Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[hecd2]

The unambiguous statement about the existence of gaps is, as you said, an introduction to the discussion of different species concepts, but nowhere does Mayr state - or even imply - that gaps are purely an artifact of the definition of a species.

I should have thought that his detailed description on p166 of sibling species (in fact there is a whole sub-section on it) is exactly that:

He begins that sub-section by saying “Coexisting species that do not differ by noticeable taxonomic characteristics are remarkably common”. He defines them in a side-bar: “Sibling species are natural populations that are reproductively isolated from each other even though they often co-exist sympatrically without interbreeding. Yet they are totally or virtually indistinguishable by traditional taxonomic characters. They are remarkably common in many higher taxa.”

What was said was that the study of gaps between species depends on a correct understanding of what species are, which is the topic of the chapter. He starts the chapter by stating that gaps exist and then explains what is involved in studying them: a proper understanding of terms.

After making his statement (which you dispute) about the existence of gaps he introduces the topic of the chapter with this:

“Obviously one cannot study the origin of gaps between species unless one understands what species are.”

He starts the section, as you say, setting up the debate by explaining why the idea that there are gaps between species is a problem, and then goes on to point out by, amongst other things, describing sibling or cryptic species why and how the typological species concept (according to which there are unbridgeable gaps) is unsatisfactory. He then goes on to introduce the biological species concept, according to which there is often little or no taxonomic or phenotypic difference between species (and in which there is often intraspecies variation, such as clines in characters). He discusses alternative species concepts at length. He then goes on to discuss how, if different species can be identical in taxonomic terms (ie no discernible gap), the species integrity can be maintained. He describes isolating mechanisms. He describes fully inter-fertile species that are isolated purely by behavioural characteristics.He points out that hybridisation does not necessarily lead to loss of fitness.He then discusses species specificity, and species in asexual reproduction.

I do not see how a reading of this chapter can conclude that Mayr is proposing either a) that there are always gaps in the fossil record between species (which was the original claim in this thread by someone who seems to be unfamiliar with the book since, as you agree, the chapter is not at all about the fossil record), or b) that there are always discernible gaps between extant species. I think that if you read from p163 to p173 carefully, you will see this.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I do not doubt this. Nor do I doubt that, as only “a few” are complete, most are not. Another way to state this is that gaps exist in most fossil lineages.

Agreed.

If you are claiming that gaps do not exist then it seems somewhat contradictory to simultaneously claim that certain gaps have been filled in since Mayr wrote his book.

I am not claiming that gaps in the fossil record don’t exist. That would be as silly as claiming that there are no transitionals between taxa in the record. My original comment in this thread was a reply to someone who used the isolated quote from Mayr, to claim that Mayr thought that there are no fossil sequences between species or higher taxa. As we’ve agreed, the chapter is not even about that.

The chapter is, as you said, about species concepts, and Mayr explains why an understanding of “species” is necessary if one is to study the origin of gaps. Since you have access to the book can you point to anything in that chapter where he implies that gaps don’t exist?

See previous post where I describe how Mayr points out, not that discernible gaps never exist, but that they don’t always exist. The chapter after is about speciation and about how gaps develop.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The problem that all anti-evolutionists have with the “information argument” is that it is they who are making the claim that an increase in information is required in the evolutionary process and that such an increase cannot occur by natural means. This claim puts the burden of proof on anti-evolutionists. If we are to take the their claim seriously, those making it have to go through the four steps taht I described and none (including you) has been able to do so.

You are attempting to shift the burden here inappropriately.

Let’s start off by stating the obvious, which has already been stated eloquently by William Dembski:
[sign]“The fundamental intuition underlying information is not, as is sometimes thought, the transmission of signals across a communication channel, but rather, the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others.”[/sign]

In other words, information IS NOT the measurement of data points being transmitted across a communication channel, but a message which has content and meaning.

OK, let’s go with this. What is “content”? How does one recognise it? What is “meaning”? How does one recognise it?

Above all, how is this relevant to living organisms? Do they have information according to this definition? If so, how do you know? Do some have more than others? How do you know?

What makes that message have content and meaning is the arrangement of the data points.

Do you really mean data points - ie specific measurements or observations, or do you mean symbols and characters?

It is this specific understanding to the exclusion of all others that gives rise to the definition that information is aperiodic and non-stochastic in nature.

Information also has specificity and complexity. The greater the information content, the greater the order of specificity and complexity.

Could you define specificity and complexity? And again, what does it mean in terms of living organisms? How do you know whether the information in one organism is more specific or more complex than another, according to your definition?

This is not, by any means, a complete definition, but it certainly spells out the main understanding of what information is.

It is unscientific to juxtapose ID as an alternative to evolution theory. Either ID is scientific, or it is not.

Huh? If indeed ID is a valid scientific hypothesis, then that is precisely what one does. In science, one compares competing hypotheses to see which more closely matches observations.

One of the central tenets of ID theory is that information does not rise de novo without a cause. This is a favorite point that ID’ers love to share with evolutionists, but it is not necessary to show how to measure information in order to identify what information is.

Well, you describe one of the flaws of IDism very clearly here. This is not so much a tenet as an article of faith. Anti-evolutionists claim that there is information in living organisms and that evolution requires an increase in that information over generations. If you can’t measure information, then how can you justify the claim, in the context of living organism, that “information does not arise de novo without a (intelligent?) cause”. (Of course things generally have causes - the question is what are they?) It is all very well to state a tenet, but you need to justify it and to justify the statement you surely have to be able to make those measurements, otherwise you don’t know whether you have more or less information at the end of a process.

For the same token, evolutionists claim blindly that they measure information all the time, and that information arises stochastically, without a causal agent. But when asked to identify information, they are unable to do so. This means that evolutionists have no idea if they can support their religion of evolutionary-induced information rising de novo without being able to point to what information is.

Well, you see, this is the core of your attempt to shift the burden of proof. Biologists claim no such thing. Perhaps you could point to a university text-book on evolutionary biology that discusses the necessity of increase of information in evolution. Biologists do not claim that evolution implies an increase in information. They claim that evolution requires genetic novelty from generation to generation (which sometimes leads to longer genomes, or more genes, or a larger pool of alleles in a population), but that is an entirely different claim. I don’t know of a claim that biologists actually make about the evolutionary process that can be shown to be impossible through natural processes.

It is anti-evolutionists who introduced this claim about information to criticise evolutionary theory, and so the burden of proof is on you to go through the four steps.

By the way, you didn’t even begin to negotiate steps 3 and 4

1. Show that the evolutionary process necessarily requires increases in information according to whatever definition and measure one has chosen
2. Show, that according to that definition and measure, an increase in information is not possible by a natural process.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Well, hecd claimed that evolution doesn’t even acknowledge that an increase in information is an inherent feature of evolution.

Since we don’t have an agreed definition of what that means, it’s as well that biologists talk about things they have defined. You haven’t shown that according to your definittion of information, that it is even present in the genomes of living organisms.

But, you are correct to note that, if evolution is true, that genomic information changes, either up or down.

That’s also true, but since according to you it is unnecessary to know how to measure it, then how do you know whether information is increased or decreased by any particular event?

Yes. Evolutionists cannot account for the vast increases of information that would be required to support the incredible changes in body plans and structures that have occurred from, let’s say, dinosaur to bird. It’s one thing to state that you can lose information via random mutations, but quite another to claim that you can increase information by the same method.

The differences in the genomes between species are not incompatible with known rates of mutation and fixation. Why do you think that the differences between the genome of a dinosaur bird ancestor and a true bird cannot have arisen naturally?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[rossum]

Oh well, back from my holiday; Marseilles, Aix, Arles, Avignon and Nimes since you asked. My eyes, and taste buds, loved it though my feet beg to differ.

Either ID is scientific, or it is not.

Agreed. Currently it is not. To quote William Dembski from 2002:Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind. I want therefore next to lay out a series of recommendations for rectifying this imbalance.

Source: Becoming a Disciplined Science
I am not aware of any work by ID people to forward Dr Dembski recommendations from seven years ago.

One of the central tenets of ID theory is that information does not rise de novo without a cause.

Random mutation and natural selection can be seen as a process that copies information from the environment into genomes. Since the information is copied, not generated de novo, this tenet of ID is irrelevant as far as any criticism of evolution is concerned.

The use of the word “tenet” in this context is also interesting.

rossum

 

[aslan963]

It’s a good thing that, as a Catholic, I believe that truth is not determined by democracy.

Amen

 

[Shlomo]

If we don’t jump to debate but define the things carefully beforehand, then it should be obvious that there is no contradiction between Creation and Evolution. There are contradictions between Creationism and Evolutionism. Before something can evolve, it should be created.

More details here:
vinishsky.com/pseudo-controversies

 

[aslan963]

Lets all take the time to read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church and maybe offer our thoughts there. I can hardly believe this thread is still open.

 

[walsh]

If we don’t jump to debate but define the things carefully beforehand, then it should be obvious that there is no contradiction between Creation and Evolution. There are contradictions between Creationism and Evolutionism. Before something can evolve, it should be created.

More details here:
vinishsky.com/pseudo-controversies

Shlomo - I have read with great interest your posting on Darwin and your referenced articles on a variety of subjects and I appreciate your learning and clear writing. As you are Jewish, live in Isreal, and seem to have considerable knowledge of the Torah and the Bible, and while I agree with your comment in the Darwin thread (which I have been following for some time), there is a question that bother me. With all possible respect for the Sacred Writings, my lay reading indicates that some kind of intelligent, human-like creature has been on this planet for many millions of years. The source Jewish texts were written down (as I understand) around 500 BCE, or many millons of years after the Creation of the Universe and the (much later) Creation of these our intelligent ancestors. From other societies it is clear that verbal accounts of important events have been accurately handed down for hundreds of generations, so that the Inspired Writers must have known of much (to them,and even more so to us) ancient knowledge. If all this is even approximately true, my question is why would the Creator,(who gave us all free will to develop and act) select as His Chosen People just one of the thousands of his Created Creatures many millions of years after He had created them and the others? And interfere physically in the human fortunes of that one even to the point of helping them to conquer and displace others of His Creation? who might indeed have been at least as faithful to Him as the Chosen People? It seems to me that, while recognising that I have neither the inteligence nor the learning to presume to question or understand the actions of the Creator, to interfere in such a marked way in favour of one of His Creatures, would be clear violation of His intention to let us all develop as we will until the Last Day comes upon us.

James.
PS In this note I beg forgivness for (i) Using only the masculine in writing of the Lord, (ii) considering that the ´´six days of Creation, were, like the ´´forty days and nights indicative of a period and nor necessarily six of our days;and (iii) Thinking only of ancient times.

 

[Shlomo]

Thank you James.
I believe time calculation is also a matter of faith, as applying radioactive decay methods is based on the belief that the half-lives of some elements have always been the same. I am sure you will find interesting a look on it also from Einstein’s relativity theory point of view:

associatedcontent.com/article/1053463/evolutionists_and_creationists_are.html

As of the core of your question about God’s being partisan of just one nation, we should not miss the question “chosen for what?”. I believe the Bible teaches us that Jews were chosen for bringing the rest of the nations to true God thus extending His salvation to all of the creation. I posted an article on that here:

vinishsky.com/human-identity

Shlomo

 

[Clairabelle]

I prefer to read Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin’s Theory. Another interesting book is Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael Cremo.