Monday, June 15, 2009

Coyne flip

I've been reading Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True and have been markedly unimpressed by its arguments.
He says over and over things like, "Creationists have no answer for this", yet I'm able to think of an answer with 2 seconds of reflection most every time. He utilises one BEAR many, many times, and a future BEAR many other times.
He also bases most all of his case on the fossil record. Ouch and ouch. On the cover are 4 images showing a dinosaur gradually morphing into a bird. Double ouch.
I'd like to do a more complete review, but I don't know if I'll have time before I leave for two weeks out of the country, in two weeks.

15 comments:

justfinethanks said...

I've been reading Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True

Once again you prove to be an enigma by being more open minded than most want to give you credit.

He says over and over things like, "Creationists have no answer for this", yet I'm able to think of an answer with 2 seconds of reflection most every time.


The only thing I recall him saying that over was biogeography. What exactly is your rebuttal to the idea that the biodiversity of oceanic islands (i.e. no animals that can't travel long distances) only makes sense under evolution? And it had better not be "God is deceiving the unsaved" or something.

He also bases most all of his case on the fossil record.


What? If I recall, he covered things like successful predictions, biogeography, avavisms, vestiges, and he seemed to mostly get into the fossil record when talking about human evolution. I would argue that we could confidently hold that common descent was true even if we were to disallow the fossil record as evidence.

Incidentally, are you going to watch the new Charles Darwin movie when it comes out? Oh, man it looks AWESOME.

Rhology said...

Oh dear, that trailer looks CHEESY. "It would break your mother's heart."
Gag.
Bring on the worldwide $11 million receipts.

I believe organisms change over time, sometimes quickly.
There is documented evidence that organisms have been carried even as far as across the Atlantic by a hurricane and deposited somewhere else.
And I don't see why I should rule out God having created organisms elsewhere. Absent an argument, that is.
Besides, it's not like the same issue isn't fraught with problems for your side too. "It's convergent evolution. Oh wait, it's DIvergent evolution. Oh wait, it was divergent and THEN convergent and then divergent AGAIN." Suuuuuuurrrrrreeee it was.

As for the fossil record, I'm now about 60% thru the book and he hasn't gotten to human evol yet, and he's appealed to the fossrec I don't know how many times. It's a lot.

So, remove the fossil record from the evidence to be admitted, as Gee does. Is your argument Gee's - cladistics and genetics? Do you have some other things you'd add to it?

Dr Funkenstein said...

He says over... every time.

I'm assuming by 'answer' he means something with at least a bit of explanatory content that could be checked or tested by multiple independent observers, that could give rise to other hypotheses that could be tested and that the proposed explanation doesn't expect both a finding and its mutually incompatible contradiction (as an example, try applying such theories to something like cancer research - wouldn't be much hope of conducting any more research or finsing cures if we employed such a method there) - ie I don't think 'but what if God just wants it that way!!!' can be classed as an explanation under the above criteria, any more than 'demons farting fire' would explain the goings on in the Earth's core.

He utilises ... times

Because most (maybe all) ID inferences, theories and conclusions and design arguments are based on reference to human designed objects - so if that's the standard they hold to, expect to be critiqued according to the same standard.

He also .. fossil record.

First of all, I've seen an extended lecture of Coyne's, and this would surprise me if this were the case since he introduced a wide range of supporting facts in that.

Second, it's probably because creationism has no real reason to expect observations documented from the fossil record such as these skulls, since it would mean there's no obvious boundary line between chimps and humans:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg

(chimp =A, Human =N)

nor would it offer any obvious explanations why they exist (apart from maybe the one on this T-Shirt design http://www.driko.org/blogicons/devil_fossils.gif)


In some rare cases we have both DNA and fossils from the same extinct hominid species (Neanderthals) - this single set of findings alone are enough to refute creationism.

The fossil record requires an explanation, and that explanation has to be consistent with explanations of other facts, such as genetics - based on what there is we have to ask, what idea would explain it best? Since creationism demands archetypes called kinds, we have to assume that fossils and living organisms must be able to be grouped in this manner - as Henry Gee says

"And what is an archetype but a prescription of features that all fishes ought to share? "

ie, we need some sort of objective means of grouping these archetypes for living and extinct animals - so we look at the fossil record and modern genetics etc

Yet if we look at fossil evidence such as the skulls in the jpeg above, or if we look at genetic evidence (read the following link for examples of why creationism can't use this to group kinds), we see that the biblical outline of what a 'kind' is is not tenable, therefore creationism must be false.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/09/creationist-admits-problem-chimpanzee.html

"...Robinson and Cavanaugh (1998b) concluded that all extant felids [cats] belong to the same baramin and presumably descended from a single pair of cats on the Ark, but Slattery and O’Brien (1998) found distances greater than 5% among felid Zfy genes and greater than 3% among felid Zfx genes. Certainly if felid sequences can vary by that amount, what is to preclude the conclusion that the much lower differences observed between human and chimpanzees genomes indicates their cobaraminic status? ["co-baramic" means "belonging to the same 'baramin' or 'kind'"] ... As with the genetic diversity of cats, what is to preclude application of this same argument to chimpanzees and humans with the conclusion that we share a common ancestor with an animal? To put this question another way, how can we maintain that felids share a common ancestor with their genomic differences, and deny that the smaller differences between humans and chimpanzees could not also arise from a common ancestor? The only way to do this is to favor other data in baraminology, and to deny the primacy of the genome in determining true phylogenetic or baraminic relationships."

Dr Funkenstein said...

Had to post in 2 parts due to limits on html use:

Furthermore, the Triablogue's quote mineathon is hardly worth reading - you could as easily cobble together a 'refutation' of the bible by selecting a few choice quotes or passages minus any context. As I've pointed out on my blog before, they didn't bother to check to see if they're still relevant:

eg that the oldest fossil hominid is 4.4m years old is wrong - Sahelanthropus Tchadensis and Orrorin Tugensis fossils have both been discovered since then and are older than that (as well as the fact that this still doesn't explain, on creationism, why all the other hominid fossils in the 4.4m - present day time span exist).

Gee's thesis was regarding hypothesis testing as opposed to storytelling, not that absolutely nothing can be gleaned from the fossil record - he also acknowledges there are limits to what can be known in some cases (which is the same for absolutely any scientific or historical proposition, from 'what causes cancer' to 'what is going on in the Earth's core' to 'what was the historical Jesus actually like, if indeed he did exist?'- ToE is hardly unique in this regard), as I recall he used conodonts as an example since at the time their fossil record consisted only of tooth fossils - however this is apparently not the case now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conodonts

"Conodonts are extinct chordates resembling eels, classified in the class Conodonta. For many years, they were known only from tooth-like microfossils now called conodont elements, found in isolation. The animal is also called conodontophora (conodont bearers) to avoid ambiguity."



On the cover ... bird. Double ouch.

I'm sure you're aware popular books like to use a little artistic license as an attention grabber - I'd also point out that if evolution is true then certain reptile-like animmals did give rise to bird-like animals.

In fact,since you're a Gee fan,why not quote him on yet another thing that should not be true if creationism is the real deal?

"Considered objectively, it is very difficult to justify placing the dividing line between birds and non-birds at any particular node" (p197)

Funny how that sort of thing doesn't appear in TB's list, or indeed your reference to Henry Gee here, isn't it?

So, remove the fossil record from the evidence to be admitted, as Gee does.

Sorry, but that is utter rot - he does no such thing anywhere in his book, either implicitly or explicitly.

I'd like ... country, in two weeks.

have a good trip - wouldn't mind a holiday myself I have to say,but too much going on at work just now. Where are you off to?

Rhology said...

Dr Funk,

Do be so kind as to withhold judgment over whether you think it's likely that Coyne used this or that argument in his book until you actually read it, especially when you're objecting to a mini-review of someone who HAS actually read (a majority of) it.

Rhology said...

And why would I quote Gee on some other issue on which I'd consider his position wrong? Did he write a book on that issue as well?
And do I quote Gee as an authority, or is it to give credit where it's due for coming up with a good argument that makes sense?
Hint - the latter.


-So, remove the fossil record from the evidence to be admitted, as Gee does. -

Haha, fine. I invite anyone to read Gee's "In Search of Deep Time" and see whether this statement is rot.
The quotes over at Triablogue represent the message of the book quite faithfully.

And I'm off to Marseilles to distribute New Testaments to and evangelise Muslims. I speak French, so there'll be a lot for me to do since I doubt most of the other volunteers there speak much French.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Do be so kind as to withhold judgment over whether you think it's likely that Coyne used this or that argument in his book until you actually read it,

fair enough, but I was just voicing surprise that he'd rely heavily on the fossil record especially as (I think) his research isn't paleontology-based and he's presented a wide range of sources elsewhere

And why would I quote Gee on some other issue on which I'd consider his position wrong? Did he write a book on that issue as well?

To provide a balanced view of a subject/author's opinions? eg I'm sure you'd object to people quotemining the bible to make Christianity look bad, minus anything to balance it.

And do I quote Gee as an authority, or is it to give credit where it's due for coming up with a good argument that makes sense?
Hint - the latter.


1. So why have I never seen you quote any other paleontologist if you aren't using this as an argument from authority?

2. Because you seem to pick and choose his points rather arbitrarily - ie if you consider it favourable to your position, it's 'good' if it refutes your position, it must be wrong by default. Why are his opinions you consider favourable to be taken as correct and not the other way round?

The quotes over at Triablogue represent the message of the book quite faithfully.

I don't think so, since they don't quote any of the numerous points completely unfavourable to their position. Iin fact given that

a. I've read the book
b. the author has told both them and you on your respective blogs that you've missed his point entirely - eg using the mistaken reasoning creationists have gleaned from it, they'd have to concede to being unable to say whether whether a skull discovered from an unidentifiable human is actually more closely related to humans or other animals unless they knew its ancestors and any descendants it may have had, since they think this means we can't determine degrees of greater or lesser similarity without such info
c. this still doesn't address how creationism explains the existence of skulls such as the one in the jpg, that just so happen to look exactly as you'd expect if evolution had actually happened, or why it appears that there is no objective way to shoehorn organisms into the archetypal groupings that creationism needs to exist in order for it to be true

I think my points are on quite solid ground here.

Rhology said...

-To provide a balanced view of a subject/author's opinions? -


Well, OK, but only as far as that goes. If I were running around yelling that Dr Gee is creationist, you'd be right. But I'm not doing anythg of the kind; I don't say he finds ID or creationism plausible or a good argument or anything like that. All I do is call attention to an argument he made in his book that I think is a good argument. If he has written other things to refute his own point in his own book, then you'd be right and I'd be obligated to quote him to that effect as well, if I were citing him as an authority or if I thought the counterargument he'd provided made a point that requires a reply. But I don't think any of those conditions apply here (but please correct me if I'm wrong).


-So why have I never seen you quote any other paleontologist if you aren't using this as an argument from authority?-

B/c I'm unfamiliar with other paleontologists who've made arguments I thought made a lot of sense.
I'm also not well-read in this area, so that probably has sthg to do with it as well. But I'm the freaky Christian here; it's my nefarious commenters' job to show where I'm wrong. :-D



-Because you seem to pick and choose his points rather arbitrarily - ie if you consider it favourable to your position, it's 'good' if it refutes your position, it must be wrong by default.-

Not by default! But I examine each argument as it comes. Other arguments Gee makes, no doubt, I feel I've sufficiently dealt with elsewhere, or I don't find them worthy of a response. It just so happens that I think Gee's main argument in "ISoDT" is good.


-the author has told both them and you on your respective blogs that you've missed his point entirely -

Far from it! He actually told me straight up in his own combox that I hadn't misrepresented him.
This DOES NOT mean that he agrees with any other conclusion I make or any position I hold. It just means that he said that I took the meaning of his book correctly and properly re-presented it in brief form.


Peace,
Rhology

NAL said...

Rho:

All I do is call attention to an argument he made in his book that I think is a good argument.

Henry Gee

What I do object to, most strenuously, is that my views have been and are being misrepresented; wilfully so
...
Therefore, for people to quote my book in support of creationist ideas, when my views are very clear and well-known, can only be seen as the actions of those who have very little indeed to support their ideas.

Rhology said...

You're a little behind, NAL.
From here:

After a little interaction with Dr. Gee on his blog (and thanks to Dr F for pointing it out to me), it looks like Gee is more or less in agreement with me, now that he understands what my point is and what it is not. The plot thickens...


Dr Gee said this in the combox there:
(Quoting me) - I have simply been pointing out that your book’s points if true, do not allow for statements such as “The fossil record is very important and overwhelming evidence for Darwinian evolution.” This is not an ID or creationist point. It is merely an observation.

Well, that’s a very important point. Cladistics, as discussed in In Search of Deep Time has been important in framing the constraints that apply by reason of the fossil record’s incompleteness, a problem noted extensively by Darwin, but which later evolutionary biologists have been inclined to gloss over. That was the point of my book. You’re right, squaring microevolution with macroevolution remains an important research issue.

He agreed with the limited point I made and am making now. I am attributing nothing more nor less to him than what his book clearly states.

Finally, this whole thing about Dr Gee is a rehash of the Gee Whiz post NAL links to. Anyone interested can read the lengthy interaction there; I don't care to walk the same path a 2nd time here.

NAL said...

Rho:

So, remove the fossil record from the evidence to be admitted, as Gee does.

Does he? Did he say that the fossil record holds no evidence for evolution? No he doesn't. To claim that he asserts that the fossil record holds no evidence for evolution, is a misrepresentation, based on what you cited.

NAL said...

Creationists Be Damned, Damned, Damned, and Damned Again.

Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution.

Henry is pissed.

Rhology said...

His book is out there for anyone to read. Until he or someone explains why the argument in the book is bad, I don't much care.

Just as far as Gee himself goes, it sounds like he's been pressured into backpedaling, but I don't care to debate that, since it's impossible to know. Argument. Give the argument.

NAL said...

Maybe he thinks that creationists are misapplying his argument to suit their own presuppositions.

Just because you can't track a lineage precisely through a particular fossil, doesn't imply that the lineage doesn't go through a close relative of that fossil.

Rhology said...

Argument successfully misunderstood by NAL.