Pouncing Proavis model
Cursorial model
Wing-assisted incline running
Arboreal model
I’m not saying there’s an intelligent creator (I personally don’t believe in one), but perhaps the way genes mutate is more “intelligent” than we think. In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. That seems kind of “intelligent”.
Maybe it’s kind of like the exploration/exploitation tradeoff in RN.
maybe. What is it?
> In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while.
Wiki link suggests wing evolution didn't need that. Even crap wings were better than none.
In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life, including detective work etc.
Now, let me refine my statement. Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history, and it has produced a ton of false theories with apparent explanatory power. The four humors. The theory of spontaneous generation. The luminiferous ether. Phlogiston. Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong? In my opinion, it should be required reading in school so people can see what mistakes were made in the past, to at least be aware of the patterns.
Even the age of the earth, until radioactivity was discovered, hovered around 100 million years because of dogma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
However it is exactly the sort of thing that adherents of, say Marx or Freud’s theories, use. They see “confirming evidence” everywhere, and all they are doing is concocting narratives which are fitting every observed case into their framework. They add details that perhaps weren’t there.
But if after a century all you have is just-so stories, many people will call that pseudoscientific. It’s fine to admit you don’t know, but shaming skeptical people into submission — like a sister comment does — betrays the insecurity that adherents of neo-Darwinism should probably feel if they are intellectually honest.
> maybe. what is it?
Well, we don’t know what can fill the gaps in our knowledge. But people who adhere to this or that school of thought insist it must be what they believe, and often their passive-aggressive tactics seem similar to each other.
If you're going to rebut me, please be specific. Looking again at my link, you're right, the cursorial hypothesis has questions around it, the others don't seem to. Can you point specifically to the evidence against, please.
> In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life ... Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history
What is 'this' here? Making hypotheses, or something else?
> just-so stories ... pseudoscientific ... shaming skeptical people into submission — ... betrays the insecurity ... if they are intellectually honest.
Meh. Stick to facts. State clearly what you're talking about and stop implying stuff about people who disagree with you otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself.
I've no idea what you're talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you're saying there's some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us.
(edit: "Have you studied the history of science" - yes
"and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong?" - They were the best people could do at the time given the mathematical, intellectual, instrumental etc. limitations they had at the time. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how they could have done better).
> Yes
The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information, are typical when you don’t have much substantive information, haven’t thought things through and are subconsciously worried you’ll “lose an argument”.
The goal is to mutually improve understanding. Very few people have studied the historu of science and how and why scientific thought changed. I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent. But if you have, would you mind recommending a book on the subject? I can’t seem to find many on that particular subject.
I genuinely want to learn more about it. I think it is fascinating, and that I know than most people on it, but I haven’t found great books on it so if you did in fact study it do recommend something.
> I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you’re saying there’s some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us.
I think I have been quite clear, and you have chosen to ignore most of my direct questions.
“Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories, and you shouldn’t be conflating them to make a disingenuous argument. For example, the theory of common descent says that animals of various species have common ancestors. It says nothing about speciation occurring only through random mutation and natural selection. There are other theories about punctuated equilibria etc. that are postulated to try to explain available evidence.
What you are asking for is essentially a “neo darwinism of the gaps” argument. If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”.
My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear?
I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms. It isn’t my task to disprove your stories, it’s hard to prove a negative, and if you are making a positive claim the onus is on you to provide evidence for the story. It seems many of the stories are problematic.
But even if they weren’t, merely following Darwin in this way isn’t doing actual science any more than a follower of Marx or Freud.
You asked, I answered.
> The goal is to mutually improve understanding
Agreed. So what is your alternative? I am aware of the Lamarkian effect of methylation on DNA, and I'm vaguely aware that there might be another mechanism at the cellular level. I'm also aware of Darwin's gemmules theory which I understand is thoroughly discredited now. You seem very determined not to say what you're proposing.
> I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent
True. It was a course at school, and that was a long time ago. It was also rather Western-centric. Nonetheless, I did. As far as recommending a book, you clearly haven't even done a web search. There's plenty out there. Regarding my preference, there was a book (which I can't find now), an old Penguin book on the history of mathematics, but so old it's price was in pounds, shillings and pence. I wish I could find it, I'd love to reread it.
Bill Bryson did one on the history of science which is well spoken of, but I haven't read it https://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-History-Nearly-Everything-Bry...
> I think I have been quite clear
Fraid not. What is your alternative to evolution, specifically? Please reply without using ad homs.
> “Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories
Nope. "In biology, evolution is the change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations" (wiki)
If you disagree with that, please post some specific links, I would actually be interested.
> If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”.
Yes. It's a placeholder theory. When something better comes along we replace it with the better thing. What do you suggest?
What's weird about arguing with you is you say we should be using something better but do not say what that better thing is.
> My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear?
It's the best hypothesis. It may not be right, but we can never be certain of what is right. If something arrives that better explains, we accept that instead. That's how science works.
> I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms
You pointed out that the cursorial hypothesis had problems, and you were right. You said nothing about the other 3 hypotheses.
You come across as somebody who just wants to discredit science without proposing something better (or are you religious?, Or just a teenager looking for attention?). You are not arguing in good faith.
I am not wedded to a particular viewpoint within science. If you can propose something better, even as a link, please do. I like the idea of Lamarkian development, it's just that, excepting methylation, there is no evidence of it that I'm aware.
so WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?
Yeah, but saying "Yes". You want me to answer like that too?
> Bill Bryson did one on the history of science which is well spoken of, but I haven't read it
Thanks! I will take a look. I am interested in learning more about the history of science and how people got past erroneous theories.
>> I think I have been quite clear >Fraid not. What is your alternative to evolution, specifically? Please reply without using ad homs.
It's not about "my" alternative. Saying that something isn't scientific doesn't require me to come up with alternatives. For example someone could talk about spontaneous generation, and if I questioned it, coming up with a bunch of just-so stories about how spontaneous generation could be working, isn't doing science. It's just a narrative, same as Marxism or Freudian psychology etc.
If someone said "well what's YOUR alternative to Freudian analysis" that wouldn't require someone to come up with a whole other theoretical framework (e.g. behavioral psychology) in order to criticize Freud or Darwin or Marx etc.
> You pointed out that the cursorial hypothesis had problems, and you were right. You said nothing about the other 3 hypotheses.
All these just-so stories are problematic. The biggest problem is that they are just that -- stories. They are not testable. And if you debunk one, someone can just come up with 800 other ones.
It's a bit like the criticism people have of string theory not being testable. You could say "well, what's YOUR alternative to string theory?" But that is beside the point. Same with multiverse theory explaining fine-tuning etc.
And by the way, I don't see much difference between postulating a multiverse with no evidence, or theism, to explain fine-tuning. And similarly, if atheists believe we are living in a simulation, I don't see much difference between that and theism. In short, we just don't know, and most of these alternative theories seem to just reflect a psychological bias (e.g. towards an idea that we can explain everything using a small set of mechanisms that we have already discovered). It's similar to hidden variable theories favored by proponents of determinism, or interpretations of quantum mechanics that preserve causation or locality etc.
Scientists, for instance, are now increasingly finding evidence that the future might influence the past. Bem's psychological experiments were just the beginning (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/). And now we have this: https://www.vice.com/en/article/epvgjm/a-growing-number-of-s...
In all these cases, you may have a preconceived notion (e.g. in Darwinism) that biases what you could believe was the case. And in Darwinism, your notion is that all speciation comes about through random mutation and natural selection, so in every case you comfort yourself with stories of how it could have happened.
Anyway, my whole point is that concocting just-so stories is not a valid scientific approach to figuring out how things work.
Just because something isn't testable today doesn't mean it isn't tomorrow. Back in the 1970s black holes were little more than theories the concept that we could actually test for them physically would have been beyond belief. It would simply not have been comprehensible. Well, today we do.
I don't buy the multi-verse, I find it as stupid as you do as a proposition because by definition it can't be tested (AFAIK). The evolution of flight, watching an animal attempting to use its wings for other purposes such as wing assisted incline running (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing-assisted_incline_running), that's doable and to my knowledge has and is being done.
Like I said, I don't have time for this. You ain't going to learn anything from me, nor I from you given the woolyness of your posts and your unwillingness to propose something different/better. I'll stop here.
I read your posts on the future influence in the past. AFAIK this is being proposed at the quantum level, I'm not aware of anything 'higher up'.
https://replicationindex.com/2018/01/05/bem-retraction/ and a lovely quote:
“I’m all for rigor, but I prefer other people do it. I see its importance—it’s fun for some people—but I don’t have the patience for it. If you looked at all my past experiments, they were always rhetorical devices. I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion, and I never really worried about, ‘Will this replicate or will this not?” (Daryl J. Bem, in Engber, 2017)
also http://osc.centerforopenscience.org/2014/06/25/a-skeptics-re... but I don't like this: "If ever there was a paper that showed the futility of meta-analysis, this one is it. Here we have one of the most ridiculous claims that intelligent people have ever dared to make (yes; the hypothesis that aliens built the pyramids is more plausible than people being able to look into the future) – and a meta-analysis supports this claim. The unavoidable conclusion is not that psi exists; rather, it is that meta-analysis is a tool that is fraught with danger". The other points are perhaps valid.
You talk about science but don't have the basic critical thinking to look for opposing viewpoints. You should be seriously embarrassed.
A newly described fossil is as old as the “first bird,” Archaeopteryx, and represents a birdlike dinosaur that might have specialized in running or wading instead of flying
.
edit: further https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-birds-evolved...
A remarkable fossil record of the dinosaurs that led to birds reveals how evolution produces entirely new kinds of organisms
This is not 'the truth!!!', it's just science's best shot at explaining. It will be wrong in parts, it could be wrong overall, but it's the best we've got.
That's evident ... his comment is wall-to-wall bad faith.
Although the evidence in favor of this model is scientifically plausible, the evidence against it is substantial. For instance, a cursorial flight model would be energetically less favorable when compared to the alternative hypotheses. In order to achieve liftoff, Archaeopteryx would have to run faster than modern birds by a factor of three, due to its weight. Furthermore, the mass of Archaeopteryx versus the distance needed for minimum velocity to obtain liftoff speed is proportional, therefore, as mass increases, the energy required for takeoff increases. Other research has shown that the physics involved in cursorial flight would not make this a likely answer to the origin of avian flight. Once flight speed is obtained and Archaeopteryx is in the air, drag would cause the velocity to instantaneously decrease; balance could not be maintained due to this immediate reduction in velocity. Hence, Archaeopteryx would have a very short and ineffective flight. In contrast to Ostrom's theory regarding flight as a hunting mechanism, physics again does not support this model. In order to effectively trap insects with the wings, Archaeopteryx would require a mechanism such as holes in the wings to reduce air resistance. Without this mechanism, the cost/benefit ratio would not be feasible.
But consider even if the just-so stories were somewhat believable. What exactly does it prove? Isn’t it simply digging the heels in and doubling down on the original framework being the only one?
It seems Planck’s Principle is true for evolutionary biology like it has been for many other fields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
The style of this comment is exactly the sort of religious attack-dog attitude I often encounter on this topic. Very low on substance, high on bluster. When the evidence or argument is not on the side of your dogma, is best defense is a good offense, eh?
This kind of passive-aggressive comment is oozing self-assuredness while clearly having never delved into the material, nor ever read the thing they linked to. It’s almost as if they have just googled it briefly, found a wikipedia article, and said “you are totally mistaken! See, just a minute of googling will have shown how deluded you are, you unbeliever / heterodox person / whatever.”
Except your article doesn’t do what you hope it does, and most of the substance of your comment is an adhominem swipe at whoever dared question the premises. You’re hoping there’s something in the article you barely read, to answer the major issue, without bothering to delve into it yourself. Or perhaps the person will be embarrassed enough by your bluster, to stop questioning. Either way, a win for the dogma.
Imagine in any other area of life (eg solving a murder) if you always drew the target around an arrow (eg assuming that murders are always done by men) and then in every tough case came up with a million plausible but problematic just-so stories that always follow the model. What would it prove? Rather, the fact that the you keep concocting problematic stories in itself may reveal a major bias towards your underlying hypothesis, which makes you less objective as a scientist (or detective, or whatever in other areas of life).
Read this essay by Karl Popper, called Science as Falsification, it’s not very long: https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf
It was during the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories—the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, ‘What is wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton’s theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?’
To make this contrast clear I should explain that few of us at the time would have said that we believed in the truth of Einstein’s theory of gravitation. This shows that it was not my doubting the truth of those other three theories which bothered me, but something else. Yet neither was it that I merely felt mathematical physics to be more exact than the sociological or psychological type of theory. Thus what worried me was neither the problem of truth, at that stage at least, nor the problem of exactness or measurability. It was rather that I felt that these other three theories, though posing as sciences, had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy.
I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still ‘un-analysed’ and crying aloud for treatment.
The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which ‘verified’ the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasized by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation—which revealed the class bias of the paper—and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their ‘clinical observations’. As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. ‘Because of my thousandfold experience,’ he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: ‘And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.
That is what just-so stories are for adherents of neo-Darwinianism!
>religious attack-dog attitude I often encounter
This describes it precisely. I'm sure it's partly rooted in a long history of disingenuous arguments starting in the same way, particularly those that jump from something that has any scientific basis at all right to full on metaphysical or spiritual explanations.
I'm sure it's also rooted in much of the same psychological underpinnings of evangelists allowing for thought tinkering at the edges of scripture but protecting the tenets of their faith quite literally with their lives.