Understanding creationism, IV:<br/>An insider's guide by a former young-Earth creationist

Another great post in the series. Creationism really is about what we philosophers call "essentialism" in biology. And if there's anything the actual biological evidence mitigates against, it's the idea of "essences."

One quibble: you write that "Functionless structures, of course, are the one thing evolution cannot manufacture." But is that true? I was thinking of cave-dwelling species specifically. Many cave-dwelling fish, for example, are blind -- but they still retain useless eyes, often with sockets fully covered by skin and scales. It seems to me that evolution can explain precisely how they got these otherwise unusual features. Now, natural selection, as a key component of evolution, can't produce functionless structures: functional structures are precisely what get selected for. But as long as a trait is selectively neutral, it could lose functionality over time, with mutations accumulating and bearing the stamp of a past functional history. So the functionless eyes of cavefish are explained by evolution, it's just that qua functionless, they weren't produced by natural selection.

It seems to me that creationism will of course have no biologically coherent explanation for the scaled-over useless eye sockets of blind cavefish. Still, I thought they might provide a good example of evolution being capable of explaining lack of function in addition to being capable of explaining function.

And when a new intermediate is discovered, the number of gaps has increases by one!!!111!!!eleven!!!

Just for the sake of curiosity, I wonder what we would expect a fossil of a creature that's in the process of changing from one unrelated "kind" to another--say, a human to a wolf--to even look like. If something matching that description were ever found, by their own criteria and upside-down fantasy-world logic, would creationists have to relent that fossilized evidence of werewolves "proves" evolution?

In addition to the "moving the goalpost" strategy that you mentioned above, David, I've also heard the argument (probably more ID than biblical literalist) that Archaeopteryx represents an evolutionary dead-end (presumably from the fact that the individual died, and we don't see any more of them today) and that therefore it could not be considered a "link" in the transition from therapod dinosaurs to birds.

Even without ancient DNA, of course there's no way for scientists to prove the dead-end claim erroneous in any way that creationists can't insist in perpetuity is merely their "interpretation". (And how do they know that individual didn't reproduce before it died anyway? Were they there?) It simply becomes a convenient way of casting doubt, without even addressing the relationship between therapods and birds at all, that unfortunately appears to be incredibly effective.

What they never quite get around to doing is coming up with an explanation for "transitional fossils." Archaeopteryx is the perfect example of the limits of evolution, that if a terrestrial-bound dinosaur evolves flight, it is going to be far from an ideal flyer at first. Today's birds fly great, but Archaeopteryx had a long way to go to become even very good at flying, let alone more or less optimized for flight as today's birds are.

Is Archaeopteryx some weird experiment by a rather limited designer? Even if so, why not include some pterosaur innovations, or bat innovations (presumably bats could be on the drawing board)? And why not put feathers on bats, given how wonderfully sculpted for aerodynamics feathers can evolve to be? No, Archaeopteryx is just what you'd expect of something that hasn't evolved to anything like optimal functionality, and nothing like you'd expect of either an omniscient designer or even a kludge (even kludgy designers aren't limited by heredity, as evolution, as Archaeopteryx, is).

But actually explaining organisms has never been an interest of creationists, including IDists. Dumping on the one meaningful explanation is all that interests them.

Glen Davidson

One quibble: you write that “Functionless structures, of course, are the one thing evolution cannot manufacture.” But is that true? I was thinking of cave-dwelling species specifically. Many cave-dwelling fish, for example, are blind – but they still retain useless eyes, often with sockets fully covered by skin and scales. It seems to me that evolution can explain precisely how they got these otherwise unusual features. Now, natural selection, as a key component of evolution, can’t produce functionless structures: functional structures are precisely what get selected for. But as long as a trait is selectively neutral, it could lose functionality over time, with mutations accumulating and bearing the stamp of a past functional history. So the functionless eyes of cavefish are explained by evolution, it’s just that qua functionless, they weren’t produced by natural selection.

mattdance18 said: One quibble: you write that "Functionless structures, of course, are the one thing evolution cannot manufacture."

Functional structures can be rendered functionless by evolution, yet they aren’t “manufactured”

Functional structures can be rendered functionless by evolution, yet they aren’t “manufactured” (not sure that’s the most fortuitous word for it, but ok) by evolution.

callahanpb said:

Functional structures can be rendered functionless by evolution, yet they aren’t “manufactured”

I treat "rendered functionless" as equivalent to "manufactured" for present purposes. If I "manufacture" a chair from a tree, I render a lot of other things functionless. To distinguish between "positive" and "negative" transformations seems almost unsupportable in the context of scientific definitions.

callahanpb said:

Functional structures can be rendered functionless by evolution, yet they aren’t “manufactured”

I treat "rendered functionless" as equivalent to "manufactured" for present purposes. If I "manufacture" a chair from a tree, I render a lot of other things functionless. To distinguish between "positive" and "negative" transformations seems almost unsupportable in the context of scientific definitions.

Henry J said: And when a new intermediate is discovered, the number of gaps has increases by one!!!111!!!eleven!!!

Katharine said: Just for the sake of curiosity, I wonder what we would expect a fossil of a creature that's in the process of changing from one unrelated "kind" to another--say, a human to a wolf--to even look like. If something matching that description were ever found, by their own criteria and upside-down fantasy-world logic, would creationists have to relent that fossilized evidence of werewolves "proves" evolution?

My favorite transitional fossil is Morganodon because:
1) It is one of our relatives
2) Its double-articulated jaw was sometimes considered, before its appearance in a fossil, a problem for evolution
3) It is an example of the evolution of "irreducible complexity"
4) From jaw bone to middle ear bone is a major change in function - adaptation
5) There are abundant fossils of different species throughout the world
6) The connection between jaw and middle ear was first observed on the basis of embryology, before "On the Origin of Species"
7) There are popular descriptions of it - "Earful of jaw" and "Your Inner Fish" - which make it easy to understand

I wrote a bit about this issue lately, if anyone is interested:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-014-9696-8

April 2014
A Tale of Two Crocoducks: Creationist Misuses of Molecular Evolution

The demand for transitional forms is really even worse than you make it out to be. It fails to take into account the move to cladistic analysis that has been in place for decades.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Not really. Selection for, selection against, and nearly-neutral nearly "non-selection," of genes, is routinely assessed. Positive selection is crucial to contemporary evolutionary theory. Glen Davidson

Much of this form of “argumentation” against evolution was hammered out by Morris and Gish at the Institute for Creation “Research” beginning back in the early 1970s.

When Duane Gish was harassing teachers in Kalamazoo, Michigan, his favorite tactic was to hit teachers with bogus claims about science in the areas in which a teacher would not likely have expertise. So, for example, Morris’s second law of thermodynamics argument against evolution would constantly be brought up against biology teachers.

I have known some of the teachers who have experienced Gish’s unannounced appearances in their classrooms. They report that he was an aggressive bully. This trait shows up in the videos of Gish debating scientists on college campus venues.

It seemed clear to a number of us back then that these tactics were deliberate taunting in order to provoke debates and interactions that got them publicity and a free ride on the back of a teacher or a scientist.

Gish, for example, never responded to a devastating refutation of any of his “arguments,” instead, simply launching into his famous Gish Gallop as though he had won the point. I suspect this was – and still is – a tactic designed to infuriate their opponents and get them to show anger in a debate.

I still suspect that the leaders of this ID/creationist movement know they are misleading their followers. They have had enough interactions with scientists’ attempts to correct their misrepresentations and misconceptions; and they most certainly have had time to correct their misrepresentations and misconceptions. But this they never do.

Instead, they double down and “up the ante” by jumping into advanced ideas and pretending to be able to argue with any expert. It is a tactic that makes them look like “universal geniuses” to their followers; and their followers think they can do the same thing by Googling the Internet for papers that they think “refute” their opponents. It becomes a game of phony posturing without any conceptual understanding of the science.

The “debating” that goes on, whether on campus or on the Internet, is a game of trying to inflict psychological pain on “enemies;” and the ID/creationist taunting is designed to sucker others into paying attention to the ID/creationist.

This is what Gish did; he liked to inflict pain on teachers in front of their students, and there was an element of hatred and distain behind it. He even admitted that he was a “bulldog” in this debating style. This tells us a lot about his “religion.”

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Selection for, selection against, and nearly-neutral nearly "non-selection," of genes, is routinely assessed. Positive selection is crucial to contemporary evolutionary theory. Glen Davidson

The discussion here in terms of intermediates between creationist "kinds" is illuminating. However one should be careful to say what "transitional form" does and does not mean in evolutionary biology. 50 years ago evolutionary biologists were accustomed to concluding that any "transitional form" really was the ancestral species. I see some of that thinking here, particularly in the comments. But since the 1980s it has become clearer that most of these forms are not the ancestral species, but are cousins of the ancestors. They are "transitional" in that they contain transitional combinations of character states, but they are not the exact lineage that is ancestral to the group.

Sure, Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) is probably our ancestor, but in most other cases the "transitional" fossils we find are not on the ancestral line -- but they do give us great insights into what the ancestors looked like. In the case of hominids there has been enough searching that we can be reasonably confident that we have the ancestor.

In that sense, the word "transitional" is unfortunate, because it does imply to the listener or reader that we have caught the lineage in the act of making the transition. But that's not what "transitional" now means.

Joe Felsenstein said: In that sense, the word "transitional" is unfortunate, because it does imply to the listener or reader that we have caught the lineage in the act of making the transition. But that's not what "transitional" now means.

I believe that an argument could be made that many of the appendages and colorations that appear to be sexually selected are in fact "functionless". The peacock's tail comes to mind, or a rooster's comb. The only "function" is to attract a mate, even though it may actually be detrimental to the individual in question.

Admittedly, one does have to attract a mate in order for evolution to have offspring to operate on, but simply catching the eye of a fickle mate seems a rather weak "function".

Scott F: I think you're making a false distinction. Function, in any evolutionary sense, must refer to the conferring of some kind of reproductive advantage. A peacock's heart keeps its cells nourished, and without it the peacock would have very poor reproductive success. A peacock's tail attracts the ladies, and without it the peacock would have very poor reproductive success. OK, without the former you're dead and without the latter you're still alive but without progeny, but they both look exactly the same to selection; the only score that matters is reproductive success. And if the tail were detrimental to the individual, it would be selected against. Any hypothetical cost in reduced survival is more than compensated by the benefit of increased mating success; has to be, or the tail wouldn't be there.

Katharine said: Though I can't believe that creationists honestly expect to ever find evidence of organisms matching their definition of transitional (in which "transitional" and "kind" or "species" are mutually exclusive, and you can basically argue that anything that gets fossilized represents a fixed species of an established "kind" anyway).

John Harshman said: Scott F: I think you're making a false distinction.

John Harshman said: Scott F: I think you're making a false distinction. Function, in any evolutionary sense, must refer to the conferring of some kind of reproductive advantage. A peacock's heart keeps its cells nourished, and without it the peacock would have very poor reproductive success. A peacock's tail attracts the ladies, and without it the peacock would have very poor reproductive success. OK, without the former you're dead and without the latter you're still alive but without progeny, but they both look exactly the same to selection; the only score that matters is reproductive success. And if the tail were detrimental to the individual, it would be selected against. Any hypothetical cost in reduced survival is more than compensated by the benefit of increased mating success; has to be, or the tail wouldn't be there.

David MacMillan said: This characterization is a complete misunderstanding of what evolution actually predicts. No one expects one existing species to evolve into another. The “kinds” alleged by creationism simply do not exist in the evolutionary model; there is no line between one family and another that a transitional form needs to straddle.

YEC denial of feathered dinosaurs is exactly the kind of thing here. Either they were really birds (if the feathers found on fossils are undeniable) or else they were dinosaurs but lacked true feathers ...
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2955&hilit=yutyrannus

If the Christian god exists and if the Bible is his true word to humanity, why is every argument made by young earth (Biblical) creationists against any unbiblical science invariably nonsense?

ashleyhr said: YEC denial of feathered dinosaurs is exactly the kind of thing here. Either they were really birds (if the feathers found on fossils are undeniable) or else they were dinosaurs but lacked true feathers ... http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2955&hilit=yutyrannus

ashleyhr said: If the Christian god exists and if the Bible is his true word to humanity, why is every argument made by young earth (Biblical) creationists against any unbiblical science invariably nonsense?

Scott F said: I believe that an argument could be made that many of the appendages and colorations that appear to be sexually selected are in fact "functionless". The peacock's tail comes to mind, or a rooster's comb. The only "function" is to attract a mate, even though it may actually be detrimental to the individual in question. Admittedly, one does have to attract a mate in order for evolution to have offspring to operate on, but simply catching the eye of a fickle mate seems a rather weak "function".

There are lots of species (particularly insects) where the individual is literally sacrificed for the survival of the species.

With the eusocial insects, the queen's genes survive and the queen lives to reproduce because the other "castes" are selected to optimise not their own survival, because they do not reproduce, but the queen's survival, because she is the only one who does reproduce. Therefore, those other "castes" are selected for feeding and nurturing the queen and caring for her offspring, and for self-sacrifice where necessary in the defence of same.

Of course, before Steve leaps in, the word "caste" is a metaphor, an extension and specialisation of what it means in human society.

david.starling.macmillan said:

ashleyhr said: YEC denial of feathered dinosaurs is exactly the kind of thing here. Either they were really birds (if the feathers found on fossils are undeniable) or else they were dinosaurs but lacked true feathers ... http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2955&hilit=yutyrannus

Or, more recently, some YECs have taken to seriously suggesting that God created a “feathered-bipedal-reptile kind” as a separate baramin from the various dinosaur baramins and the various avian baramins. Not even kidding. That’s how they approach these things. Ten years ago, they insisted that no feathered dinosaurs could ever exist…now, feathered dinosaurs are their own special created kind. Their goalposts are on wheels.

ashleyhr said: If the Christian god exists and if the Bible is his true word to humanity, why is every argument made by young earth (Biblical) creationists against any unbiblical science invariably nonsense?

Because there is no "unbiblical" science, only "contrary-to-the-privileged-underinformed-arbitrarily-invented-interpretation-of-the-Bible-and-uncomfortable-for-various-reasons science".

Scott F said: But I would disagree with this: "...if the tail were detrimental to the individual, it would be selected against." As I understand it, that isn't necessarily true. The larger tail could indeed be detrimental to the individual, but the selection pressure to attract a mate could (and most likely does) outweigh the detrimental effects of the large tail.

Scott F said: I know, I know. If something is selectable, it is (almost by definition) "functional" in some reproductive sense. It's just that "looking good" seems like such a "trivial" criteria. "Looking good" doesn't feel very functional.

In contrast, there are creatures such as bowerbirds, where the need to be more clever or dexterous in order to attract a mate (rather than simply being prettier), might (conceivably) have an unintended side effect of increasing intelligence in the species. ("Unintended" as in the female bird doesn't have an intention of choosing a "smarter" mate.)

But I would disagree with this: "...if the tail were detrimental to the individual, it would be selected against." As I understand it, that isn't necessarily true. The larger tail could indeed be detrimental to the individual, but the selection pressure to attract a mate could (and most likely does) outweigh the detrimental effects of the large tail. There are lots of species (particularly insects) where the individual is literally sacrificed for the survival of the species.

Dave Lovell said: Semantics surely. The larger tail may be detrimental to the survival of the individual without being detrimental to its overall reproductive success. Hence "...if the tail were detrimental to the individual, it would be selected against." is true.

Like one of this points over on this i09 article emphasizes, "Survival of the fittest" does not mean fitness. It means "best fit". You'll survive if you fit your environment; you won't if you don't.

As a non-biologist, I'll take your word for it that there is some distinction to be made, but I think a lot of things may look like "structure" to a human observer but are neutral to selection. I've often wondered this about the patterns on some mollusk shells that look like the Sierpinski gasket (or Pascal's triangle mod 2 if you prefer). http://www.gastropods.com/9/Shell_4459.shtml has a picture. Maybe these patterns confer some advantage, but even if they don't, they can be created by very simple mathematical processes (e.g. 1-D xor cellular automata) and I would guess (again IANAB) that something similar could happen during development in local cell interactions. So if the only explanation is that it is a neutral phenotype, I would find that believable, rather than insisting it has a function. I think this is true of many patterns--e.g. the diversity of color and variegation in flowers (I realize some colors are selected for, not to mention very elaborate mimicry in some cases). You could counter that highly variable surface patterns are not "structure" but that seems to be headed in the direction of "no true Scotsman". I can certainly accept a qualified view of David's statement, namely that the presence of a structure that isn't an incidental consequence of development (like shell patterns) suggests that these structures have a function or at least had some function in ancestors.

david.starling.macmillan said: Like one of this points over on this i09 article emphasizes, "Survival of the fittest" does not mean fitness. It means "best fit". You'll survive if you fit your environment; you won't if you don't.

Scott F said: I know, I know. If something is selectable, it is (almost by definition) "functional" in some reproductive sense. It's just that "looking good" seems like such a "trivial" criteria. "Looking good" doesn't feel very functional.

But I would disagree with this: "...if the tail were detrimental to the individual, it would be selected against." As I understand it, that isn't necessarily true. The larger tail could indeed be detrimental to the individual, but the selection pressure to attract a mate could (and most likely does) outweigh the detrimental effects of the large tail. There are lots of species (particularly insects) where the individual is literally sacrificed for the survival of the species.

Someone once updated "survival of the fittest" to "reproduction of the fit-enough", AKA "Live long enough to get laid."

mattdance18 said: Heck, it's not even that different among humans. There are plenty of subjective aspects with differential appeal to different individuals (eye or hair color, height or build, etc) and these make no discernible difference to fitness. But whichever sex you happen to be, and whichever sex you happen to find attractive, the odds are very strong that you will find someone whose appearance is generally fit and healthy more attractive than someone who appears sickly. And if, as a matter of reproductive success, you were trying to raise a family with someone, it's pretty clear why. Is someone with ulcerated skin sores and rotted-out teeth someone with whom you'd like to mate, let alone with whom you'd like to raise kids?

TomS said: And, after all, how uncomfortable is it to say that birds are descended from dinosaurs?

Katharine said: They’re free to join us on the big comfy evolution couch any time they feel like it;

TomS said: On the other hand, which would to choose as a mate? The one who would defend you, or the one who gives you expensive things? I suppose that depends on what sort of company you keep.

callahanpb said:

Katharine said: They’re free to join us on the big comfy evolution couch any time they feel like it;

Right, but only if they're willing to do the clock stretch. (Now there's an obscure reference I wasn't expecting to make today.)

Jim Hofmann said: I wrote a bit about this issue lately, if anyone is interested: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-014-9696-8 April 2014 A Tale of Two Crocoducks: Creationist Misuses of Molecular Evolution The demand for transitional forms is really even worse than you make it out to be. It fails to take into account the move to cladistic analysis that has been in place for decades.

The journal keeps it that way for a year. Contact me and I can get it to you privately.

Katharine said:

TomS said: On the other hand, which would to choose as a mate? The one who would defend you, or the one who gives you expensive things? I suppose that depends on what sort of company you keep.

I would choose the one who's smart or quick enough not to get into fights in the first place.

Another reason I'm thankful humans evolved menstruation to replace estrus.

Katharine said:

TomS said: On the other hand, which would to choose as a mate? The one who would defend you, or the one who gives you expensive things? I suppose that depends on what sort of company you keep.

I would choose the one who's smart or quick enough not to get into fights in the first place. But among mammals there does seem to be a sexually selective advantage to bravado--if you survive long enough to use its capital--and not competing is just about equivalent to perpetual bachelorhood, so. . . . Yeah. Another reason I'm thankful humans evolved menstruation to replace estrus.

mattdance18 said: Is someone with ulcerated skin sores and rotted-out teeth someone with whom you'd like to mate, let alone with whom you'd like to raise kids?

John Harshman said:

Scott F said: I know, I know. If something is selectable, it is (almost by definition) "functional" in some reproductive sense. It's just that "looking good" seems like such a "trivial" criteria. "Looking good" doesn't feel very functional.

Sure, but can you see that' just your personal prejudice?

It has nothing to do with the only operational evolutionary meaning of "functional". You may personally devalue sexual selection, but the opinions of potential mates are just as much parts of the selective environment as climate or predators.

In contrast, there are creatures such as bowerbirds, where the need to be more clever or dexterous in order to attract a mate (rather than simply being prettier), might (conceivably) have an unintended side effect of increasing intelligence in the species. ("Unintended" as in the female bird doesn't have an intention of choosing a "smarter" mate.)

So? Are you once again setting up a value judgment in which features that (hypothetically) result in increasing intelligence are better than features that don't? By the way, you are dancing around one of the hypotheses of sexual selection: that selected features are honest signals of some otherwise adaptive characteristics. In one of its forms, this is known as the handicap principle.

But I would disagree with this: "...if the tail were detrimental to the individual, it would be selected against." As I understand it, that isn't necessarily true. The larger tail could indeed be detrimental to the individual, but the selection pressure to attract a mate could (and most likely does) outweigh the detrimental effects of the large tail. There are lots of species (particularly insects) where the individual is literally sacrificed for the survival of the species.

No individual is sacrificed for the survival of the species; that's magical thinking. Sometimes an individual's reproductive success is maximized by dying (as when some male spiders offer themselves as resources to the female to whom they have just contributed sperm, or when worker ants sacrifice themselves in order to raise more sisters).

Scott F said:

It has nothing to do with the only operational evolutionary meaning of "functional". You may personally devalue sexual selection, but the opinions of potential mates are just as much parts of the selective environment as climate or predators.

I don't "devalue" sexual selection. What I find distasteful or perhaps wasteful is selecting for apparently trivial features, such as coloration, that don't appear to offer any benefit, other than to attract a mate. But OTOH, it obviously "works", in the grand scheme of things, whether I find it to be trivial or not.

Scott F said: And how is "sacrificed for the survival of the species" any different from "an individual's reproductive success is maximized by dying"? In fact, you cite precisely the examples that I was thinking of. Having mated, the individual then "sacrifices" itself in order to ensure the success of it's offspring.

The AIG and guys like Berlinski at the Discovery Institute do not claim "no transitional" fossils. They claim that there are not enough. The AIG used to have it up as one of the bogus creationist arguments that should not be used.

Why can't the rubes buy a clue and get with the program? Why are obviously bogus arguments good enough?

Ron Okimoto said: The AIG and guys like Berlinski at the Discovery Institute do not claim "no transitional" fossils. They claim that there are not enough. The AIG used to have it up as one of the bogus creationist arguments that should not be used. Why can't the rubes buy a clue and get with the program? Why are obviously bogus arguments good enough?

Ron Okimoto said: The AIG and guys like Berlinski at the Discovery Institute do not claim "no transitional" fossils. They claim that there are not enough. The AIG used to have it up as one of the bogus creationist arguments that should not be used. Why can't the rubes buy a clue and get with the program? Why are obviously bogus arguments good enough?

This claim [that there are no transitional fossils] is made without qualification, particularly in presentations to lay or church audiences. As unthinkable as it might seem, creationists really do believe that transitional fossils simply do not exist.

— David MacMillan

Frank J said: So the big question - which I realize may not be answerable - is why do so many creationists risk bearing false witness, as well as embarrassing contradictions like these, when all they need to say is "I believe this because the Bible says so, and if the evidence points to another origins account, it's just another one of God's many tests of my faith"?

Well if you google "transitional fossils" the Talk Origins site comes up as the fourth hit. The page has twenty five references from the scientific literature about transitional fossils and links to other pages which cite about fifty more for specific groups. And that's only the tip of the ice burg. Anybody who claims that there are no transitional fossils is just plain wrong, no matter why they believe it. They don't want to believe it, that's too bad.

Scott F said:

John Harshman said: Sure, but can you see that' just your personal prejudice?

Absolutely. Never said it wasn't.

I think you're missing my point. What I was trying to emphasize is that, while the sexual (or any other kind of) selection might be selecting for a particular feature or function, that act of selection may also happen to select for another feature or function that is only tangentially related to the primary function, but which then provides the basis for new features that can then be selected for in the future. The example I was thinking of was that if selection of the bowerbird with the most "creative" bower just happens to result in a bird that is smarter, that intelligence might then be able to manifest itself in other ways, allowing the smarter bird to do other creative things besides just building pretty bowers. Contingency. The new "features" that Natural Selection can act upon don't have to be accidental or "random".

No individual is sacrificed for the survival of the species; that's magical thinking. Sometimes an individual's reproductive success is maximized by dying (as when some male spiders offer themselves as resources to the female to whom they have just contributed sperm, or when worker ants sacrifice themselves in order to raise more sisters).

Uh, no, it's not "magical thinking". It's "metaphor". And how is "sacrificed for the survival of the species" any different from "an individual's reproductive success is maximized by dying"? In fact, you cite precisely the examples that I was thinking of. Having mated, the individual then "sacrifices" itself in order to ensure the success of it's offspring.

But if you are man attracted to another man’s mate, which sort of man would you choose to compete with? The man who has marks of having been in many fights, the man who shows his distain about being hurt by wearing body-piercings and tattoos? Or the man who careful in his dress, and gives the impression that he wouldn’t like to stain his neat suit?

I refer you to The Magnificent Seven, in which one of the Mexican peasants recruiting fighters shows Chris (Yul Brenner) his smarts by looking over a bunch of thugs in a cantina and picking the handsome one over the plug-uglies on the theory that the handsome one was skillful enough not to get beat up. For a real-life example, see Muhammad Ali.

DS said: Well if you google "transitional fossils" the Talk Origins site comes up as the fourth hit. The page has twenty five references from the scientific literature about transitional fossils and links to other pages which cite about fifty more for specific groups. And that's only the tip of the ice burg. Anybody who claims that there are no transitional fossils is just plain wrong, no matter why they believe it. They don't want to believe it, that's too bad.

And how is "sacrificed for the survival of the species" any different from "an individual's reproductive success is maximized by dying"? ... Having mated, the individual then "sacrifices" itself in order to ensure the success of it's offspring.

Actually, if I understand it correctly, Evolution doesn’t have a “goal” in mind, and doesn’t have to work to “improve” the species.

It’s certainly conceivable that selection (particularly sexual selection) might end up walking a species down path with perhaps some short term gain, but which eventually results is some fatally flawed adaptation from which it might not “escape”, from which it can’t evolve out of, thus sending it to extinction. The peculiarly picky diet of the Giant Panda is just one example (though of course it has nothing to do with sexual selection).

IANAB, but my (uneducated) view is that (for example) selecting a mate because you happen to like the color of their fur is more likely to have a potentially detrimental future side effect than, say, selecting a mate who can escape predators more efficiently.

[out of order] I don’t “devalue” sexual selection. What I find distasteful or perhaps wasteful is selecting for apparently trivial features, such as coloration, that don’t appear to offer any benefit, other than to attract a mate.

This discussion about the "good of the species" gets back to the matter of sexual selection. Because what's good for flashy sexually-preferred individual in fact is not good for the species. Flashy, beautiful birds are not the common ones, the dull sparrow or blackbird is more common, almost certainly in part because the peacock and the cardinal are rather easy to spot.

There is some discussion about how group selection might sometimes work, something I wouldn't presume to be able to judge, but even that isn't about the "good of the species." The groups that may, possibly, be selected are not whole species, so far as I know.

Glen Davidson

There is some discussion about how group selection might sometimes work, something I wouldn't presume to be able to judge, but even that isn't about the "good of the species." The groups that may, possibly, be selected are not whole species, so far as I know.

mattdance18 said: the evidence seems to indicate that sexual displays are correlated to other traits related to fitness, and that the only long-term stable strategy is for displays to be honest signals... ...Attracting a mate is a HUGE component of fitness, certainly not a "trivial" matter. So selecting for it is hardly "wasteful," and I am perplexed why there's anything "distasteful" about it. As noted above, displays are correlated to other components of fitness, so choosing a mate on the basis of a display can be a proxy for choosing those other components.

Even when displays aren't good proxies for (other) fitness (traits), its easy to see how being good at putting on a deceptive display could be a positive fitness trait in all sorts of ways, and thus propagate through the species gene pool over time. Mate "theft" (i.e., from more fit competitors) is only the beginning. If the animal can co-opt that capability to fool others of its own species outside of mating displays, or fool other species, you've got a real natural selection advantage there. This point is obviously more relevant to behavioral sexual traits rather than bodily ones (like a peacock's tail)). But it is easy for me to see how, once some set of individuals figure out how to dishonestly signal, that trait is going to spread through the gene pool (along with it's "arms race cousin," dishonest signal detection). The capability to dishonestly signal could quickly become both a sexual selection AND natural selection advantage.

Mate "theft" (i.e., from more fit competitors)...

TomS said:

Frank J said: So the big question - which I realize may not be answerable - is why do so many creationists risk bearing false witness, as well as embarrassing contradictions like these, when all they need to say is "I believe this because the Bible says so, and if the evidence points to another origins account, it's just another one of God's many tests of my faith"?

Only I doubt whether there are many people who really consistently and continually follow that rule. What I see is people who have made up their minds about something - that they don't like to think about being related to monkeys, for example - and will scour the Bible for the pretext for saying that the Bible says so, so I don't have any choice. I see the same people carefully explaining away other Bible texts which they don't like. (I try to avoid issues which can be politically/socially contentious, but it takes little effort for anyone to find Bible teachings on such issues. I try to avoid them, because it's already emotionally charged enough when we're talking about something which is so tame and so obvious and so uncontroversial as evolution.)

It's good to keep in mind that the average science-accepting layperson doesn't accept evolution on the basis of evidence and research, but on the basis of authority. Most laypeople who accept evolution do so because they trust the scientific consensus.

It's good to trust the scientific consensus if you know why it should be trusted and how far to take that trust. But simply accepting the authority of "scientists" leaves you open to reasonable-sounding soundbytes from YEC "authorities"...in a way, you're hardly better off than the alternative.

Frank J said:

Ron Okimoto said: The AIG and guys like Berlinski at the Discovery Institute do not claim "no transitional" fossils. They claim that there are not enough. The AIG used to have it up as one of the bogus creationist arguments that should not be used. Why can't the rubes buy a clue and get with the program? Why are obviously bogus arguments good enough?

The ones you cited are not rubes, but perps. I guess the Biblical perps lean more towards "no transitionals" while the DI ones lean lean more towards "not enough." But that's yet more evidence that what began as an honest movement over 100 years ago has degenerated into a pathetic embarrassment, albeit one which very few people, including very few who accept evolution, have no clue how embarrassing. Like the guy who throws the empty gun at Superman after running out of bullets, they'll say anything to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution - which has been called dead, dying, falsified and unfalsifiable. The obsession with evolution alone, compared to the evasiveness about their own mutually contradictory "theories" out to be a huge red flag to everyone.

Frank J said: Nearly all of the rank-and-file - and here I mean not just committed Biblical literalists, but also those "leaning" that way or undecided - have simply not thought through how they are justifying their conclusions, be it by evidence that leads them there in which case it would have even if they never heard of Genesis, or just because they like what they see in the Bible. It's always the latter case, of course, and the same applies to those who believe in astrology, fad diets, etc. But few people recognize it. Every day, though, a few realize that they had been fooling themselves, and that if they continued, would be bearing false witness. Depending on how invested they are in Biblical literalism, they will either "follow that rule," or just concede evolution. In both cases, it's rare that they will admit it to many people, much less to the general public.

"Because there is no “unbiblical” science...".
Watch out, you might get quote-mined!

david.starling.macmillan said: It's good to keep in mind that the average science-accepting layperson doesn't accept evolution on the basis of evidence and research, but on the basis of authority. Most laypeople who accept evolution do so because they trust the scientific consensus. It's good to trust the scientific consensus if you know why it should be trusted and how far to take that trust. But simply accepting the authority of "scientists" leaves you open to reasonable-sounding soundbytes from YEC "authorities"...in a way, you're hardly better off than the alternative.

TomS said:

Frank J said: Nearly all of the rank-and-file - and here I mean not just committed Biblical literalists, but also those "leaning" that way or undecided - have simply not thought through how they are justifying their conclusions, be it by evidence that leads them there in which case it would have even if they never heard of Genesis, or just because they like what they see in the Bible. It's always the latter case, of course, and the same applies to those who believe in astrology, fad diets, etc. But few people recognize it. Every day, though, a few realize that they had been fooling themselves, and that if they continued, would be bearing false witness. Depending on how invested they are in Biblical literalism, they will either "follow that rule," or just concede evolution. In both cases, it's rare that they will admit it to many people, much less to the general public.

I don't follow what you are saying here. I thought that I was following you until you said, "It's always the latter case ..." It seems to be that you raised the question of people who come their opinion regardless of what Genesis says, only to say that there are no such people. And then you seem to say the same for belief in astrology, etc. BTW, may I express my dislike of the phrase "bearing false witness" for "not telling the truth". "Bearing false witness against your neighbor" is what the Commandment is about, not about "not telling the truth about the natural world".

Once again, I think you make good points.

This sort of off-topic, but when you point out that a lot of people accept evolution, but don't have good reasons for it - I think of the same situation with heliocentrism. I think that a lot of people confuse geocentrism with a flat Earth. And think that pictures taken from outer space show the Earth in motion. And this means that today's geocentrists can easily shoot down most of the arguments that they are presented with.

Please don't call me a Bible expert. Seriously, I don't want to give the impression that I am, and certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm claiming that.

As far as "bearing false witness", of course it is true that there is too much of the bearing false witness against the person done by the evolution deniers. Anyway, it is just one of my things that I don't like what I feel is an over-use of the expression.

Frank J said:

david.starling.macmillan said: It's good to keep in mind that the average science-accepting layperson doesn't accept evolution on the basis of evidence and research, but on the basis of authority. Most laypeople who accept evolution do so because they trust the scientific consensus. It's good to trust the scientific consensus if you know why it should be trusted and how far to take that trust. But simply accepting the authority of "scientists" leaves you open to reasonable-sounding soundbytes from YEC "authorities"...in a way, you're hardly better off than the alternative.

Yes, and I often note the sad reality that most people who claim to accept evolution, do so for the wrong reason. It may be blind trust of science, though I think more commonly because they think it supports their atheism and/or liberal ideology. When evolution-deniers complain about that, they are 100% justified. But when they imply (wittingly or not) or state outright that all "Darwinists" are like that, it becomes a half-truth that is not only false, but harmful to everyone. For 30 years I too accepted evolution only because it "made sense." Not until the late 90s did I bother to truly appreciate the multiple independent lines of evidence that supported the fact and the theory, and how hopeless and mutually-contradictory the claimed alternate "theories" were. Nowadays, when I encounter a committed denier, I don't try to convince them of evolution, because I know that no evidence can convince them. But I tell them that they could easily convince me of their "theory." All they need to do is stop obsessing over evolution and its long-refuted "weaknesses," and just show me how the evidence converges on their own "theory." Of course not one dared to do that, not even for a basic "what happened when" origins account, let alone a for theory to explain it. While many critics obsess over the committed deniers that I "write off," I'm constantly reminded that a much larger group, in fact the majority of Adult Americans, is either misled or confused. The subset that leans toward denial is capable of accepting evolution, while the subset that leans toward acceptance is capable of accepting it right reason. But only with patient correcting of misconceptions. In contrast, many who lean towards accepting it are only a clever sound bite away from denial.

If one hasn’t already been exposed to the “worldview” of the people who founded the Institute for Creation “Research,” it is easy to go over to the website of ICR and type in “Henry Morris” into their site search box.

One comes up with a whole list of demonizing caricatures of the secular world, in the words of Henry Morris.

Just a perusal of some of these gives one a pretty good sampling of the attitudes of Henry Morris who, with Duane Gish, founded the ICR; as well as the attitudes of his sons who now run the ICR.

AiG and the Discovery Institute - both political and expedient spin-offs of ICR – are made up of similar personalities.

Back when Henry Morris and Duane Gish were publishing “educational” materials designed to get “scientific” creationism into the public curriculum, they often published two versions of each book; one for the public school that had little reference to sectarian dogma and another, for use in churches, that was filled with demonizing caricatures of scientists and other “unbelievers.”

Those latter versions tell us what they really think, and belie their public statements about their purported “legitimate” criticisms of science.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone should claim that people should believe something only because of the evidence. How do you as a layperson even get to the evidence except by accepting, at least contingently, the authority of the experts?

Have you seriously studied and understood quantum mechanics before accepting that it's the best model so far for much of the physics phenomena? You accept what scientists say about ecology only upon the evidence?

Not everyone has to understand every science well in order to accept the likelihood that the scientists likely have it right. It may indeed be well to understand why scientists mostly get it right, such as review and replication of results, but nearly everyone is going to be stuck accepting at least some science on the "self-correcting" nature of science, rather than really understanding the basis for every claim. Or, one is going to be agnostic about some fairly well established facts about the world--and I don't think that's really a legitimate option.

Of course there's some chance of being wrong by following what scientists say. But we're not all going to be experts in any science, really, let alone experts in all of the sciences, so it's best to acknowledge that the experts likely are right where you can't know this by fully understanding the evidence.

Glen Davidson

Please don’t call me a Bible expert. Seriously, I don’t want to give the impression that I am, and certainly don’t want to give the impression that I’m claiming that.

— TomS

Frank J said:

Please don’t call me a Bible expert. Seriously, I don’t want to give the impression that I am, and certainly don’t want to give the impression that I’m claiming that.

— TomS

Sorry, I'm only going by the many Bible passages you cite, and how almost no one, including evolution-deniers, corrects you. For all I know you could be making it all up. But if you were, I would have expected many people, especially evolution-deniers, to cry foul. So the simplest explanation is that you know what you're talking about when it comes to the Bible.

TomS said: It surprised me to learn how little the Bible-quoters know about the Bible, and how easy it is to do it. But there is a lot more to learn about the Bible, and I know just enough to know how little I know.

6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. 7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Honestly, I don't know how anyone should claim that people should believe something only because of the evidence. How do you as a layperson even get to the evidence except by accepting, at least contingently, the authority of the experts? Glen Davidson

callahanpb said: Ultimately, what counts is the result of acting on decisions based on beliefs.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Honestly, I don't know how anyone should claim that people should believe something only because of the evidence. How do you as a layperson even get to the evidence except by accepting, at least contingently, the authority of the experts? Have you seriously studied and understood quantum mechanics before accepting that it's the best model so far for much of the physics phenomena? You accept what scientists say about ecology only upon the evidence? Not everyone has to understand every science well in order to accept the likelihood that the scientists likely have it right. It may indeed be well to understand why scientists mostly get it right, such as review and replication of results, but nearly everyone is going to be stuck accepting at least some science on the "self-correcting" nature of science, rather than really understanding the basis for every claim. Or, one is going to be agnostic about some fairly well established facts about the world--and I don't think that's really a legitimate option. Of course there's some chance of being wrong by following what scientists say. But we're not all going to be experts in any science, really, let alone experts in all of the sciences, so it's best to acknowledge that the experts likely are right where you can't know this by fully understanding the evidence. Glen Davidson

In contrast, what is the process of Creationism? Ultimately, the “process” is divine revelation.

— Scott F

In contrast, what is the process of Creationism? Ultimately, the “process” is divine revelation.

— Scott F

We all have to believe in “authority” in some sense at some point in our lives.

Scott F said: In contrast, what is the process of Creationism? Ultimately, the "process" is divine revelation.

Just Bob said: At the very least it should be given sarcastic quotes: "divine revelation".

Arguably, in the United States, the real authority, for now, is the population…

— ”harold”

harold said: While the words are sometimes used interchangeably, I make a distinction between "authority" and "expertise".

Frank J said:

Arguably, in the United States, the real authority, for now, is the population…

— ”harold”

Given your good point about authority vs expertise, I’ll temporarily stray far from my own area of expertise: The US process, when it is allowed to work (I’m thinking of Ben Franklin’s “a republic, if you can keep it” quote), in fact puts the expertise that you mentioned above blind authority. What we too often take for granted, was a fiendishly clever process that is not unlike the scientific method. And dare I add, not unlike natural selection itself, in that change (in this case in laws) must be both possible and not easy. Immutable laws are authoritarianism. While laws changeable at the slightest whim, is anarchy. Like nature itself, and the scientific method, what works is – if I may use a Stuart Kauffman phrase – poised on the edge between order and chaos. As expected, those with radical agendas insist that the Constitution (or the Bible, when they quote mine the Founding Fathers) is an immutable authority. Or they demand easy change of all laws, typically to make those regarding safety and environment ever-stricter, and everything else more lenient. Anti-evolution activists in fact do both. While pursuing their own extreme authoritarian agenda, they, particularly ID promoters, have ironically fooled millions into thinking that their “Darwinist” critics are the ones tampering with the Constitution. In fact we are the ones yielding to expertise, demanding that what is taught in science class is only that which has earned the right to be taught. On that criterion alone, without any regard to church-state issues, every teaching strategy demanded by anti-evolution activists, fails miserably. Unfortunately, most people, including most who have no problem with evolution, are unaware of that.

callahanpb said:

harold said: While the words are sometimes used interchangeably, I make a distinction between "authority" and "expertise".

I agree that "authority" is a loaded term for the reasons you state, but note that the one definition is "an individual cited or appealed to as an expert" (online Merriam Webster 1c), which is clearly the one we're using here (you did state the the words are sometimes used interchangeably). I think the reason the word comes up in these discussions is the expression "argument from authority". Argument from authority is a fallacy if you think it is rational justification of your belief, but that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with paying more attention to claims from people you have some reason to think are experts. (Given infinite time, I might test every assertion given to me, but I don't have infinite time, and I can choose the order in which I give each claim its hearing.) Even if it is possible to understand a lot of things from first principles, it's a given that nobody understands everything. The most rigorously argued academic paper will still cite other results. Sometimes it is just to acknowledge previous work, but often it is to avoid repeating an existing justification. You can read the paper and accept the main result without following up on every citation in uses. In fact, it is usually almost impossible to follow up on everything. In this context, you could have a valid set of beliefs along the lines of "I believe A contingent on the correctness of unchecked citations B, C, and D." But I doubt many researchers are this careful about their beliefs within their own specialities. Most people, including researchers outside their speciality, pay even less attention to the reasons. None of this is saying that I don't want more people to understand science and be able to explain why they believe certain things. One things that would help is at least to have "stubs" of belief like I mentioned before, where you haven't gone through all the details, but could find an appropriate citation and follow up on it if you had to. I think even this is way too much to hope for, but it is more plausible than imagining you have a complete rational justification for every belief.

I said: Argument from authority is a fallacy if ...

The fact that YECs are taken any more seriously than bigfoot chasers never fails to astonish me.

— callahanpb

In a meritocracy, authority comes from expertise.

Pure meritocracy is probably as impossible as any other utopia, but science is about as close to it that we'll get, I suspect.

Glen Davidson

Frank J said: Michael Medved, a DI OEC who might even accept common descent, believes that Bigfoot exists.

In reality, there is so much obvious evidence of common descent that you only have to open your eyes to see it, whereas there is no evidence for something as absurd as a global flood.

— ”callahanpb”

Nevertheless, a majority - the 40-45% that think that humans originated in their present form, per that idiotic Gallup question, plus another 10-30% who don’t - do “take YEC seriously,” because they are simply unaware of all that YEC claims and/or implies.

harold said:

Nevertheless, a majority - the 40-45% that think that humans originated in their present form, per that idiotic Gallup question, plus another 10-30% who don’t - do “take YEC seriously,” because they are simply unaware of all that YEC claims and/or implies.

For what it's worth, I'm fairly sure that number would markedly reduce if the question were phrased in a way that didn't seem to require a "confrontation with religion". For example, if the question was "Humans have ancient, human-like ancestors, who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago", I'm willing to bet that many more people would choose the correct answer. Popular culture overwhelming endorses the existence of hominids and Neanderthals. My hypothesis is that an original question was written by a pollster who was deliberately trying to push a pro-creationist answer. The phrasing of the Gallup poll is clearly biased and any pollster should see why. It presents what seems like a religious case and then forces to reader to contradict it directly if they want to choose the scientific answer. Once a question on the topic was written, it was subsequently lazily recycled over the decades.

Frank J said:

Arguably, in the United States, the real authority, for now, is the population…

— ”harold”

Given your good point about authority vs expertise, I’ll temporarily stray far from my own area of expertise: The US process, when it is allowed to work (I’m thinking of Ben Franklin’s “a republic, if you can keep it” quote), in fact puts the expertise that you mentioned above blind authority. What we too often take for granted, was a fiendishly clever process that is not unlike the scientific method. And dare I add, not unlike natural selection itself, in that change (in this case in laws) must be both possible and not easy. Immutable laws are authoritarianism. While laws changeable at the slightest whim, is anarchy. Like nature itself, and the scientific method, what works is – if I may use a Stuart Kauffman phrase – poised on the edge between order and chaos. As expected, those with radical agendas insist that the Constitution (or the Bible, when they quote mine the Founding Fathers) is an immutable authority. Or they demand easy change of all laws, typically to make those regarding safety and environment ever-stricter, and everything else more lenient. Anti-evolution activists in fact do both. While pursuing their own extreme authoritarian agenda, they, particularly ID promoters, have ironically fooled millions into thinking that their “Darwinist” critics are the ones tampering with the Constitution. In fact we are the ones yielding to expertise, demanding that what is taught in science class is only that which has earned the right to be taught. On that criterion alone, without any regard to church-state issues, every teaching strategy demanded by anti-evolution activists, fails miserably. Unfortunately, most people, including most who have no problem with evolution, are unaware of that.

KlausH said: We desperately need the scientific method in government. Every proposed law should have a clear statement of the legislation, the problem it is supposed to address, an analysis of its own legality under existing laws and the constitution, an analysis of impact on population, a logical explanation of how it is intended to work, and criteria by which its effectiveness can be judged. All laws should be reviewed after they have been implemented for a reasonable amount of time. Laws that are ineffective, by the stated criteria, or have serious unintended consequences, or were passed based on faulty or fraudulant data, should be discarded.

KlausH said: Every proposed law should have a clear statement of the legislation, the problem it is supposed to address, an analysis of its own legality under existing laws and the constitution, an analysis of impact on population, a logical explanation of how it is intended to work, and criteria by which its effectiveness can be judged.

The subject may be condensed into a simple rule:

Every individual is equipped with a complex set of rules and strategies for survival.

Those rules are the essence of 4 billion years of evolution. Field tested and found conducive to species survival. Survival only has meaning in the context of species survival. Life knows only one rule: survive both as an individual and a species The rest of the rules constitute a tangled web subservient to that rule. Individual behaviour is determined by the rules in the context of strategies developed under the impact of experience.

We are indeed a "Stranger in Paradise", a "freak of nature" creating our own sets of rules for everything in the world, far beyond what's in our genes. Add liberal dashes of religion and ideology to the soup and you have the World of mankind anno 2014 CE.

The subject may be condensed into a simple rule:

Every individual is equipped with a complex set of rules and strategies for survival.

Those rules are the essence of 4 billion years of evolution. Field tested and found conducive to species survival. Survival only has meaning in the context of species survival. Life knows only one rule: survive both as an individual and a species. The rest of the rules constitute a tangled web subservient to that rule. Individual behaviour is determined by the rules in the context of strategies developed under the impact of experience.

We are indeed a "Stranger in Paradise", a "freak of nature" creating our own sets of rules for everything in the world, far beyond what's in our genes. Add liberal dashes of religion and ideology to the soup and you have the World of mankind anno 2014 CE.

KlausH said:

Frank J said:

Arguably, in the United States, the real authority, for now, is the population…

— ”harold”

Given your good point about authority vs expertise, I’ll temporarily stray far from my own area of expertise: The US process, when it is allowed to work (I’m thinking of Ben Franklin’s “a republic, if you can keep it” quote), in fact puts the expertise that you mentioned above blind authority. What we too often take for granted, was a fiendishly clever process that is not unlike the scientific method. And dare I add, not unlike natural selection itself, in that change (in this case in laws) must be both possible and not easy. Immutable laws are authoritarianism. While laws changeable at the slightest whim, is anarchy. Like nature itself, and the scientific method, what works is – if I may use a Stuart Kauffman phrase – poised on the edge between order and chaos. As expected, those with radical agendas insist that the Constitution (or the Bible, when they quote mine the Founding Fathers) is an immutable authority. Or they demand easy change of all laws, typically to make those regarding safety and environment ever-stricter, and everything else more lenient. Anti-evolution activists in fact do both. While pursuing their own extreme authoritarian agenda, they, particularly ID promoters, have ironically fooled millions into thinking that their “Darwinist” critics are the ones tampering with the Constitution. In fact we are the ones yielding to expertise, demanding that what is taught in science class is only that which has earned the right to be taught. On that criterion alone, without any regard to church-state issues, every teaching strategy demanded by anti-evolution activists, fails miserably. Unfortunately, most people, including most who have no problem with evolution, are unaware of that.

We desperately need the scientific method in government. Every proposed law should have a clear statement of the legislation, the problem it is supposed to address, an analysis of its own legality under existing laws and the constitution, an analysis of impact on population, a logical explanation of how it is intended to work, and criteria by which its effectiveness can be judged. All laws should be reviewed after they have been implemented for a reasonable amount of time. Laws that are ineffective, by the stated criteria, or have serious unintended consequences, or were passed based on faulty or fraudulant data, should be discarded.

callahanpb said: ...I don't have a huge problem with someone elected to a schoolboard trying to get creationism in the schools if that's what the people who voted for them want.

Just Bob said: I do (have a problem with them). The creationist board member (let's call him a 'mcleroy') KNOWS that what he's pushing is illegal, and that the likely result is major and expensive problems for the district. If the mcleroy doesn't know that, then he's guilty of gross incompetence. If he knows that, but intentionally pursues unconstitutionally teaching religion on the taxpayers' dime, thus harming the school district he's elected to serve, he's guilty of gross malfeasance.

callahanpb said:

Just Bob said: I do (have a problem with them). The creationist board member (let's call him a 'mcleroy') KNOWS that what he's pushing is illegal, and that the likely result is major and expensive problems for the district. If the mcleroy doesn't know that, then he's guilty of gross incompetence. If he knows that, but intentionally pursues unconstitutionally teaching religion on the taxpayers' dime, thus harming the school district he's elected to serve, he's guilty of gross malfeasance.

If there's proven malfeasance, it should be possible to remove them from office (and I think that's happened, though I'm not up on these things). What I don't have a problem with is advocacy. Within legal limits, politicians work for the people who voted them in, not for some ideal of how things should be.

mattdance18 said: What I meant by "honest signal" was a little different. I meant that the signal sent to the prospective mate must be an honest signal of one's general fitness if such a signaling strategy is to survive over the long term.

So my point was more about the strategic instability of deceiving one's own prospective mates about one's fitness,

your point was more about the capacity for deception itself being a potentially attractive quality in the eyes of one's prospective mates,

callahanpb said: What I don't have a problem with is advocacy. Within legal limits...

eric said: If sexual selection was all about health and fitness to evade predators/resist disease/etc... then there would be no such things as peacock's tails. The fact that such things exist is prima facie evidence that organisms can "waste" some amount of calories on signals that aren't directly related to surviving predators, disease, hunger, etc... So, misrepresenting ones' fitness is not really much different than growing a big tail or what have you; in both casese, the organism is spending some calories that could've been spent on natural-selection-fitness on making itself attractive to a mate instead.

ksplawn said: Politicians are not elected to try and pass unconstitutional policies that infringe on the voters' rights, even if some voters want that.

Using public schools to teach Creationism as even a viable "alternative" to evolution is a violation of the 1st amendment, period.

It is institutionalized religious bigotry and antithetical to the mission of public education. I have a serious problem with advocacy of violating the guaranteed rights of not only the students, but also the voting public. Even advocacy creates a hostile and unfair learning environment for the captive audience of students, lending the school government's support for religious intolerance and favoritism.

eric said: Allowing people to advocate for changes to the law that may be offensive to others is IMO critical to our form of government.

John Harshman said:

eric said: Allowing people to advocate for changes to the law that may be offensive to others is IMO critical to our form of government.

But this isn't advocating for changes to the law. It's pretending that you don't need changes to the law because what you're proposing is perfectly legal, when in fact it isn't. Big difference.

What John said. This isn't about legislators proposing legislation in open session, this is about the people running a public school system and the policies they support. They are powerless to change the law, that is not part of their mandate or authority. They must act within the bounds of the law. Beyond that problem, advocacy for infringing the Freedom of Religion of their students and the voters who disagree with bigoted policies is in itself harmful and sabotages the mission of public schools.

John Harshman said: And there's your problem. There's a contradiction between the first sentence and the start of the second. There is no "within legal limits" for teaching creationism in public schools.

Question for Just Bob:

Is the Louisiana Science Education Act breaking the law?

(Sincere question.)

FL

Using public schools to teach Creationism as even a viable “alternative” to evolution is a violation of the 1st amendment, period.

FL said: Question for Just Bob: Is the Louisiana Science Education Act breaking the law? (Sincere question.) FL

ksplawn said: Politicians are not elected to try and pass unconstitutional policies that infringe on the voters’ rights, even if some voters want that. Quite the opposite.

Question for Floyd: Watched Cosmos yet? How about Your Inner Fish?

Thought not.

Let's be clear here that when I'm speaking in terms of "I have a problem with this!" I'm not saying "there oughta be a law against talking about it!" or "force that guy to be fired before the term's up, procedure be damned!"

I'm saying is a monumentally ugly, stupid, and blatantly anti-rights stance that should, in any reasonable society, disqualify someone simply because nobody supports the platform. But even where there is popular support, it's a problem because it's an ugly, stupid, and blatantly anti-rights stance. And sometimes even advocacy causes harm by creating a hostile environment, or sowing confusion instead of understanding. The normal method of uninstalling such demagogues, a recall election, probably won't work where the popular support is high enough. So they are allowed to continue harming the community (even though many in the community approve of it). I "have a problem" with all of this, the same way I would "have a problem" with a racist firebrand talking up a storm about how schools should be allowed to segregate the students.

Just Bob said:

KlausH said: We desperately need the scientific method in government. Every proposed law should have a clear statement of the legislation, the problem it is supposed to address, an analysis of its own legality under existing laws and the constitution, an analysis of impact on population, a logical explanation of how it is intended to work, and criteria by which its effectiveness can be judged. All laws should be reviewed after they have been implemented for a reasonable amount of time. Laws that are ineffective, by the stated criteria, or have serious unintended consequences, or were passed based on faulty or fraudulant data, should be discarded.

Sounds perfect! But try that in a real-world democracy, where legislators have to get elected and stay elected, often by appealing to the prejudices, popular 'issues', fears, and even ignorance of the electorate. What legislator is going to vote to 'discard' a law that, regardless of its ineffectuality, is strongly favored by his constituents?

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

ksplawn said: Let's be clear here that when I'm speaking in terms of "I have a problem with this!" I'm not saying "there oughta be a law against talking about it!" or "force that guy to be fired before the term's up, procedure be damned!"

callahanpb said: One thing I notice about creationists is that they confuse advocacy with science and fail to wrap their heads around the fact that scientists are actually trying to understand stuff, not push their ideology.

harold said:

FL said: Question for Just Bob: Is the Louisiana Science Education Act breaking the law? (Sincere question.) FL

Yes, it's unconstitutional, and millions of dollars will be wasted discovering that if anyone ever tries to use it to teach creationism. Louisiana seems to have learned its lesson from Edwards, though. No-one seems to be "taking advantage" of that law to teach creationism.

ksplawn said: Politicians are not elected to try and pass unconstitutional policies that infringe on the voters' rights, even if some voters want that. Quite the opposite.

Just Bob said: A law can't break a law. How would one punish it? ... IANAL, but my surmise is that the mere existence of the LSEA is not illegal, but a person doing what it purports to allow him to do would find himself charged with breaking laws that DO stand up to judicial scrutiny.

Bobsie said:

Just Bob said: A law can't break a law. How would one punish it? ... IANAL, but my surmise is that the mere existence of the LSEA is not illegal, but a person doing what it purports to allow him to do would find himself charged with breaking laws that DO stand up to judicial scrutiny.

IANAL either and this may be parsing the issue a bit too much but IMO a law most certainly can be illegal. The writers of a given law most certainly can overstep legal bounds with passage. These are the kinds of laws that our State and Federal Supreme Courts over turn every year. It's not an automatic review based at the point of passage but when an aggrieved party petitions the court to review and make judgement.

Jimpithecus said:

Just Bob said:

KlausH said: We desperately need the scientific method in government. Every proposed law should have a clear statement of the legislation, the problem it is supposed to address, an analysis of its own legality under existing laws and the constitution, an analysis of impact on population, a logical explanation of how it is intended to work, and criteria by which its effectiveness can be judged. All laws should be reviewed after they have been implemented for a reasonable amount of time. Laws that are ineffective, by the stated criteria, or have serious unintended consequences, or were passed based on faulty or fraudulant data, should be discarded.

Sounds perfect! But try that in a real-world democracy, where legislators have to get elected and stay elected, often by appealing to the prejudices, popular 'issues', fears, and even ignorance of the electorate. What legislator is going to vote to 'discard' a law that, regardless of its ineffectuality, is strongly favored by his constituents?

This is only part of the problem. The other part is the persistent myth that anyone can serve on a science education committee. This leads to people like Paul Broun, of Georgia, representing the House Committee for Science and Technology. From an article in the local paper:

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Some kind of test should be a requirement of sorts for people running for these committees or local school boards. Creationism thrives where people like Broun have political power.

Helena Constantine said: Oh how I loved it when I got that quotation in print in a high school text book!

Jimpithecus said:

Just Bob said:

KlausH said: We desperately need the scientific method in government. Every proposed law should have a clear statement of the legislation, the problem it is supposed to address, an analysis of its own legality under existing laws and the constitution, an analysis of impact on population, a logical explanation of how it is intended to work, and criteria by which its effectiveness can be judged. All laws should be reviewed after they have been implemented for a reasonable amount of time. Laws that are ineffective, by the stated criteria, or have serious unintended consequences, or were passed based on faulty or fraudulant data, should be discarded.

Sounds perfect! But try that in a real-world democracy, where legislators have to get elected and stay elected, often by appealing to the prejudices, popular 'issues', fears, and even ignorance of the electorate. What legislator is going to vote to 'discard' a law that, regardless of its ineffectuality, is strongly favored by his constituents?

This is only part of the problem. The other part is the persistent myth that anyone can serve on a science education committee. This leads to people like Paul Broun, of Georgia, representing the House Committee for Science and Technology. From an article in the local paper:

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Some kind of test should be a requirement of sorts for people running for these committees or local school boards. Creationism thrives where people like Broun have political power.

Jimpithecus said: Snip This is only part of the problem. The other part is the persistent myth that anyone can serve on a science education committee. This leads to people like Paul Broun, of Georgia, representing the House Committee for Science and Technology. From an article in the local paper:

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Some kind of test should be a requirement of sorts for people running for these committees or local school boards. Creationism thrives where people like Broun have political power.

bigdakine said: In case you haven't seen the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc

eric said:

mattdance18 said: What I meant by "honest signal" was a little different. I meant that the signal sent to the prospective mate must be an honest signal of one's general fitness if such a signaling strategy is to survive over the long term.

There is no requirement in evolution that a fitness-signaling strategy survive over the long term...

...thus we should not be particularly surprised when we see deceptive ones (i.e. signals that represent a fitness greater or at least different from what the organism actually has).

Several things can happen: the species could just die out; ...

...or the environment could change altering the value of the original fitness trait; or the species could evolve such that the originally "advertised" fitness trait is not as important.

there is a lot of room for somwhat deceptive signaling because of the "slop" inherent in evolution. Not every weakly toad is going to encounter the parasite that could kill him. Today the fox may decide to go after the slow-because-young peacock rather than the slow-because-tail peacock.

I would argue then that deceptive signaling is not always unstable. It can be in some cases, but it isn't automatically so.

In fact the whole notion of sexual selection kinda supports the notion of stable "useless" traits.

If sexual selection was all about health and fitness to evade predators/resist disease/etc... then there would be no such things as peacock's tails. The fact that such things exist is prima facie evidence that organisms can "waste" some amount of calories on signals that aren't directly related to surviving predators, disease, hunger, etc... So, misrepresenting ones' fitness is not really much different than growing a big tail or what have you; in both casese, the organism is spending some calories that could've been spent on natural-selection-fitness on making itself attractive to a mate instead.

your point was more about the capacity for deception itself being a potentially attractive quality in the eyes of one's prospective mates,

Not quite. My point was that the capacity for deception of mates might sometimes be co-opted into a more general deceptive capacity, and that this could be a "more classic natural selection" type of advantage rather than just being a sexual selection advantage.

John Harshman said: Now, I know of cases in which features are deceptive. There are scorpionflies that give their prospective mates gifts of insects wrapped in silk -- nice protein for the eggs. But there are other scorpionflies that give their mates gifts of nothing wrapped in silk, and they seem to work as well in attracting said mates. This may be unstable -- there would certainly be an advantage to females capable of spotting the deception -- but not so unstable that it doesn't last long enough for us to observe it.

mattdance18 said: And if there are species in which some males offer empty silk but others offer insects, are there significant fitness differentials between the two groups? Are there really two groups at all, or is deception just a last ditch effort among males who would otherwise give insects? Or is it the case that some males always deceive mates? Is it akin to forced mating among other animals, like frogs or ducks? Or is it more like the divergent brute-strength-vs-transvestite-disguise strategies adopted by male cuttlefish? It would be very interesting to know the answers to such questions, I think! And particularly in a species where some male scorpionflies give real gifts and others give fakes, it would be interesting to know what degree of stability there is in that scenario. I rather think it would turn out to be the exception that proves the rule.

In the study published by Gershman and co-authors, a complex breeding design was used to demonstrate that one reason that males and females may be locked in conflict with one another, is that the genes that allow males to have more irresistible gifts are linked to the genes that influence whether or not females can refuse gifts. Because of the genetic link between males and females, females are not able to evolve defenses to avoid being attracted to empty gifts. These results suggest a possible explanation for how conflicts between males and females can persist over long periods of evolutionary time.

bmcennis said: Here's an example of a stable situation where fake gifts are given by the male and accepted by the female: How do genes play a role in conflict between males and females?

mattdance18 said:

If it were maladaptive on net, then there would be selection pressure against it. The tendency over the long term would thus be toward the elimination either of the trickery/gullibility dynamic or of the species itself.

I should add, if it's adaptive on net, even for one sex rather than the other, it's easy to see why selection pressure for it would also cause it to persist. (And it's still not a dishonest signal of the signaler's own fitness! Sorry to harp. But I think it's important to keep in mind what's at issue. Eric described a dishonest signal as a signal that one's fitness is greater than it actually is. And that's what I'm saying can't persist over the long term. Deceiving a mate with a fake gift is different than deceiving one's mate into thinking one is fitter than one is.) (Sorry this is getting soooooooo off topic, also.)

Note on terminology: people are using "fitness" to mean what, for want of a better term, is usually called in the literature "quality". "Fitness" is not what is being advertised by sexually selected characters, since the character itself (notably its attractiveness) is a component of fitness. "Quality" is used roughly to refer to those components of fitness exclusive of the sexually selected character, i.e. the sort of thing a character might be signally, whether honestly or not. If one dishonestly advertises one's quality to be better than it is, and that advertisement is convincing, then one's fitness will be greater therefore.

Nuptial gifts (that's the technical term), whether empty or filled, are not necessarily signals of anything. Real gifts are direct contributions to the reproductive success of both the male and female concerned. An empty gift is not a contribution, but it saves the male some effort. It would be an odd definition of "deceptive" that failed to include fake nuptial gifts.

Just Bob said:

harold said:

FL said: Question for Just Bob: Is the Louisiana Science Education Act breaking the law? (Sincere question.) FL

Yes, it's unconstitutional, and millions of dollars will be wasted discovering that if anyone ever tries to use it to teach creationism. Louisiana seems to have learned its lesson from Edwards, though. No-one seems to be "taking advantage" of that law to teach creationism.

A law can't break a law. How would one punish it? A person acting under a law can certainly be breaking a different law, and be punished. Such a case calls the respective laws into judicial question, usually with a resolution rendering one of them unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. IANAL, but my surmise is that the mere existence of the LSEA is not illegal, but a person doing what it purports to allow him to do would find himself charged with breaking laws that DO stand up to judicial scrutiny.

Or to put it another way. People like Broun obtain political power where creationism thrives.

— bigdakine

TomS said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

ashleyhr said: YEC denial of feathered dinosaurs is exactly the kind of thing here. Either they were really birds (if the feathers found on fossils are undeniable) or else they were dinosaurs but lacked true feathers ... http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2955&hilit=yutyrannus

Or, more recently, some YECs have taken to seriously suggesting that God created a “feathered-bipedal-reptile kind” as a separate baramin from the various dinosaur baramins and the various avian baramins. Not even kidding. That’s how they approach these things. Ten years ago, they insisted that no feathered dinosaurs could ever exist…now, feathered dinosaurs are their own special created kind. Their goalposts are on wheels.

When I was first introduced to YEC, I would have thought that all fossils would be rejected as something either constructed by paleontologists from funny-shaped rocks or a something planted by Satan. So I was pleased to see that the YECs have made that accommodation to science. And that they can move to accept feathered bipedal reptile as being real makes me think that maybe there will be a time when there will be an acceptance of "reptile"-bird evolution. Maybe there is some other Biblical explanation that someone will interpret the Bible as literally saying. (Like how the Bible really says that the Earth is a planet.)

ashleyhr said: If the Christian god exists and if the Bible is his true word to humanity, why is every argument made by young earth (Biblical) creationists against any unbiblical science invariably nonsense?

Because there is no "unbiblical" science, only "contrary-to-the-privileged-underinformed-arbitrarily-invented-interpretation-of-the-Bible-and-uncomfortable-for-various-reasons science".

And, after all, how uncomfortable is it to say that birds are descended from dinosaurs?

Dinos with feathers?

Inconceivable!

(After all, if dinos had feathers, wouldn't we have seen that on the Flintstones TV rockumentaries? )

John Harshman said: Note on terminology: people are using "fitness" to mean what, for want of a better term, is usually called in the literature "quality". "Fitness" is not what is being advertised by sexually selected characters, since the character itself (notably its attractiveness) is a component of fitness. "Quality" is used roughly to refer to those components of fitness exclusive of the sexually selected character, i.e. the sort of thing a character might be signally, whether honestly or not. If one dishonestly advertises one's quality to be better than it is, and that advertisement is convincing, then one's fitness will be greater therefore.

John Harshman said: If one dishonestly advertises one's quality to be better than it is, and that advertisement is convincing, then one's fitness will be greater therefore.

DS said: Question for Floyd: Watched Cosmos yet? How about Your Inner Fish? Thought not.

FL said: Question for Just Bob: Is the Louisiana Science Education Act breaking the law? (Sincere question.) FL

FL said: Question for Just Bob: Is the Louisiana Science Education Act breaking the law? (Sincere question.) FL