Wednesday, February 5, 2014

This Journalist Uses Critical Thinking

Evolution Can Even Explain How the Human Eye Evolved

Benjamin Radford writes for the Discovery News and is interested in why people believe things for which there is little or no evidence. He applies critical thinking and scientific methodologies to unusual claims. One of those things that interests Radford is skepticism of evolution. After all, as Radford notes, there is “overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution,” and it is “confirmed by nearly every scientific discipline.” Evolution is all around us, all the time. Evolution is why we need to get a new flu shot every year and, notes Radford, evolution can even explain how the human eye evolved. It is strange that such claims come from a critical thinker such as Radford because, in fact, they are all false.

Consider the evolution of the human eye. Charles Darwin considered the eye to be an “organ of extreme perfection.” Even after writing Origins he confessed it gave him a cold shudder. He needed to focus on his theory’s fine gradations to give himself comfort. But one hundred and thirty four years later, in 1994, evolutionists claimed they had solved the problem. The evolution of the eye was finally understood. It turned out such evolution was no big deal after all. In fact the eye could rather easily evolve.

The only catch to the conclusion was that it was circular. The evolutionists, who believe evolution is a fact, first assumed the evolution of the eye in order to solve the problem of the evolution of the eye.

With evolution taken as a given, whether or not vision systems evolved was no longer in question—they did. The only question was how they have evolved. The 1994 paper explained that although Darwin “anticipated that the eye would become a favorite target for criticism,” the problem “has now almost become a historical curiosity” and “the question is now one of process rate rather than one of principle.” The evolutionists estimated this rate by first assuming that the eye indeed evolved. They wrote:

The evolution of complex structures, however, involves modifications of a large number of separate quantitative characters, and in addition there may be discrete innovations and an unknown number of hidden but necessary phenotypic changes. These complications seem effectively to prevent evolution rate estimates for entire organs and other complex structures. An eye is unique in this respect because the structures necessary for image formation, although there may be several, are all typically quantitative in their nature, and can be treated as local modifications of pre-existing tissues. Taking a patch of pigmented light-sensitive epithelium as the starting point, we avoid the more inaccessible problem of photoreceptor cell evolution. Thus, if the objective is limited to finding the number of generations required for the evolution of an eye’s optical geometry, then the problem becomes solvable.

The problem becomes solvable? The evolutionists skipped the entire evolution of cellular signal transduction and the vision cascade. That would be like saying you have showed how motorcycles evolved although you took the engine, drive train and wheels as your starting point.

The evolutionists then skipped all of the major problems that arise after you have a signal transduction system in place, such as the incredible post processing system and the creation of the machinery to construct the vision system. The problem they ended up solving is sometimes affectionately referred to as a “cartoon” version of the real world problem.

The research, if you can call it that, did not demonstrate that the eye evolved or could have evolved. Yet the paper became a favorite reference for evolutionists wanting to promote evolution. Eye evolution, they insisted, was now known to be straightforward. Here, for instance, is how our tax dollars are used by PBS to promote this abuse of science:

Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations. Starting with a simple patch of light sensitive cells, Nilsson’s model “evolves” until a clear image is produced.

This spreading of false information is not limited to popular presentations. A paper reporting on “highly advanced compound eyes” which are “as advanced as those of many living forms” in early arthropods begins by informing the reader that “theory (i.e., the Nilsson paper) suggests that complex eyes can evolve very rapidly.” This helps them to conclude that those incredible arthropod eyes are “further evidence that the Cambrian explosion involved rapid innovation.”

With the mythological framework in place, the findings could then safely be presented as confirmations of evolution. As the journal’s editor added:

Charles Darwin thought that the eye, which he called an “organ of extreme perfection,” was a serious challenge to evolutionary theory — but he was mistaken. Theory predicts that eyes can evolve with great speed, and now there is support for this prediction from the fossil record.

Support for this prediction? You’ve got to be kidding. A cartoon version of reality, taking the myth of evolution as true, is considered a “prediction” and amazing early complexity in the fossils then becomes a “support for this prediction”?

What the arthropod fossils revealed is an early Cambrian, highly advanced vision system more elaborate than any so far discovered. Its compound eyes have more then 3,000 lenses optimally arranged in the densest and most efficient packing pattern. As the paper explains:

The extremely regular arrangement of lenses seen here exceeds even that in certain modern taxa, such as the horseshoe crab Limulus, in which up to one-third of lenses deviate from hexagonal packing.

All of this is presented to the reader as merely another demonstration of how fantastic designs just happen spontaneously to arise:

The new fossils reveal that some of the earliest arthropods had already acquired visual systems similar to those of living forms, underscoring the speed and magnitude of the evolutionary innovation that occurred during the Cambrian explosion.

Ho-hum, yet more evolutionary innovation. For evolutionists it was just another day in the office. As PZ Myers explained, we already knew that complex animals appear rapidly. After all, that is why they call it the “Cambrian explosion.” Evolutionists have written “whole books on the subject.”

Myers follows this circular reasoning with yet more question begging:

The sudden appearance of complexity is no surprise, either. We know that the fundamental mechanisms of eye function evolved long before the Cambrian, from the molecular evidence;

Of course there is no “molecular evidence” that gives us such knowledge (see here for example). But if you assume evolution is true to begin with, as do evolutionists who analyze the molecular patterns, then Myers’ fictional, question begging, world makes sense.

Myers follows these circular arguments with a more subtle type of fallacy. He explains that these particular findings are no big deal because both this finding and the similar trilobite vision systems require cellular signal transduction, development machines and so forth:

It is also the case that the measure of complexity here is determined by a simple meristic trait, the number of ommatidia. This is not radical. The hard part in the evolution of the compound eye was the development of the signal transduction mechanism, followed by the developmental rules that governed the formation of a regular, repeating structure of the eye. The number of ommatidia is a reflection of the degree of commitment of tissues in the head to eye formation, and is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

Setting aside the usual evolutionary speculation about how easily designs evolve, the problem here is that the cellular signal transduction, development machines and so forth are themselves problems for evolution. Indeed, even the simplest of light detection systems sport such incredible designs for which evolution has no explanation beyond vague speculation.

Next Myers is back to question-begging. In typical fashion he attempts to shore up the evolution position with the usual reference to, yes, the mythical 1994 Nilsson paper:

And finally, there’s nothing in the data from this paper that implies sudden origins; there can’t be. If it takes a few hundred thousand years for a complex eye to evolve from a simple light sensing organ, there is no way to determine that one sample of a set of fossils was the product of millions of years of evolution, or one day of magical creation.

Next is the fallacy of credulity. If you present an evolutionist with the scientific failures of his theory, he will accuse you of basing your skepticism on your own failure to imagine a solution. As Myers puts it:

It’s a logical error and a failure of the imagination to assume that these descriptions are of a population that spontaneously emerged nearly-instantaneously.

Failure of the imagination? Indeed, we just need to do more imagining, that’s the problem.

Finally Myers reiterates the flawed Darwinian argument that whatever abruptness you see in the fossil record is, after all, merely a consequence of all those gaps in the fossils:

Darwin himself explained in great detail how one should not expect fine-grained fossil series, due to the imperfection of the geological record.

When in doubt, doubt the data. Paleontologists agree that the fossil record reveals abrupt appearances, but when convenient evolutionists can always protect their theory with those gaps in the fossil record.

Evolutionary thinking is remarkable. I am reminded of John Earman’s remarks about Hume’s arguments. For it is astonishing how well evolution is treated, given how completely the confection collapses under a little probing. So if Benjamin Radford really is interested in why people believe things for which there is little or no evidence, we have just the topic for him.

22 comments:

  1. Blinders (UK), also known as blinkers (US) are a piece of horse tack that prevent the horse seeing to the rear and, in some cases, to the side. They usually are made of leather or plastic cups that are placed on either side of the eyes, either attached to a bridle or to an independent hood. (Wikipedia)
    Are the blinders of evolutionists made of leather or of blind faith?
    I wonder that most of them are blind and see only the piece of reality, a small one.
    Anyway, thank you for your comments Cornelius!

    ReplyDelete
  2. CH: The only catch to the conclusion was that it was circular. The evolutionists, who believe evolution is a fact, first assumed the evolution of the eye in order to solve the problem of the evolution of the eye.

    When you explain how it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory context, then you'll have an argument (and you'll probably win a Nobel Prize as well). Until then, this is merely hand waving.

    For example..

    CH: When in doubt, doubt the data. Paleontologists agree that the fossil record reveals abrupt appearances, but when convenient evolutionists can always protect their theory with those gaps in the fossil record.

    We do not "doubt" the fossil record. Rather, the reason why observations of the fossil record are even relevant at all is because of our best, current explanation of why fossils form in the first place. It's this very same explanation that tells us there should be gaps in the fossil records, which would not preserve every transition.

    But, according to you, isn’t the very relevance of the fossil record circular because it first puts those observations in an explanatory framework to extrapolate them?

    To revisit an old question, are dinosaurs merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils? Or are they *the* explanation for fossils?

    After all, there are an infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same evidence, yet suggest that dinosaurs never existed millions of years ago. In which case, the fossil record would not be even remotely relevant in the question of evolution. At all. Period.

    For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations.

    Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to them. This is the same sort of reasoning that suggests human consciousness is so unique that determinism simply doesn't apply to it.

    One could suggests It's meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils.

    Not to mention the rival interpretation that designer chose to create the world we observe 30 second ago. Therefore, dinosaurs couldn't be the explanation for fossils, because they didn't exist until 30 seconds ago.

    In all of these cases, observations of the fossil record tell us nothing, one way or the other, unless we first put them in an explanatory framework. And, consequently, they would be irrelevant to evolutionary theory. So, gaps, or the lack there of, wouldn’t be relevant at all.

    Yet, you seem to think they are relevant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott
      "In all of these cases, observations of the fossil record tell us nothing, one way or the other, unless we first put them in an explanatory framework."

      1) What would be different from the scientific stand point if each of explanatory frameworks were true?
      2) How do you test which of that explanatory frameworks are true?

      Delete
    2. Blas: 1) What would be different from the scientific stand point if each of explanatory frameworks were true?

      You seem to have it backwards. We do not derive theories from observations. Rather, we always start out with conjecture, then apply criticism. In the case of science, those criticisms include empirical observations.

      So, what's different is the explanations for those empirical observations, not the observations themselves (which also happen to be theory laden)

      Blas: 2) How do you test which of that explanatory frameworks are true?

      Again, you seem to have it backwards. Since we start out with conjecture, what we do is look for explanatory theories that are found to conflict with observations, then improve or discard and replace them. Since we we start out with the idea that all theories contain errors to some degree and are incomplete, we do not think they are "true" in the sense you seem to be implying.

      We make progress by being less wrong.

      Delete
    3. Of course we derive theories from observations. Science operates via observations.

      Delete
    4. We do? How does that work, exactly? Please be specific.

      Delete
    5. Well we make observations of the world and develop theories to explain what we observe.

      Science asks 3 basic questions- What's there? How does it work? How did it come to be the way it is?

      We make an observation, it drives our curiousity and we endeavor to figure it out by developing hypothese and models to test them.

      How the heck can one develop a theory about something without first observing it and then wondering about it? How does THAT work exactly?

      Delete
    6. Did Darwin derive his theories from A) traveling around the world making many observations and trying to explain them or B) staying home and drinking tea?

      Was the Beagle the ship he traveled on or the type of dog he had?

      Delete
    7. Scott said :we do not think they are "true" in the sense you seem to be implying. "

      I´m not implying nothing just I want to know what do you understand by knowledge.

      Scott said

      "Since we start out with conjecture,"

      How can we start with s conjecture? How do we build a conjecture?


      Scott said
      "Since we start out with the idea that all theories contain errors to some degree and are incomplete,"

      Why do we start with this idea? Where that idea come from? How do we get ideas?


      Delete
    8. Joe: How the heck can one develop a theory about something without first observing it and then wondering about it? How does THAT work exactly?

      We start out with a problem, then conjecture one or more solutions to that problem. IOW, we do not observe solutions. So, what we start out with are guesses, intuitions, etc. This is because we have no guarantee they will actually solve the problem at hand.

      Joe: Did Darwin derive his theories from A) traveling around the world making many observations and trying to explain them or B) staying home and drinking tea?

      Being mistaken about the role of empirical observations (getting it backwards) isn't the same as saying empirical observations do not play a role at all.

      Delete
    9. Blas,

      What we start out with are problems, not observations.

      New observations (which are themselves theory laden) indicate a new problem or reveal deficiencies in our current theories. At which point, we create explanatory theories about how to solve them.

      The key point is that our explanatory theories are not guaranteed to solve the problem in question. They are intuitions or guesses. Nor do we just guess and stop there. Specifically, we criticize our conjectured theories in hope of finding and discarding errors.

      It's this error correcting process that allows us to make progress.

      Delete
    10. Scott you said

      "We do not derive theories from observations. Rather, we always start out with conjecture, then apply criticism."

      and now you said

      "What we start out with are problems, not observations. "

      I assume that for you "problems" and "conjectures have the same meaning.

      Then my question still stands:

      How can we start with s conjecture? How do we build a conjecture?

      How do we realize that we have a problem?

      Delete
  3. Scott: It's this very same explanation that tells us there should be gaps in the fossil records, which would not preserve every transition.

    J: The problem is that the same geological contingencies that render putative gaps conceivable in terms of story-telling also render currently perceived stratigraphic ranges conceivably non-related to exisential succession. As Benton admitted:

    "Assessing the quality of the fossil record is notoriously hard, and many recent attempts have used sampling proxies that can be questioned... A single answer to the question of whether the fossil record is driven by macroevolution or megabias is unlikely ever to emerge because of temporal, geographical, and taxonomic variance in the data."

    When you have no positive evidence, suppression of dissent is immoral.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,

      Cornelius objects to the article on the grounds that evolutionists are putting observations into an explanatory framework. Specially, they think Evolution is *the* explanation for biological adaptive complexity, not merely an interpretation.

      However, when he suggests the fossil record actually is relevant to the issue in question, he's referring to paleontologists who themselves consider dinosaurs *the* explanation of fossils, despite an infinite number of interpretations which suggest that dinosaurs never even existed. At which point, the fossil record would be irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Yet he seems to think it *is* relevant.

      More to the point, it's unclear how it's even possible to interpret any observations, let alone those of the biosphere, without putting them into some kind of explanatory framework, even if it's extremely bad one.

      So, Cornelius' argument is yet again parochial in that it is narrow in scope. He only does not take it seriously, because it's applicable to the fossil record, which re references, and it would also be "applicable" to not just evolutionary theory.

      IOW, it's a bad criticism because it's applicable to all observations.

      But, as always, Cornelius should feel free to explain how it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into some kind of explanatory framework.

      Delete
    2. Denying that we can make progress when it conflicts with your theological views is moral?

      Delete
    3. Scott: But, as always, Cornelius should feel free to explain how it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into some kind of explanatory framework.

      J: An explanation of a set of historical states of affairs is a posited antecedent state of affairs that IMPLIES the subsequent states of affairs. There is NO humanly-conceived explanation of a UCA history, Scott. What precisely are you defining an explanation to be?

      Delete
    4. Is there something about the above you do not understand?

      All observations are theory laden, including those of the fossil record. Yet, Cornelius objects to evolutionary theory because it's theory laden. Go figure.

      Specifically, he appeals to the fossil record in his argument, despite there being an infinite number of interpretations of fossils that suggest dinosaurs never even existed. At which point they would be irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

      Cornelius objects to evolution being *the* explanation for biological complexity, but doesn't object to dinosaurs being *the* explanation for fossils. His argument is parochial because he selectively applies it to some theories, but not others.

      Theory laden-ness is a bad criticism because it's applicable to all observations. So, it cannot be used in a critical way.

      Jeff: There is NO humanly-conceived explanation of a UCA history, Scott.

      There isn't? Then you should have no problem should I pose the same question to you. How is it possible extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework of some kind?

      How would you, or any one else, go about actually doing it, in practice? Please be specific.

      Delete
    5. Scott: Cornelius objects to evolution being *the* explanation for biological complexity, but doesn't object to dinosaurs being *the* explanation for fossils.

      J: But there is no evidence that fossils are effects of completely non-biological conditions. And there IS evidence that they ARE the effects of biological conditions.

      On the other hand, there is ZERO evidence that the evolution we observe is only the most recent evolutionary history of a UCA as opposed to an SA terrestrial, biological history.

      IOW, inductive criteria works perfectly for the conclusion that critters/plants are necessary conditions of fossils. But inductive criteria can't even BE applied to the question of UCA vs. SA. There are no explanations of a complete UCA or SA history. And inductive criteria apply TO explanations.

      But analogical explanation IS explanation that humans find necessary to function, however non-detailed. Analogical explanation has its own kind of BREADTH. And breadth of explanation is one of the inductive criteria for hypothesis acceptance/rejection.

      Delete
  4. Jeff, I agree with you about suppression of dissent, but how can you honestly claim "no positive evidence"? There is an enormous amount of evidence, and I hate to have someone misrepresenting the facts.

    Question it all you want, but don't say there is no evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IntelligentAnimation: There is an enormous amount of evidence, and I hate to have someone misrepresenting the facts.

      J: Define what you mean by evidence and then declare to me the evidence, per that definition, for Universal Common Ancestry.

      Delete
  5. CH, I have to agree that the line of reasoning is somewhat circular in that there is an extreme confirmation bias.

    Myers says that "it can't be" that novel evolutionary traits arise suddenly (why can't it, when the evidence shows precisely that?) yet he scolds those who reject his inanity as committing a "failure of imagination".

    Science isn't about an "imagination" that goes against the evidence. That would be science fiction. Imagination is fine as long as it has its place and all are clear that it is fantasy, not fact.

    So where is that clarity when claiming the eye is "explained" by evolution? A less educated reader might wrongly conclude by that sort of strident falsehood that scientists really have this thing settled. In fact, nobody has any clue how the eye or anything else formed.

    Replacing facts with imagined wishful thinking is the very definition of pseudoscience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IA: Myers says that "it can't be" that novel evolutionary traits arise suddenly (why can't it, when the evidence shows precisely that?) yet he scolds those who reject his inanity as committing a "failure of imagination".

      Evidence doesn’t show anything without first putting it into an explanatory framework, regardless of how shallow. So, the idea that “evidence shows precisely that” includes some assumptions you have’t disclosed, such as inductivism, which does include the idea that we can extrapolate observations without putting them into an explanatory framework.

      the principle of Evolution includes the theory that biological complexity arises from variation and selection. It’s an emergent process, which falls under our current best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. “it can’t be” is part of the theory which prohibits traits from appearing in a specific way. That’s what makes it a good theory.

      Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
      - Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations.

      If I designer already had the knowledge of how to build any organism that did exist, does exist or could possibility exist, it could have created those traits in any order, including most to least complex, or even all at once.

      Yet, I think we’d both agree that not what the fossil record suggests.

      On the other hand, we can explain the fossil record in that nature cannot build organisms until the knowledge of how to build them was created. That fits the prohibition and does so very well.

      IA: Science isn't about an "imagination" that goes against the evidence. That would be science fiction.

      Again, you’re assuming that we can extrapolate observations without first putting them into some kind of explanatory framework. Imagination is a form of conjecture. But we do not stop there. We then criticize those conjectures and discard errors. That’s how we make progress.

      IA In fact, nobody has any clue how the eye or anything else formed.
      If you assume that knowledge in specific spheres only comes from authoritative sources, it would come as no surprise that you’d conclude evolution couldn’t have possibility been the origin of that knowledge because it’s not an authoritative source. As such, it would come as no surprise that you’d conclude it couldn’t explain eyes, etc. This is the “failure of imagination” being referred to.

      Delete