scientific discourse .

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is then? What is the purpose for pointing out that dogmas exist in the sciences as they do anywhere?

The definition of "dogma" is: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. e.g., "the Christian dogma of the Trinity." As such there are no "dogmas" in science, there is always a bit of skepticism kept in reserve. But there are theories that are so well demonstrated and that enjoy such broad scientific support that the vast majority of scientists active in their field that virtual consensus is that further work on falsification is a vain effort.

Because it's something I find interesting? Seems like a problem that shouldn't be swept away.

Seems like non-problem better solved by expanding your personal knowledge and horizons than wasting everyone else's time.

True, however this dwells on the fringes of the absurd, rather than something plausible that could actually falsify the theory.

No, that is quite to the point. "Precambrian rabbits" or "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" are reported to have been among responses given by J.B.S. Haldane when asked what could destroy his confidence in the ToE and the field of study. I'm sure that Charles Birch and Paul Ehrlich were aware of this quote, it is well known ... that goes to the false nature of quote mining.

Why would dinosaurs living at a different time to cows necessitate evolution?

It does not "necessitate" evolution, but it does falsify it.

I am skeptical of the ToE claim that this could all have reasonably happened with no conscious intent.

So your answer is to destroy parsimony and create further complication where it is not required?

Many proponents of Intelligent design do so on the basis of the scientific evidence. A balanced view of ID, pro and con, can be obtained by simply Googling the subject. Attempting to discredit ID by comparing it to astrology simply distorts the facts, IMO.

There is no scientific evidence for ID, there are only IDers playing Pigeon Chess and throwing rocks at the ToE after their potshots have been exhausted. There is no evidence for ID only sophistry piled on logical fallacy that is unsuccessful in falsifing the ToE.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Three thoughts:

1. This is a quote, distorted by quote mining, of an archaic view that no longer holds water. Read the entire paper.

Did you read the paper then? How was it distorted?

 

[Sunstone]

Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.

That strikes me as hogwash. I think it's generally agreed upon by evolutionary scientists and philosophers of science that, if you were to find a modern life-form such as a rabbit fossilized in, say, Cambrian rocks you would call into question the whole theory of evolution. It's perplexing why the authors of the 1967 paper overlooked that and other obvious ways in which the theory could be decisively called into question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There was a time when I denied evolution and natural selection. A part of it was my Conservative Christian upbringing, but even after I left that I still denied it. But as I learned about it (actually, mostly through here on RF), the more I can to understand it, and realize it's implications are not some blasphemous attack on life, but to the contrary it only strengthens the unity of life, the Sacred origins we share, and that it actually strengthens positions that all life is equally valid, important, and precious. I can to learn that evolution does not devalue life and its diversity as I had been lead to believe, but rather it affirms the unification of life, that all life is equally important, and the reality of circle of life.

 

[Sapiens]

Did you read the paper then? How was it distorted?

Do you know what quote mining is?

What do you think the authors were trying to express?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Do you know what quote mining is?

What do you think the authors were trying to express?

So you have or haven't read the paper? How can you say it's distorted if not?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Okay, I went and found the article. Since it does not show up on google scholar (two other articles by the authors do from that year), I recommend that if you are interested you try to get access through your local public library; it may take some time, and you might not get electronic access, but you can request it through interlibrary loan.

First, the quote extracted is not the abstract for the article, it is part of a paragraph near the end of the article, and when one reads what comes before and after, the context gives a sense of meaning the authors were intending. By itself, it sounds like a criticism of evolutionary theory; in context it is a criticism of certain researchers who were not adequately considering evolutionary theory in their published articles.

The actual abstract states: "While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more sceptical [sic] about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions."

This can hardly be taken as a challenge to evolutionary theory, but a criticism of researchers who were not applying the theory with sufficient rigor in their research--which the authors outline their ideas about how to make the broader theory of evolution testable in the field of ecology, and population biology (a subfield of ecology).

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Okay, I went and found the article. Since it does not show up on google scholar (two other articles by the authors do from that year), I recommend that if you are interested you try to get access through your local public library; it may take some time, and you might not get electronic access, but you can request it through interlibrary loan.

First, the quote extracted is not the abstract for the article, it is part of a paragraph near the end of the article, and when one reads what comes before and after, the context gives a sense of meaning the authors were intending. By itself, it sounds like a criticism of evolutionary theory; in context it is a criticism of certain researchers who were not adequately considering evolutionary theory in their published articles.

The actual abstract states: "While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more sceptical [sic] about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions."

This can hardly be taken as a challenge to evolutionary theory, but a criticism of researchers who were not applying the theory with sufficient rigor in their research--which the authors outline their ideas about how to make the broader theory of evolution testable in the field of ecology, and population biology (a subfield of ecology).

Thank you for finding the paper and clearing it up, I shall have to try and do so myself as well.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've not seen genetics mentioned much in this thread so I'd just thought I'd mention that the phylogenetic tree of life and common descent is tested against genetic markers all the time. If we found an endogenous retroviral marker that existed in populations of humans and rodents but not in all other primates (for example), it would disprove major tenants of common descent. But so far genetic research has fallen within the scope of those same tenants.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I've not seen genetics mentioned much in this thread so I'd just thought I'd mention that the phylogenetic tree of life and common descent is tested against genetic markers all the time. If we found an endogenous retroviral marker that existed in populations of humans and rodents but not in all other primates (for example), it would disprove major tenants of common descent. But so far genetic research has fallen within the scope of those same tenants.

And I'll note, over the past several decades, there have been several major revisions and alternative versions for the "tree of life" developed and published, much of it based on the increasing genetic evidence that is clarifying relationships between different species--and some species that were once thought to be distantly related are today, based on genetic information, found to be closely related, and some that were thought to be closely related have been found to be distant.

The evidence also shows that inheritance and both genetic and morphological expression are not entirely controlled by just the genes, but by the way the genes interact with the environment and the experiences of the individual. The surprising role of viruses and bacteria in transferring DNA between species has complicated the picture of evolution, which no longer requires only mutations in the DNA, but a host of other factors that can contribute to the survival or extinction of populations.

 

[Sapiens]

Here's the quote you posted: "Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets."

I have a reprint in my collection, but it's back when I was just stuffing reprints in boxes by semester and I must have misfiled it, it is not in the Spring 1967 box.

I remember reading it at the time. You need to read the quote carefully, it would be easier if I could supply the full quote. Rationalwiki (in line with my memory) notes: "The quote mined from Birch and Ehrlich's paper is another quote taken out of context quite frequently by creationist fundies. The quote does not, in fact criticize evolution, but instead criticizes some scientists who misuse hypotheses about evolution.[122]"

And I'll note, over the past several decades, there have been several major revisions and alternative versions for the "tree of life" developed and published, much of it based on the increasing genetic evidence that is clarifying relationships between different species--and some species that were once thought to be distantly related are today, based on genetic information, found to be closely related, and some that were thought to be closely related have been found to be distant.

The evidence also shows that inheritance and both genetic and morphological expression are not entirely controlled by just the genes, but by the way the genes interact with the environment and the experiences of the individual. The surprising role of viruses and bacteria in transferring DNA between species has complicated the picture of evolution, which no longer requires only mutations in the DNA, but a host of other factors that can contribute to the survival or extinction of populations.

Genetic data has made fossils little more than Victorian curiosities.

The viral transmission of genetic material is a hypothesis that I advanced (with a woeful lack of evidence) back in the late '60s. I felt (and feel) that it involves yawning. See ... you can't even read the word "yawn" without wanting to yawn ... the drive is stronger than sex! Why would yawning in synchrony with another member of your own species be such an overpowering drive? Does seeing a cat yawn make you want to also? No it does not.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Here's the quote you posted: "Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets."

I have a reprint in my collection, but it's back when I was just stuffing reprints in boxes by semester and I must have misfiled it, it is not in the Spring 1967 box.

I remember reading it at the time. You need to read the quote carefully, it would be easier if I could supply the full quote. Rationalwiki (in line with my memory) notes: "The quote mined from Birch and Ehrlich's paper is another quote taken out of context quite frequently by creationist fundies. The quote does not, in fact criticize evolution, but instead criticizes some scientists who misuse hypotheses about evolution.[122]"

(See post #50)

 

[Sapiens]

(See post #50)

Thanks, that is in line with both Ratonalwiki and my memory. Now ... were's that damned reprint, I'll be looking for it all day.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Thanks, that is in line with both Ratonalwiki and my memory. Now ... were's that damned reprint, I'll be looking for it all day.

That's why I'm glad I have university library access...and I've been replacing my paper with electronic versions of articles I think might be relevant at some later point on the various subjects I'm interested in...

 

[Sapiens]

That's why I'm glad I have university library access...and I've been replacing my paper with electronic versions of articles I think might be relevant at some later point on the various subjects I'm interested in...

I wish I still did. But I do love the slightly musty smell of old paper while I read.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I wish I still did. But I do love the slightly musty smell of old paper while I read.

What I really miss is the joy of having to dig through bound paper journals to find articles I might or might not want...but discovering other articles that are useful...almost none of my students have ever done this, or ever will...

 

[Sapiens]

The intellectually freewheeling browse back in the stacks was critical to broadening my scientific horizons, without which I fear one becomes overspecialized and less able to see the forest for the trees.