Re: The Fossil Fallacy

jgrisham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Xerxes wrote:
>
>>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&article
>>ID=0003EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000&colID=13
>>http://tinyurl.com/aw3vu
>>
>> The Fossil Fallacy
>>Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals
>>a deep misunderstanding of science
>>By Michael Shermer
>>
>>Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this
>>prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of
>>Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget
>>that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a
>>century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they
>>present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one
>>transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence
>>(for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient
>>land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two
>>gaps in the fossil record.
>>
>>This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I
>>call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of
>>data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical
>>sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence
>>from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of
>>which point to an unmistakable conclusion.
>
>
> I'm sorry!
> What kind of "skeptic" talks that way? "unmistakable conclusion"? Until
> recently, gradual evolution was an unmistakable conclusion, now it's
> evolution in spurts. For most of the last century we were unmistakably
> Homo Sapiens... Oops! Now, we're more acurately Homo Sapien Sapiens,
> because we evolved about 60,000 years ago and it took a century to
> notice. Shermer's definition of a skeptic is a follower of whatever
> scientific concensus happens to be popular at the moment.
>

Gradual evolution is an unmistakable conclusion drawn from some lines of
evidence. Other lines of evidence it is not the only way for evolution
to occur. Punctuated equilibrium is not a replacement for traditional
evolutionary theory but simply an explanation for those other lines of
evidence.

Humans are unmistakably Homo sapiens. Humans are also H sapiens sapiens.
The question of whether there were other subspecies of H sapiens is an
area of both scientific and philosophical debate. Some researchers put
what is traditionally called H erectus in to H sapiens as H sapiens
erectus. The same goes for all later morphological species of hominids.
I'm sure that if you ask Dr. Wilkins he will be happy to take a few
hundred thousand words explaining the issues surrounding the various
species concepts and how they interact with hominid fossil classification.

>
>>We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as
>>A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse
>>fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and
>>physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single
>>discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but
>>together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a
>>particular process.
>
>
> Again, I'm sorry!
> If I'm playing the skeptic, I could make the same argument that God
> exists, not because of the Holy Bible (a single bit of evidence) but
> because of the convergence of all the world's religions (Judaism,
> Christianity, Protestantism, Islam, Hindu, Zen, etc.). Together they
> reveal that mankind of every location and background has had
> interaction with deity. Yeah! It had nothing to do with a shared
> rationalization that became the popular perception... humans don't do
> that, do they?
>

There is of course a single telling difference between religious belief
and scientific theory. Religious belief is unsupported by any verifiable
facts while scientific theory is the best available explanation of
available facts.

>
>>One of the finest compilations of evolutionary data and theory since
>>Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species is Richard Dawkins's magnum
>>opus, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
>>(Houghton Mifflin, 2004)--688 pages of convergent science recounted with
>>literary elegance. Dawkins traces numerous transitional fossils (what he
>>calls "concestors," the last common ancestor shared by a set of species)
>>from Homo sapiens back four billion years to the origin of heredity and
>>the emergence of evolution. No single concestor proves that evolution
>>happened, but together they reveal a majestic story of process over time.
>>
>>We know evolution happened because of a convergence of evidence.
>>
>>Consider the tale of the dog. With so many breeds of dogs popular for so
>>many thousands of years, one would think there would be an abundance of
>>transitional fossils providing paleontologists with copious data from
>>which to reconstruct their evolutionary ancestry. In fact, according to
>>Jennifer A. Leonard, an evolutionary biologist then at the Smithsonian
>>Institution's National Museum of Natural History, "the fossil record
>>from wolves to dogs is pretty sparse." Then how do we know whence dogs
>>evolved? In the November 22, 2002, Science, Leonard and her colleagues
>>report that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data from early dog remains
>>"strongly support the hypothesis that ancient American and Eurasian
>>domestic dogs share a common origin from Old World gray wolves."
>>
>>In the same issue, molecular biologist Peter Savolainen of the Royal
>>Institute of Technology in Stockholm and his colleagues note that even
>>though the fossil record is problematic, their study of mtDNA sequence
>>variation among 654 domestic dogs from around the world "points to an
>>origin of the domestic dog in East Asia" about 15,000 years before the
>>present from a single gene pool of wolves.
>>
>>Finally, anthropologist Brian Hare of Harvard University and his
>>colleagues describe in this same issue the results of a study showing
>>that domestic dogs are more skillful than wolves at using human signals
>>to indicate the location of hidden food. Yet "dogs and wolves do not
>>perform differently in a nonsocial memory task, ruling out the
>>possibility that dogs outperform wolves in all human-guided tasks," they
>>write. Therefore, "dogs' social-communicative skills with humans were
>>acquired during the process of domestication."
>>
>>No single fossil proves that dogs came from wolves, but archaeological,
>>morphological, genetic and behavioral "fossils" converge to reveal the
>>concestor of all dogs to be the East Asian wolf. The tale of human
>>evolution is divulged in a similar manner (although here we do have an
>>abundance of fossils), as it is for all concestors in the history of
>>life. We know evolution happened because innumerable bits of data from
>>myriad fields of science conjoin to paint a rich portrait of life's
>>pilgrimage.
>
>
> Again, I'm sorry!
> We're all agreed that dogs are dogs! A Toy Poodle or a Great Dane can
> interbreed with the East Asian Wolf, regardless of their physical
> differences and brain size. These are animals of the same species. But
> if I didn't know better and I were of a mind to suggest that Toy
> Poodles evolved from Great Danes, I could string together fossils from
> collies and bassett hounds and produce the exact same type for Dane to
> Poodle as the theory from ape to man. It doesn't occur to the
> scientific mind that people and apes may well have been as various as
> breeds of dogs and plucking one from here and one from there to
> construct a process, as they imagine it, might not be altogether
> accurate. But, I'm playing the skeptic... too bad no one else is!
>

Actually most researchers would and do classify wolves and dogs as
separate species. Dogs and wolves will not frequently mate if members of
the respective species are available as an alternative. The
dog/wolf/coyote species complex is one of the best extant proofs of
evolution in progress. While all are able to mate and produce fertile
offspring with each other the various populations do not, generally,
interact socially or reproductively. With continued reproductive
isolation it seems likely that the three, or four (add red wolf),
species would eventually reach a point where cross fertility would
decline as is the case with the various populations of genus Panthera
and eventually cross species fertility would be almost impossible as it
is in genus Equus

>
>>Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com) and author of
>>The Science of Good and Evil.
>
>
> Yeah! He needs his Skeptics license revoked!
>

No, you need to learn more about what you are talking about before
ridiculing someone. You might also want to spend some time learning
about the various species concepts.

Ken

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking
    ... who openly question the theory of evolution. ... problem with evolution is that the fossil record does not honestly ... Gould was referring to was stasis in individual species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking (4)
    ... who openly question the theory of evolution. ... problem with evolution is that the fossil record does not honestly ... Gould was referring to was stasis in individual species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gaps in the fossil record.
    ... though we find 4 specimens of species "A" and 5 specimens of species ... with the crock of evolution and want us to believe it *mostly* based on ... Our acceptance of evolution has *nothing* to do with the fossil record. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any Darwinist in the forum produce an argument showing
    ... without any sequence of know direct forebearers or descending sequence ... fossil without any sequence of knowdirect forebearers". ... Nested hierarchies were not predicted by evolution. ... most species abruptly appear in the earth's ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Fossil Fallacy
    ... >> transitional fossil" that proves evolution. ... With so many breeds of dogs popular for so ... >> domestic dogs share a common origin from Old World gray wolves." ...
    (talk.origins)