| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
BTW -- for your class. Here's what I would do.
Teach Darwinian Evolution (and the modern genetic theory) but challenge the students to find the problems in the theory as it is presented. You take the role of defence. They take the role of challenger.
In a series of exercises, ask the students to find flaws in the essential theory, identify observations that appear to be inconsistent with expectations, and struggle -- like Darwin -- to develop concepts to challenge the prevailing wisdom. Ask them to research or develop alternatives that might answer better (a steady-state universe, for instance)? Teach them the rules of science so they will be able to separate non-rational proposals from rational proposals.
For example, one conceit of Darwinian evolution is the principle of common descent.
You might ask them to do some research to find out if this principle can be rationally questioned. If they discover recent talk of horizontal gene transfer, ask them to consider the implications for the life sciences and cladistics should this mechanism for genetic change prove viable?
I would actually start though by having them play the role of Darwin. Expose them to the prevailing concepts of his day (Biblical Creationism and Lamarkism come to mind of course) and then -- metaphorically -- send them on the Voyage of the Beagle. Show them the evidence Darwin saw and guide them to develop Darwin's Theory of Evolution themselves.
Only then would I turn around and ask them to now knock their own work down.
I bet Mick has some even better ideas about how to mold impressionable minds. :-)
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Now that sufficient time has elapsed I think we may take it as granted that our two Darwinian enthusiasts are not going to accept the Two Species Challenge. That is of course not surprising though it is (slightly) more surprising that they have not chirped up in these pages that they have tried and failed....and perhaps wondered why.
This is our old friend Careful Ignoral. And they are in good company since a world-renowned biologist also failed the challenge but, when taxed on the matter later, denied it had ever taken place! Careful Ignoral occurs when the brain recognises that it cannot defeat a proposition but acceptance of that proposition will call into question huge chunks of the brain. This is in fact the basis of Applied Epistemology: it is a way of persuading one's brain that wholesale changes can be made without inviting madness, social isolation, deep-died depression, and all those other things that contemplating the void brings literally to mind.
One would think that evolution -- in the sense that animal species have changed over time -- is so firmly rooted in the evidence by now that it would be entirely permissable to declare open season on how this comes about. But, no, apparently the struggle between religion and science -- fought out by their respective champions, the Neo-Darwinians and the Divine Creationists -- is still so raw that comfort cannot be given to the enemy in the form of disunity in the ranks. We must all be Darwinists. Or Creationists. Or, fortunately, Applied Epistemologists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| I think we may take it as granted that our two Darwinian enthusiasts are not going to accept the Two Species Challenge. That is of course not surprising though it is (slightly) more surprising that they have not chirped up in these pages that they have tried and failed....and perhaps wondered why. |
I can only assume that you would consider me to be a Darwinian enthusiast. I certainly consider this theory to be the best we have so far. By the Two Species Challenge you presumably mean the identification of two living species, one of whom is the ancestor of the other? Clarify this for me and I'll put it to my biologists.
Now that you've come back to the point with such a 'dot the i's and cross the t's attitude' I think it's only fair for you to give us your views on biological evolution. I think there is a clear mechanism (natural selection) at the genetic level and plenty of fossil evidence to demonstrate that all present life forms are evolved from simpler life forms. The fossil record is not complete but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For humans then, we are evolved from a now extinct ancestor which was ape-like. If we go back far enough we share a common mammalian ancestor, a common land inhabiting ancestor and so on right back to the simplest form of life.
| But, no, apparently the struggle between religion and science -- fought out by their respective champions, the Neo-Darwinians and the Divine Creationists -- is still so raw that comfort cannot be given to the enemy in the form of disunity in the ranks. We must all be Darwinists. Or Creationists. Or, fortunately, Applied Epistemologists. |
Let's look at consequences here. If evolution is correct then complexity is deepening. We can legitimately ask; what is the next step in human evolution? Notice here that I'm not invoking 'God'. Belief in a god is compatible with evolution as Alister McGrath clearly demonstrates.
As the Archdeacon of Applied Epistemology Mick, I would like you to explain what you think is going on. If there is no evidence of passing the TSC does it inevitably mean that the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed? If it is put me out of my misery. How does it work?
| And they are in good company since a world-renowned biologist also failed the challenge but, when taxed on the matter later, denied it had ever taken place! |
Who was this person?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I can only assume that you would consider me to be a Darwinian enthusiast. I certainly consider this theory to be the best we have so far. By the Two Species Challenge you presumably mean the identification of two living species, one of whom is the ancestor of the other? Clarify this for me and I'll put it to my biologists. |
You are already guilty of Careful Ignoral since clearly, in ordinary circumstances, an intellectually enquiring personage such as yourself, and one who believes that Darwinism is the basis of the whole of the present Life Sciences, would have been only too anxious to investigate such a curious phenomenon. But our brains just don't work like that. As a first line of defence it tends to buy time by asking for clarification of the "identification of two living species, one of whom is the ancestor of the other". So let me do so, you have to identify two living species, one of whom is the ancestor of the other.
Please note carefully the way your biologist contact behaves and report back. You might care to consult pp 149-50 of THOBR to avoid various expert side-steppings.
| Now that you've come back to the point with such a 'dot the i's and cross the t's attitude' I think it's only fair for you to give us your views on biological evolution. |
One of the principles of Applied Epistemology is negativism, destructive criticism, Mugwumpism and so forth. Academia is so overgrown (because the "Don't Know" position is so distasteful to them) that creating enough space for the sunshine of rational thought to get through is a necessary first step. There is no particular reason why AE-ists should also provide the new theories, though they often do because the newly created space calls forth the fecund growth so promptly.
I have not myself been blessed with such thoughts re evolution. I quite like Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance and certainly believe that the genes must have some better way than the incredibly haphazard method that neo-Darwinists believe in. Do me a favour! Four billion years is not nearly long enough using mutation and survival of the fittest.
| I think there is a clear mechanism (natural selection) at the genetic level and plenty of fossil evidence to demonstrate that all present life forms are evolved from simpler life forms. |
Well, not all the time, but yes this is a reasonable working hypothesis looked at over the long haul.
| The fossil record is not complete but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. |
Please never use this clichéd canard here ever again. It is a recipe for the indefinite survival of all kinds of nonsense.
| For humans then, we are evolved from a now extinct ancestor which was ape-like. |
No. Since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, we do not know how old humans are. Therefore the apes might be evolved from a human ancestor. Since apes survive better than humans in equatorial rainforests, and since apes are normally found in equatorial rainforests, it is fairly obvious, given survival-of-the-fittest, that apes are an adapted version of human beings. I expect.
| If we go back far enough we share a common mamallian ancestor, a common land inhabiting ancestor and so on right back to the simplest form of life. |
This doesn't necessarily follow at all. Since we have yet to discover a common ancestor for any of these forms and since, to use your own words, the fossil record is not complete, yours is only a reasonable inference. But of course it's the only one that gets airtime so everybody now thinks it is self-evident. That is always the way with academic models because the Academy is itself a practical monoply and because the Academy operates using strict internal disciplines. Any colour so long as it's black. Forever.
| Let's look at consequences here. If evolution is correct then complexity is deepening. We can legitimately ask; what is the next step in human evolution? Notice here that I'm not invoking 'God'. Belief in a god is compatible with evolution as Alister McGrath clearly demonstrates. |
Belief in god is compatible with anything. Though in Applied Epistemology it is not advised.
| As the Archdeacon of Applied Epistemology Mick, I would like you to explain what you think is going on. If there is no evidence of passing the TSC does it inevitably mean that the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed? If it is put me out of my misery. How does it work? |
Sorry, poppet, you're not here to be put out of your misery but to use your misery as an aid to creativity.
And they are in good company since a world-renowned biologist also failed the challenge but, when taxed on the matter later, denied it had ever taken place!
Who was this person? |
I'll e-mail you privately since while not a secret I am not really in a position to blackguard the swine in a public forum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
|
|
| You are already guilty of Careful Ignoral since clearly, in ordinary circumstances, an intellectually enquiring personage such as yourself, and one who believes that Darwinism is the basis of the whole of the present Life Sciences, would have been only too anxious to investigate such a curious phenomenon. |
Well, as you once said to me, I have many intellectual interests and only so much time. But I'm here now...
| I have not myself been blessed with such thoughts re evolution. I quite like Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance and certainly believe that the genes must have some better way than the incredibly haphazard method that neo-Darwinists believe in. |
I have read The New Science of Life and The Presence of the Past. Both quite persuasive but his experiments on morphic resonance have so far proved inconclusive.
| Four billion years is not nearly long enough using mutation and survival of the fittest. |
To be fair here I refer you to Dawkins's Climbing Mount Improbable.
| No. Since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, we do not know how old humans are. Therefore the apes might be evolved from a human ancestor. Since apes survive better than humans in equatorial rainforests, and since apes are normally found in equatorial rainforests, it is fairly obvious, given survival-of-the-fittest, that apes are an adapted version of human beings. I expect. |
I will entertain much and like to think that I'm open to new ideas but this goes too far. Australopithecus is an ape-man. Apes have been around in the fossil record for far longer than humans have. We're also much more intelligent so if evolution moves forward by increasing complexity then it would be a fair inference indeed.
| This doesn't necessarily follow at all. Since we have yet to discover a common ancestor for any of these forms and since, to use your own words, the fossil record is not complete, yours is only a reasonable inference. But of course it's the only one that gets airtime so everybody now thinks it is self-evident. |
Now I admit that I don't know the common ancestors but there is surely enough material in the fossil record to establish a very strong case. If there wasn't then we would have far more discord in the Scientific community. I don't just share the depth of your cynicism towards academia. You seem to view it as a monolithic Other which is incapable of producing anything truthful at all. Even a shade of truth. Nonetheless, I do accept that no theory is perfect.
| Sorry, poppet, you're not here to be put out of your misery but to use your misery as an aid to creativity. |
No problem. Expected nothing less. But unleash your creativity on this problem. You've already told me that apes are an adapted form of humans. How did we get here? Did we evolve from simpler life forms or are we pretty much unchanged from the day that our Big Daddy put us here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Duncan wrote: | | I think there is a clear mechanism (natural selection) at the genetic level and plenty of fossil evidence to demonstrate that all present life forms are evolved from simpler life forms. |
Near as I can tell, the fossil record attests to no period on earth when biological life appears any more 'simple' than it does today. Over millions of years, the same niches of plant and animal, herbivore and carnivore -- even down to the same ratios -- appear to be carved out by various actors, none of which seems any less difficult for nature to manufacture than those life forms we see today. Because we presume life began on Earth, we assume it was once more simple than it appears now. But we don't appear to have ever found a time when it actually was.
| For humans then, we are evolved from a now extinct ancestor which was ape-like. |
Genetically speaking, there's absolutely no reason to think that apes could not have evolved from a now extinct ancestor which was human-like. After-all, proponents of modern Darwinian evolution are quite clear on the point that humans evolved not from apes but from an ancestral species common to apes and humans which is, alas, like all the other common ancestors of every other existant species, both extinct and unaccounted for. Moreover, the modern theory does away with quaint notions such as progress so none's to say apes aren't better adapted to their environment and might well out-live us.
| If we go back far enough we share a common mammalian ancestor, a common land inhabiting ancestor and so on right back to the simplest form of life. |
My own view -- and I know you didn't ask for it but here it is anyway -- is that we just don't know and the evidence is so incredibly sketchy and contradictory that no sort of dogmatic view of these matters can be maintained rationally. Darwin has provided us with a working model but it is increasingly doubtful that the fundamental forces that now power that model, natural selection and genetic mutation, are sufficiently powerful to effect the results called for.
And if there's any truth to horizontal gene transfer, the entire notion of common ancestry may have to be thrown out completely -- even presuming an evolutionary process that encourages increasing complexity.
| Let's look at consequences here. If evolution is correct then complexity is deepening. We can legitimately ask; what is the next step in human evolution? |
I don't think we can ask that question. Not legitimately. The modern theory does not allow for any concept of progress beyond optimal adaptation to a given environmental input. No species on Earth is any more "evolved" than any other. They are all optimally adapted to their environment (which is in itself rather odd when you think about it -- shouldn't there be quite a few species which are barely making by with a half-way adaptation? Maybe. And maybe they are. but could we recognize such a species if we saw it? By what criteria? These are the kind of issues a mature theory would have clearly addressed after 165 years.).
| Notice here that I'm not invoking 'God'. Belief in a god is compatible with evolution as Alister McGrath clearly demonstrates. |
You'll get nowhere with Mick via that route.
On the other hand, my own response is that 'God' may be compatible with Darwinian evolution by natural selection but...what does that say about God?
| If there is no evidence of passing the TSC does it inevitably mean that the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed? If it is put me out of my misery. How does it work? |
One of the fundamental principles of Applied Epistemology is that one should build theory using only observed forces and factors. There's no speculation allowed. So no inventing species. If the species isn't attested to in the world today or in the fossil record, it doesn't exist. An Applied Epistemological version of the tree of life would feature only known species and, within these limitations, attempt to arrange them in terms of ancestors and decendants.
Unfortunately, we haven't found yet a volunteer to do this.
The same rules apply to languages. No invented languages allowed. If you have a family of languages, you aren't permitted to invent a unobserved common ancestor. One living language (or a dead one attested to in literature) must be posited as the ancestral language.
But dead languages are on equal footing with the living. They don't get a leg-up as grandfathers just because they're not around any more. As I pointed out earlier, in correctly-formatted evolutionary trees, it should be common for parents to outlive their children. That is why Latin may be best explained as a far-removed descendant of English.
Notions such as this last one have never before been considered specifically due to the presumptive dead ancestor fallacy (a problem that, in disciplines concerned with biological evolution, manifests as the presumptive dead and unaccounted for ancestor fallacy ).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| One of the fundamental principles of Applied Epistemology is that one should build theory using only observed forces and factors. There's no speculation allowed. So no inventing species. If the species isn't attested to in the world today or in the fossil record, it doesn't exist. An Applied Epistemological version of the tree of life would feature only known species and, within these limitations, attempt to arrange them in terms of ancestors and decendants. |
Although this is a true exposition of the AE position, we must not ignore the ingenuity and depth of academic chicanery. Can we trust them with the fossils, Ishmael? With fossils you get only morphology and using morphology you can only have peer review as a safeguard. Which is no safeguard since the peers are all Darwinians. As an essential first step, the tree-of-life must feature only living animals ie ones whose genes we can actually inspect in toto. It is true that the geneticists will also be Darwinians but that won't matter since raw numbers will overwhelm preconceptions.
You will note that we will then have arrived at the British historical 'tree-of-life' situation where the geneticists are presently playing havoc with the fossil-gatherers, the archaeologists and palaeolinguists. That is why the 'name two living species ancestral to one another' is so important. Or perhaps why the anomaly arose in the first place.
| I will entertain much and like to think that I'm open to new ideas but this goes too far. Australopithecus is an ape-man. |
Scusie, signor, but Australopithecus is not an ape-man. In the first place it is now accepted, even by the most perfervid 'let's fill in all the gaps' palaeoanthropologist, that Austro is not ancestral to man. So the man bit of ape-man is untrue. And as far as I know nobody has ever placed Austro on the Ape branch either. So bang goes the ape in ape-man. Of course Austro is carefully attached somewhere on the quadrant of the tree of life that has Gibbon, Orang, Gorilla, Chimp and Modern Human strung along the top but that is not the same thing at all. You are however welcome to reproduce a reputable diagram here that demonstrates that Austro is indeed an ape-man. But if you can't, I am sure you will apologise for your errant trenchancy.
| Apes have been around in the fossil record for far longer than humans have. |
Since humans only go back tens of thousands of years practically anything with a fossil record is older than we are. However, as it happens (I believe I am correct in saying) the four present ape species are all ones for which there is no fossil record (out of the n million living species very few do have a fossil record of course). So technically speaking, by your own measure, we are older than they. It is true that there are quite a few fossils that are routinely named as 'ape-like' but since these are also universally described as man-like (no doubt for publicity reasons but of course it's always true in a vaguely morphological way) this does not assist.
| We're also much more intelligent so if evolution moves forward by increasing complexity then it would be a fair inference indeed. |
Ah, a new doctrine. Intelligence is itself a sign of increasing complexity. Though remember, Dunc, intelligence is one of them "soft tissue" thingies that fossils don't reveal. But while we're on the subject, here's a new puzzle for you to solve:
1. We know, from the fossil record, that evolution can go from non-intelligence species to intelligent ones in just a few million years.
2. We know that intelligence is the best tool for survival-of-the-fittest yet discovered.
3. We know that evolution is nothing other than an engine for generating tools for survival-of-the-fittest.
4.. So how come it has taken evolution several billion years to produce something that can be produced in several million years?
| I don't just share the depth of your cynicism towards academia. You seem to view it as a monolithic Other which is incapable of producing anything truthful at all. Even a shade of truth. |
You're still new at the game. But you must surely accept that academia is monolithic. It is precisely structured to be so. Every academic has to have gone through many years of learning the prevailing paradigms, all must have sat exams to show that they have satisfactorily acquired them, all have been selected to be academics on those beliefs as a sine qua non, all are required to teach courses in those beliefs, all their students are examined to ensure that those beliefs have been taught. Promotion is entirely in the hands of believers. I just don't see where unorthodoxy could even get a foothold. Perhaps it's possible to stay in the profession by lying about your beliefs (like Anglican ministers in middle age?) but do tell where the monolith breaks down. I for one will be most interested. AE would very much like to recruit them. Tell you what, you can win the argument by naming one academic at one British university who doesn't subscribe to one of the prevailing paradigms of his or her subject.
I have never said academia doesn't produce truth. In my judgement the stuff it produces is almost invariably true. Certainly Applied Epistemologists rely on it implicitly.
| Nonetheless, I do accept that no theory is perfect. |
In my experience people always say things like that. It makes them sound so nobly open-minded. I'd like to believe you, Dunc, I really would but obviously we'll have to test whether you truly believe it or whether you are just mouthing fashionable cant. You could start by listing all the imperfections in the theory of Darwinian Evolution. If, for whatever reason, you don't feel like doing this then name one imperfection in one academic theory that you have come across that has caused you to come to the view that "no theory is perfect".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | With fossils you get only morphology and using morphology you can only have peer review as a safeguard. |
You are absolutely right of course -- but these are secondary (though important) matters. In my post, I was concerned only with expressing the fundamentals. Once we all agree that no unobserved species may be introduced into our model, then we can start debating as to whether or not this or that particular fossil attests to a particular and unique species, deserving of inclusion.
| Which is no safeguard since the peers are all Darwinians. As an essential first step, the tree-of-life must feature only living animals ie ones whose genes we can actually inspect in toto. It is true that the geneticists will also be Darwinians but that won't matter since raw numbers will overwhelm preconceptions. |
If you are talking about genetic analysis, I agree. My post was concerned with correcting existing practices that have not enjoyed (until recently) access to genetic analysis (and as we have many times mentioned, the fact that genetic analysis has so little been applied to questions of speciation really is peculiar -- or not -- depending on your point of view).
With specific regard to correcting current methodology, a tree of life that does not account for the fossil record must be incorrect by definition. AE isn't an arbitrary set of rules designed merely to overcome systematic problems with the academy -- it's also meant to help find the truth. Limiting the scope to a partial data-set is a recipe for failure. The goal must remain the construction of a tree of life in which every identified species -- living or dead -- finds a home.
| (out of the n million living species very few do have a fossil record of course) |
Actually, the information I have suggests that statement is wrong.
According to sources I have read, the fossil record attests to the vast majority of land-vertebrate species still alive today (correct me if I have been mislead). If true, this fact possesses a significant problem for the traditional evolutionary model because it invites us to conclude that the fossil record also must attest to the vast majority of land-vertebrate species that have ever lived.
If that is the case, it becomes devastatingly difficult to keep hoping for the eventual emergence of all those thousands-upon-tens-of-thousands of missing common ancestors.
| I have never said academia doesn't produce truth. In my judgement the stuff it produces is almost invariably true. Certainly Applied Epistemologists rely on it implicitly. |
Not sure I'd agree that the stuff it produces is "almost invariably true". I do of course agree that, unfortunately, we're stuck with what they give us as our raw material (mostly, I assume it's all wrong except where it proves useful -- more on this principle later if anyone asks me about it).
In the big picture sense though, I think my words agree with yours when I write, just because something is true, doesn't mean it isn't all wrong. Most often, it's the interpretation and the implication that are significant -- not the raw data -- and that's where most of the errors lie -- as your work has repeatedly illustrated and my own most humbly confirms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| I don't believe it and I don't think you do either. |
I do believe that stuff about the Taliban and Creationists leaves a sour taste in your mouth...
| If the scientific model doesn't work then neither do our lasers nor our computers. Science works. |
Flint-knapping worked for hominids... and, sure, our scientific model has been sufficient to produce lasers and computers... but what has that to do with Truth?
I think I might put it this way: scientists think they see Reality directly; whereas I see a relationship between scientists and what they call the Truth.
One's opinion of one's own opinions has a marked effect on one's attitude to others... and that impinges on the practical processes of the dissemination, use and evolution of knowledge.
| As Einstein pointed out, scientists stand on each other's shoulders. |
Was he misquoting Newton when he said that? In any case, we all stand on each other's shoulders.
| This scientific method has been one of our greatest achievements as a society and we neglect the state of mind it produces at our peril. |
So watch out for nasty bastards like Dawkins.
| The view of Watchtower is as valid as Darwin? |
Yes and no. In the sense of scientific validity: no, evolution {flawed or not} is held to be scientific and the Watchtower is not {although if you ask 'em, they'll probably disagree!}. But that is circular, not deductive.
In the broader sense of whether people can adduce reasons for what they believe: yes, the Watchtower is just as valid as evolution: both not rational at all!
If you want to stand toe to toe with 'em and slug it out, I'd ask you on what basis you think you're (in the) right.
But you seem to have missed a bit: they can even argue that certain scientific results must be false. And you can't deny the logic of it. You can only contest the truth of the premises, but, again, on what basis?
| ...all present life forms are evolved from simpler life forms. |
This is interesting. The thing about 2 species is that the principle is utterly basic in the framework of evolutionary biology... and yet it is not in fact applied by biologists. That is, the practice of evolutionary science is not just the rational application and re-application of the basic principles, but is coloured, if not steered, by whim, caprice, folly and all those other features that human beings actually possess.
Similarly here, the accepted view is that modern species run the gamut from so-simple-as-to-border-on-the-arguably-not-even-living-organisms to the most complex ever known, but "all present life forms are evolved from simpler life forms" trips easily off Duncan's fingertips.
I'm not saying it isn't an easy mistake to make, but what effect does it have when scientists do not realise they are making it?
What they should say is that life forms are more diverse than ever before, with more complex forms arising alongside simpler ones... except that there is evidence that life has been more diverse at other times in the past... and that "evolved" organisms alongside "unevolved" organisms rather begs the question about how these inexorable selection pressures are supposed to have worked... {It's not like we can trace the organisms that first conquered different areas of the globe, as if new traits were appearing.}
| We can legitimately ask; what is the next step in human evolution? |
Another telling misapplication of the basic concepts! No, Duncan, it is not legitimate to ask what is the next step. In evolution, there is no such thing.
| ...if evolution moves forward by increasing complexity... |
Duncan, you're killing me. Neither of these is a valid evolutionism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Dan. I liked the way you closed but most of that seemed a little...too...
zen.
AE does not question the scientific method in principle. AE strives to more stringently apply -- and better-define -- the rules of the scientific method. I think Duncan deserves to know that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
(out of the n million living species very few do have a fossil record of course)
Actually, the information I have suggests that statement is wrong. |
My bald statement must be correct. The number of present species is something between five and twenty-five million, the number of known fossil species is surely only in the hundreds of thousands max.
But your statement about land-vertebrates may be true. After all, they're relatively few and having a skeleton must enhance one's chances of being fossilised. As it happens though, this is an interesting AE question. Given that palaeontology is the backbone of Darwinian Evolution and DE is the backbone of the Life Sciences (puns only partly intended) then it is clearly a matter of the greatest consequence what proportion of species get fossilised. And yet I predict this vital question will prove curiously difficult to answer. Get to it, lads!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| You've already told me that apes are an adapted form of humans. |
Since Ishmael abjures us not to mislead Duncan, I suppose I ought to say that I don't believe apes are an adapted form of humans. I am just pointing out that we don't actually know which came first and it's only our human chauvinism that insists on us constantly putting ourselves as latest-and-best. Though I suppose from a strictly evolutionary point of view we ought to give horseshoe crabs first prize -- they're the complex life-form that's managed to survive longest. (Write in with your candidate if this is not the case.)
| Did we evolve from simpler life forms? |
Well, you'll have to tell me, Dunc, it's one of your themes. Is Neanderthal,.Homo Habilis, Australopithecus, or whoever you think we evolved from, a more or less simpler life form? I just don't know how one measures these things. I suspect you haven't thought about it either because orthodoxy just goes one cell, two cells, tickley under there.
| or are we pretty much unchanged from the day that our Big Daddy put us here? How did we get here? |
As you yourself pointed out, we are intelligent and in that respect apparently unique among creatures who have ever lived on earth. As I understand evolutionary theory, you're not supposed to have one species out of umpty million taking advantage of a single really advantageous evolutionary trait. Can you imagine a world in which only one species has eyes? Wings? Sexual reproduction? So I think we'll have to grant the Watchtower does have a solid foundation for its view that there may be a Big Daddy interfering in the process somewhere along the line. Though of course being an Applied Epistemologist I am not greatly attracted to such a widespread orthodoxy.
If it's any help I tend to ascribe to the Aquatic Ape theory. That human beings evolved in the sea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
...or, I suppose it has to be said, swamps, rivers, lakes.
{Wasn't it on the news the other day that they've found signs of a giant, ancient lake in East Africa...?}
You'd think we'd be "better protected" in either fresh water or salt... and that would suggest which one our ancestors adapted to: assuming it wasn't both.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
Surely living things are evolving constantly, through each generation. Nothing is standing still. When two animals diverge both will change from that moment on. To find a living ancestor is akin to finding a living fossil.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
But that's the curious thing, Martin, they do not change. Yes, of course, in tiny details each generation, but in evolutionary terms animals millions of years old are virtually identical to their modern versions. But when speciation does occur there's a sudden radical shift without (apparently) any intermediate forms.
This is not particularly compatible with Darwinian Evolution -- though it is rescuable via 'modifications' to the basic theory, which were this not a paradigm theory come perilously close to special pleading.
However your argument would seem to imply that living ancestors should be all around us..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
