Good Study, But They Go Beyond the Science
Take for example the question of human facial variability. Our faces are remarkably variable and unique, far more than most other animal species. Also, our facial traits are more variable than other human traits.
Now a recent evolutionary study explains why. The evolutionists discovered that we have high facial variability because we evolved to have high facial variability. After all, the facial variability was matched by genetic variability. Amazing.
As one of the authors explained:
Our study now shows that humans have been selected to be unique and easily recognizable. It is clearly beneficial for me to recognize others, but also beneficial for me to be recognizable. Otherwise, we would all look more similar.
In other words, high facial variability evolved because it was selected for. And why was it selected for? Because it is beneficial. And why is it beneficial? Because otherwise, we would all look more similar.
If that was not clear, the other author add this:
The idea that social interaction may have facilitated or led to selection for us to be individually recognizable implies that human social structure has driven the evolution of how we look.
In other words, high facial variability evolved because human social structure drove the evolution of high facial variability.
It is all one big tautology. It evolved because it evolved. Studies like this are then cited as examples of the great explanatory power of evolution.
Let’s stick to the science.
In other words, high facial variability evolved because it was selected for. And why was it selected for? Because it is beneficial. And why is it beneficial? Because otherwise, we would all look more similar.
ReplyDeleteI will grant you that it could have been phrased better but it is fairly obvious why high facial variability is advantageous. We can tell family from strangers, friend from foe, us from them, friendly from hostile, interested from uninterested, trustworthy from suspicious. In evolutionary terms, such properties can be useful enough to be selected.
In other words, high facial variability evolved because human social structure drove the evolution of high facial variability.
Or, to put it another way, high facial variability evolved because, for human beings living in social groups, it was useful for identification, discrimination and communication.
It is all one big tautology. It evolved because it evolved.
No, it's not a tautology. They are not saying it evolved because it evolved, they are saying it evolved because high facial variability was useful to social creatures such as ourselves for the reasons given above. It evolved because there was a selectable advantage in having high facial variability.
No, it's not a tautology. They are not saying it evolved because it evolved, they are saying it evolved because high facial variability was useful to social creatures such as ourselves for the reasons given above. It evolved because there was a selectable advantage in having high facial variability.
DeleteIt evolved because it was there was a selectable advantage. And how do we know it has a selectable advantage? Because it evolved.
Hunter - "It evolved because it was there was a selectable advantage. And how do we know it has a selectable advantage? Because it evolved."
DeleteThat's funny. Don 't ever let them off the hook for how blind mindless unguided processes did or do accomplish anything remotely complex or sophisticated. The truth is and I know you are aware of this, they know full well what you are driving at, but the commitment to the ideologically driven dogma is to strong, that they are incapable of admitting this in public with perhaps 1000s of lurkers viewing on, many of which are their fellow believers. So more beating around the bush, definitions gaming, deflecting off topic and playing dumb appear to be the only strategic comebacks they can give. I recently ran across this little Christmas Season toy for evolutionists. It's called the "Mutation", a new 3D board game which riffs on on and all the while illustrating the supposed greatest achievements of evolution when it comes to the genetic code.
Mutation, a new 3D board game
The problem is like the Dawkinian Weasel, information is snuck through the back door, not to mention that all of the plastic part components were pre-made and already in place [illustrating the already in place existence of the mechanism] Of course the general lame default answer given is, "evolution is not about how did the parts get there." Still, it takes intelligence to create a tetrahedron. It's supposed to simulate how evoluton can create new mutations to genetic code. Except it doesn't adhere to the religious concepts insisted upon by the Theory of Evolution's hard core beliefs, no guidance, no purpose, no intelligence required. Otherwise if they were truly honest and open, players would sit around the table staring at the thing and for no reason the thing would suddenly try to mutate. Even a mistake would be interesting.
Cornelius Hunter: In other words, high facial variability evolved because human social structure drove the evolution of high facial variability.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not a tautology. This is the construct.
Given evolution (Darwin, 1859) ...
Given population genetics (Fisher et al., c. 1930) ...
Given a bunch of other findings concerning social organisms and a whole lot of other stuff (see the footnotes) ...
If the variation is greater than what is expected due to neutral evolution, then that implies negative frequency-dependent selection (look it up). As that is what was detected, then the conclusion, given the premises, is that human faces have evolved to signal individual identity.
That is not a tautology, but a chain of deductions, a.k.a. hypothetico-deduction, a.k.a. the scientific method.
You're talking to a wall, Zach.
DeleteGiven that evolutionism doesn't predict faces...
DeleteGiven that population genetics cannot explain humans...
Given that evolutionism is too vague and useless...
"Our study now shows that humans have been selected..." The question is whether the authors' study did anything beyond merely demonstrating significantly more variability in humans than in other creatures, and then selection being the default explanation for any anomaly believed to be useful. Otherwise, even in an evolutionary scheme, it's not necessarily true that selection is to blame. If selection had anything to do with it, then the real question is why selection screens out variability in other primates. The supposition in every Darwinian theory seems to be that one gets variation for free.
DeleteThe other problem is that this seems like it would be a group selection process, but it could be argued to be beneficial for groups to have less variability to easily recognize members of one's group. Otherwise, the variability could be an example of genetic drift: the supposed bottleneck in which proto-chimps and proto-humans were supposedly forced to hybridize in order to save themselves from extinction. Attraction to very different looking creatures would be "beneficial" in that scenario. I think Stephen Gould might have complained about the authors' "explanation" as being Panglossian.