debate-points, evolution, fossils, evidence, falsificationIs it intellectually honest for Dawkins to proclaim that without a single fossel in favor of evolution he would still believe in it all the same? Personally, I find this and like claims bizzare; and, I keep hearing them more and more. I’ve also recently noticed that this point has poped up in this debate with Ray Comfort and the Rational Responders.
I believe you should expect fossels! The amount of them sould be a function of the environment of the species, and the size of the population. I think we’re not off either: we’ve got fossils. To say that you don’t need fossil evidence to believe in evolution, is not the same as, if fossilazation didn’t exist, in its entirety, I would still place my belief in evolution. Are these people confusing these two statements? Or, do they really mean what they’re saying? Would it be correct to say then that if genetics didn’t cohere with evolution, belief would still be maintainable? At what point would the lack of evidence predicted by the theory disqualify its conclusion, and its utility?
I’m just confused at why debating atheists would want to proclaim that even without the evidence that the theory predicts, they’d still believe in the theory… Sure, genetic evidence is more valuable and the case is stronger and better preserved in the genes, but does that mean we should ignore a hypothetical false-prediction? It also seems to be at odds with popular claims for the theory’s disqualification: which many jokingly place at a rabbit in the Precambrian.
Lastly, doesn’t this at the very least play into hands of the theists and cause a bigger problem? It seems like you’re framing the scenario as if you no longer want to put stock in fossils, and that the theory is less evidentiary and, dare I say, faith-based.
So in essence,
Am I understanding these statements correctly?
Yes and no. Dawkins (in The Greatest Show on Earth) makes a point that even without fossil evidence, evolution can be scientifically proven. He does this to allow room for other arguments, because fossil evidence is so vast, it can drown out the others.
Would the theory of evolution be maintainable if both fossilization was maintainable, and no evidence was found?
Yes, the theory would be maintainable. No, I wouldn’t advise you to explore this route in a debate. Yes, there is plenty of other evidence for evolution. But, focusing on fossilization, it would be extremely weird, considering the number of opportunities for fossilization on Earth, had no fossils ever been found. If you want to explore this route, you might want to change to a fictional setting where fossilization is impossible. “Suppose somehow, Earth did not allow fossils to exist - could we still prove evolution?”
Is this something that should be repeated in future debates? Or, should we try to avoid this take on it?
I wouldn’t advise this way of putting it. Depending on the debate, people may try to twist “no fossils necessary” into “fossels aren’t evidence”. Be careful where you tread. See 2) above for a safer approach than “fossils aren’t necessary”.
To simplify the matter, you can say that Evolution has several kinds of very convincing and conclusive evidence in the forms of
Each one of these forms is enough to conclude that evolution is correct, and if you group life by each of these methods, you’ll always get a tree of life, the same tree. If you build a family tree (or “the tree of cousinship”, Dawkins) they will be the same trees that will match each other if laid one on top of the other.
Thus, eliminating fossils will not change the fact that evolution is correctly proven by an overwhelming amount of other evidence from different subjects of science.
Creationists get very hung up on the fossil record. Dawkins wanted to show that this is completely unreasonable since the fossil record isn’t necessary to show that evolution happens.
If we get right to it, the fossil record is relatively indirect evidence.
Compare measuring the oceans’ tides and concluding that there must be a huge piece of rock in orbit around the earth, to observing the damn thing hanging there at night, or even walking on it.
The fossil record is the equivalent of measuring the tides. But we can look at evolution directly by reading and comparing the DNA of different species. Even if not a single fossil had ever been found, we could still conclude that the conditions simply hadn’t been right, or that we didn’t look at the right places.
The evidence offered by modern microbiology and genomics is so much more direct, more powerful and more compelling than all the fossils combined. It’s just not as flashy as a well-preserved Darwinius.
I believe you should expect fossels
I’m not so sure. A lot of conditions have to be exact right for fossilization to occur, and for the fossil to be preserved, and somewhere where it can be found. Sure, it’s happening so it’s kinda hard to argue about it. But I could well imagine that some condition would fundamentally prevent fossilization, or make it much more unlikely. None of that has any bearing on evolution.
I’m just confused at why debating atheists would want to proclaim that even without the evidence that the theory predicts, they’d still believe in the theory
That would indeed be confusing. But it’s not the case here. There is ample evidence. Just different evidence.
It also seems to be at odds with popular claims for the theory’s disqualification: which many jokingly place at a rabbit in the Precambrian.
That’s different: The joke was made knowing that fossils exist. Since fossils exist, and adhere strictly to a geological order, a fossil in the wrong stratum would indeed present a potent problem to evolution. That’s not the same as no evidence, it would be contradicting evidence.
Fossils should be expected. However, if there weren’t fossils or genetic evidence, I’d still weigh more heavily in favor of evolution than belief in supernatural creation, because the probability of something happening via natural means is always higher than it happening via magic.
If there is no evidence to support one conclusion over the other, then they’re equally valid. Evolution is supported by a lot more than the fossil record, but if it wasn’t even if there was no fossil record, or DNA evidence or anything, then compared to creationism it would still be the simpler hypothesis, so whip out Occam, and there you have it.
On the other hand, in the complete absence of evidence there are other non-creation, simple explanations that would merit equal weight, so, if Dawkins is really talking about reasoning in advance of any evidence, then it’s more likely he’s just talking out his ass in order to annoy the creationists, rather than actually saying anything meaningful.
Well, of course fossils and genetic evidence like mitochondrial DNA are wonderful proofs, if nothing else, we can watch evolution occur in short lived species. The good old Biston moth, antibiotic resistant bacteria, herbicidal resistant weeds, MRSA for Christ’s sake! (that last was a bit of a bad one, I guess).
In fact, I do a lab in my high school biology class in which we cause evolution to happen, watch it happen, and then explain why it happened, all via the genetic manipulation of fruit flies.
Evolution is happening right before our eyes. In addition, if one doesn’t like natural selection as an explanation for the mechanism of evolution, just take a gander at selection forces at work in cultural evolution, including Richard Dawkins memes…
The other answers have danced around this, but the question plays into a tactic that creationists are fond of using, which goes something like this:
Pick a pet line of evidence about evolution to focus on, and come up with a supposed problem with it: “missing links”, “informational complexity”, radiometric dating, etc.
Bang away until someone, somewhere, admits the truth: science is characterized by tentative conclusions, and it is always possible (if exceedingly unlikely) that we are wrong on this point. Even more common is to turn the unwillingness of any honest scientist to claim that they know everything into an admission that nothing they know is true.
Take 2, and turn it into a damning conclusion by implying (or even outright stating, sometimes!) that any incompleteness or doubt in one area of the evidence for evolution means that the whole enterprise is rubbish. This relies upon ignoring that evolution is supported by multiple converging lines of evidence, or works by suggesting that because the creationist has - supposedly - blown a hole in one area the entire edifice is rotten and will crumble at the slightest push.
In other words, to mangle a /. meme:
I would take a more extreme position and say that very little evidence is necessary for evolution. Strictly speaking, all that we need to show is that genes constitute replicators and that there are a finite amount of resources in the world. With those things in place, it would require some power to actively intervene to prevent evolution from occurring. So any evidence “for evolution” is really just evidence that the universe behaves in a consistent and logical manner at the relevant scales.
If I may add something to what others have said, evolution can be shown to occur through statistical analysis such as this one here.
The context has to be understood. Too many people see fossils as the only relevant issue at hand when discussing evolution. There are so many other functional branches of biology and science that would collapse without evolution to meld with them as part of our understanding.
It’s like saying that, without buttons, it’s intellectually dishonest to say that shirts still exist.
I’d say yes. Between DNA evidence and embryonic development, immunity and physiology it pretty clear cut. The killer for me is the geographical distribution of living species and their similarities/differences. You can literally see evolution in action in the wild in this way. With the added benefit of confirming pangea theory! Not to mention observation in the lab.
I’d go as far as to say that fossil evdience has been suprceeded by multiple schools of biology.
So this response is an attempt at an addition to and refinement of many of the great responses that already appear here.
1) We need to qualify that by evolution we are referring to evolution by natural selection.
2) We are concerned with biological evolution.
3) Evolution can be shown to occur from a theoretical standpoint if there is variation in reproductive success
3b) More precisely: evolution can be mathematically shown to occur if three conditions are met,
a) there is variation within a population,
b) information can replicate itself, and
c) the information's content has a likelihood on the probability that it will be replicated.
(for a full course outlining this any many other interesting facts about evolutionary biology and ecology see Stephen Stearn's online course)
3) could be seen as an extension of aaronasterling's point; where c) is given by the existence of limited resources, and b) that genes are replicators. He left out a) but a) is pretty safe to assume.
Nonetheless, this mathematical definition of evolution can be said to obtain whenever 3) obtains. If we can show in any way that these conditions obtain in the biological setting, then we can show that 2) is true, and 1) by extension.
This sort of theoretical argument does not require that fossils exist, simply put.
Now as others noted, it would be strange if fossils didn't exist given the conditions of Earth, that said, even if creation did occur, it would have to go even further to explain the non-existence of any fossils. If no fossils existed, then it would not undermine 1) or 2), rather it would need to be the case that fossils existed and they showed no variation over time that would be strange.
Really what would be needed to disprove evolution was proof that there is not variation in reproductive success, i.e. that 3) does not obtain, in the heritable traits endowed by biological entities.
It happens that all of the types of evidence listed by others give ways of showing at least indirectly that variation in reproductive success among these heritable traits exists. Genetic work shows the mechanism by which traits may be heritable, while the fossil record shows that there is variation in reproductive success (by demonstrating the existence of extinct species). Still these aren't the only ways of showing this - so long as you can demonstrate 3) in biological settings, then you have all the argument you need to demonstrate biological evolution by natural selection.
To shift the debate back to what the theists maintain, missing fossil evidence points to gaps in the theory of evolution, but do little to alter the fact of evolution. Take the discovery about a year ago of a human ancestor. It didn’t do anything to alter our understanding of how evolution works, but it did alter the structure of the human family tree, with the branches diverging in different places than previously thought.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
