Sorry, exDemMom. I should have provided the cites: The Darwin quote was from The Origin of Species, New York: Oxford University Press (1998), pp. 140, 141, 146, 227. The Gould quote was from the transcript of a Lecture he gave at Hobart and William Smith College in 1980.
Thank you for the plausible explanation of why transitional forms are scarce in the fossil record, and the problems of interpreting what is found — or not found as the case may be. However, it seems to me that a "plausible explanation" is not necessarily the same thing as what actually occurred. Your explanation is further freighted (it seems to me) with the problem of how to prove "absence," of how to prove a negative....
You wrote: "The mechanisms of evolution are well-characterized; we can see those mechanisms occurring in modern living species." This may be a stupid question, but are you here suggesting that evolution is entirely "mechanistic?" That biological organisms — thus modern living species — are essentially "machines?" Well, if so, how does a machine become a living being? Yet Darwinism can't tell you what life is.... So why are we justified in concluding life forms are "machine-like?"
All these arguments we've been having regarding the definition of a species to me basically boil down to what taxonomic category we want to sort a particular specimen into. While taxonomy is a wonderfully useful thing, what it is not is the natural world itself. That is, it is an abstraction from, and a formalization of the natural world. Which is fine — unless one commits A. N. Whitehead's famous fallacy of misplaced concreteness, which consists in taking the human-created formalism for "the real world," eclipsing the natural world altogether. The problem is this falsifies reality, for the natural world is ever so much "messier" than can be fully captured in any neat, well-defined formalism. I cite Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Principle in support of this statement.
Another way to describe the situation would be to say that any formalism stands in the same relation to the real world as Kant's phenomenon — knowledge of reality based on sense perception — stands vis-á-vis the noumenon — the "thing" as it is "in itself," i.e., in its full existential completeness.
As Heraclitus said, "Nature loves to hide."
But I digress.
exDemoMom, you wrote:
....I don't make an observation and then make a hypothesis, that's because research (observations) is hypothesis driven. I formulate the hypothesis based on where gaps in the current knowledge are, which does not require observation, but requires a very detailed knowledge of the subject at hand. I consider different possibilities about what knowledge might fill the gap —those are my hypotheses — and then I make my observations. I rarely find that the observations fit the hypothesis exactly, but they inform me as to how I should revise my hypothesis.Sounds like a good working model to me! Yet I guess everything depends on the soundness of the hypotheses, which will depend on the soundness of the initial hypothesis or premise that generates the following hypotheses sequentially in time.
Here's where things get dicey. It is so obvious to me that you have great love for your work, are scrupulous about its proper conduct, are most likely highly successful at it, and have zero doubt about its, shall we say, epistemological foundations. That is, you exhibit all the qualities of fides in action. Fides being the Latin word for "faith" and "trust." In this you are like any Christian, any "person of faith." Hold that thought.
It seems to me the reigning fallacy of our time, which has perverted so much of human experience and understanding (i.e., the cultural evolution of the human race), can be stated thusly: Faith and Reason are necessarily mutually-exclusive entities.
To me, such a notion is nonsense — and I cite you as evidence!
The problem is that the Faith vs. Reason problem gets further reduced to a conflict between "science" and "religion." "Reasonable" people [e.g., scientists] are not supposed to be "religious" people [e.g., Christians]: Faith and reason cannot be combined without tainting "science." Or vice versa. They must stand apart forevermore!
Arrgghhh! At this point I recall Bacon's observation, "[W]hat a man had rather be true he more readily believes." Every man believes in something. The propensity to faith is in-built in the human character, if I might put it that way.
Even an atheist believes in something: The soundness of his atheism. Whether that is reasonable is another matter.
But the two — faith and reason — are designed to be in synergetic relation, not in a relation of mutual exclusivity. Or so it seems to me.
You wrote, "there are so many signals, from so many sources, that it is impossible to state where they all come from, or what all the feedback mechanisms are." So is the task impossible?
I suppose the first point that needs to be considered is the nature of a signal. By definition, a signal is "…a gesture, action, or sound that is used to convey information or instructions, typically by prearrangement between the parties concerned…." [Oxford English Dictionary On-line]
Thus, signals presuppose some sort of intelligent communications between intelligent agents or actors.
Does Darwin's theory have anything to say about that?
Thanks for putting up with me, a person coming from the epistemological and mathematical side, more than the biological side for sure.
Thanks for your excellent essay/post, exDemMom! Good to speak with you!
Unfortunately this is simply the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It'a a logical fallacy and no support for evolution. The mechanisms are assumed to be proof of evolution simply because they exist and evolution is presumed to be true. Doesn't get more fallacious than that.
Thank you for the plausible explanation of why transitional forms are scarce in the fossil record, and the problems of interpreting what is found — or not found as the case may be. However, it seems to me that a "plausible explanation" is not necessarily the same thing as what actually occurred. Your explanation is further freighted (it seems to me) with the problem of how to prove "absence," of how to prove a negative....
Keep in mind that we will never have a full and complete picture--of anything. That is pretty much the state of all science. I do not think we will ever reach a point where we know everything, and we can unequivocally say, "This is exactly how ___ works." So, there are gaps in the knowledge that supports the theory of evolution. There are gaps in all scientific knowledge. This is why, after thousands of years of scientific inquiry, we still have scientists.
You wrote: "The mechanisms of evolution are well-characterized; we can see those mechanisms occurring in modern living species." This may be a stupid question, but are you here suggesting that evolution is entirely "mechanistic?" That biological organisms — thus modern living species — are essentially "machines?" Well, if so, how does a machine become a living being? Yet Darwinism can't tell you what life is.... So why are we justified in concluding life forms are "machine-like?"
In a way, living things are very much like machines. Whether you look at the tiniest components of living things (which is what I do), or look at the gross structure, there are elements--biomolecules, organs, and everything in between--that exist to perform one specific function. But that's not exactly what I mean by "mechanisms." In biology, and, I suppose, in other sciences, all processes are called "mechanisms." In the context of evolution, one such mechanism would be the spontaneous mutation of DNA, which, itself, occurs by well-known mechanisms.
I won't use the word "Darwinism" because Darwin is not the center of any religious belief, he was a scientist. No, the theory of evolution does not explain what life is, or how it exists. It explains how life exists in its current diversity, and how life became so diverse.
The problem is that the Faith vs. Reason problem gets further reduced to a conflict between "science" and "religion." "Reasonable" people [e.g., scientists] are not supposed to be "religious" people [e.g., Christians]: Faith and reason cannot be combined without tainting "science." Or vice versa. They must stand apart forevermore!
There is no reason a scientist can't be a person of faith, or vice versa. The only real problem comes in when some people insist that religion can only be valid if we take creation as a literal account, and then, furthermore, try to force scientists to treat it as such. I've been trying to say, in a roundabout way, that we can't do that. Attempts have been made to bend science to ideology (Lysenko), but science cannot function in such an environment.
Graduate school is very stressful. In times of stress, people turn to God for support. It was not uncommon where I attended grad school--UC Davis--for students to place religious symbols in their labs or on their desks. Candles with the picture of Mary and baby Jesus were ubiquitous. Yet I don't recall anyone ever expressing doubt about the theory of evolution.
You wrote, "there are so many signals, from so many sources, that it is impossible to state where they all come from, or what all the feedback mechanisms are." So is the task impossible?
Yes. Both because there are many thousands of signals, making finding all of their descriptions in the literature and listing them all a monumental task, and because not all signals have been identified (and very likely, some will never be identified).
I suppose the first point that needs to be considered is the nature of a signal. By definition, a signal is "…a gesture, action, or sound that is used to convey information or instructions, typically by prearrangement between the parties concerned…." [Oxford English Dictionary On-line]
Scientists often use words in ways that aren't really covered in dictionaries. In some cases, such as between living organisms, or from one system to another within a living organism, the signal is sent because a specific response is desired (much like the Oxford definition).
In other cases, though, the signal is not intentionally sent. If you touch a hot pan, you receive a signal that tells your body to respond a certain way (which typically involves a lot of movement and vocalization). Although the heat was a signal, it was not intentionally sent. Now that you have a burn on your hand, the tissue damage is also a signal that various systems in your body need to spring into action to fix the damage. Anything that you sense in the environment that has an effect on you is a signal.