George Romanes' Argument Against Design

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

No, that’s not correct. He did indeed call the process we call “evolution” a process of descent with modification. But his theory was not just the affirmation of the existence of a process of descent with modification, but included a mechanism (well, several, but natural selection the most important of them) for how descent with modification could produce new species (and other taxonomic levels).

He also stated that the process of evolution he was putting forward should produce a tree like pattern, correct?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

He also stated that the process of evolution he was putting forward should produce a tree like pattern, correct?

Yes, there is a tree diagram in one of his workbooks. Are you equating the tree-like pattern with a nested hierarchy? If so, do be more explicit with your definitions and analogies. In any case, if other evolutionists of the time also envisioned a tree like pattern, then the pattern could not distinguish between, say, Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution. That’s why reference to the mechanism is essential to distinguish “Darwin’s theory.”

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

Are you equating the tree-like pattern with a nested hierarchy?

Yes. They’re isomorphic. You know there’s a tree diagram in the Origin, not just in a workbook, right?

@Eddie

In any case, if other evolutionists of the time also envisioned a tree like pattern, then the pattern could not distinguish between, say, Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution.

It isn’t clear what you mean by “Lamarckian”; Lamarck, in fact, didn’t propose a tree. He thought that there was an only slightly branched ladder of life, with new organisms arising constantly from the slime, and then proceeding to become more complex over time. Currently simple species are just young ones, and complex species are older and so have proceeded farther up the ladder.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

Yes. They’re isomorphic.

I would have preferred to hear T. aquaticus answer for himself, without coaching or assistance.

@John_Harshman

You know there’s a tree diagram in the Origin, not just in a workbook, right?

Obviously, but to my eye the workbook diagram looks more biological treeish than abstract treeish. Maybe just my imagination.

I’ll let the Lamarck example go for the moment, on the assumption that you are right (though in my experience here, historical statements about evolutionary theorists from more than about 40 years ago are rarely accurate) but you are perhaps aware that the tree image to relate the various forms of life was used by others before Darwin?

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

Are you equating the tree-like pattern with a nested hierarchy? If so, do be more explicit with your definitions and analogies.

Darwin was pretty explicit on this comparison:

I request the reader to turn to the diagram illustrating the action, as formerly explained, of these several principles; and he will see that the inevitable result is, that the modified descendants proceeding from one progenitor become broken up into groups subordinate to groups. In the diagram each letter on the uppermost line may represent a genus including several species; and the whole of the genera along this upper line form together one class, for all are descended from one ancient parent, and, consequently, have inherited something in common. But the three genera on the left hand have, on this same principle, much in common, and form a subfamily, distinct from that containing the next two genera on the right hand, which diverged from a common parent at the fifth stage of descent. These five genera have also much in common, though less than when grouped in subfamilies; and they form a family distinct from that containing the three genera still further to the right hand, which diverged at an earlier period. And all these genera, descended from (A), form an order distinct from the genera descended from (I). So that we here have many species descended from a single progenitor grouped into genera; and the genera into subfamilies, families and orders, all under one great class.

Charles Darwin on the Nested Hierarchy

@Eddie

In any case, if other evolutionists of the time also envisioned a tree like pattern, then the pattern could not distinguish between, say, Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution.

Per the topic, the tree-like pattern does differentiate between evolution and intelligent design.

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

you are perhaps aware that the tree image to relate the various forms of life was used by others before Darwin?

Which others are you referring to?

@T_aquaticus

Per the topic, the tree-like pattern does differentiate between evolution and intelligent design.

Not so. “Intelligent design” is a vague enough concept that it can incorporate universal common descent.

[T_aquaticus]

@John_Harshman

Not so. “Intelligent design” is a vague enough concept that it can incorporate universal common descent.

That’s where Romanes’ argument comes in. If there is a natural process that can produce the observations then we reject the supernatural explanation. This is also implicit throughout ID literature where they state that ID would be falsified if they observed something like irreducible complexity or complex specified information evolving.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

Which others are you referring to?

Drat. I can’t find them all now. One of course is Haeckel’s, but that is post-Darwinian. I was thinking of one or two others I have seen from the pre-Darwinian era. I will let you know when I find them. And now I will take a break.

[John_Harshman]

I think you are managing to conflate common descent and nested hierarchy with the origin of variation and change.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@John_Harshman

Which others are you referring to?

Here’s a paper about it: Trees and networks before and after Darwin | Biology Direct | Full Text

[T_aquaticus]

@John_Harshman

I think you are managing to conflate common descent and nested hierarchy with the origin of variation and change.

Here is my train of thought.

If the environment produced specific adaptations in species then we wouldn’t have a nested hierarchy. For example, if there was a mammal that was adapting towards flight and this caused them to evolve feathers in a Lamarckian sense then this would be a problem for a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy is made up of lineage specific variation, and that is the type of change that Darwin envisioned and it seemed to differ from what Lamarck had proposed. There is an independence between what the organism needed and the variation that was produced. That’s the type of process that will produce a nested hierarchy.

The actual mechanisms of genetic change discovered after Darwin and Romanes did exactly that, they produced lineage specific genetic sequences.

[John_Harshman]

Pretty slim pickings. I don’t think a one of them can be considered an actual phyogenetic tree in the way Darwin supposed it.

[John_Harshman]

@T_aquaticus

Here is my train of thought.

This would seem to have nothing to do with the conflict between common descent and ID, specifically a supernatural origin of variation. Since there’s nobody here defending Lamarckian ideas of evolution, I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

[T_aquaticus]

@John_Harshman

This would seem to have nothing to do with the conflict between common descent and ID, specifically a supernatural origin of variation.

Evolution will produce a nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy. We have a natural explanation for those observations.

If we have a natural explanation for a process we don’t throw that explanation out in favor of a supernatural explanation that exactly mimics the natural process for no apparent reason.

Even Behe has stated that the observation of natural processes rules out intelligent design:

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
–Michael Behe
Michael Behe On Falsification | Uncommon Descent

[John_Harshman]

@T_aquaticus

Evolution will produce a nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy. We have a natural explanation for those observations.

Common descent, specifically, will produce a nested hierarchy. The causes of novel traits, whatever they may be, are not relevant to observation of that hierarchy. That we have a natural explanation for nested hierarchy is not relevant to whether we have a natural explanation for novel traits. Again, you are consistently conflating two separate issues and sorts of data.

You will note that Behe is not talking about nested hierarchy or common descent, but about the origin of novel features. I agree that if we have an adequate natural explanation for the origin of some feature, we need not consider intelligent design. But this isn’t what you’ve been saying so far, and it isn’t what I objected to.

[T_aquaticus]

@John_Harshman

Common descent, specifically, will produce a nested hierarchy. The causes of novel traits, whatever they may be, are not relevant to observation of that hierarchy.

Can you have a nested hierarchy if all species are identical?

If the cause of novel traits produced the identical adaptations at different points on a phylogeny, would that result in a nested hierarchy?

From what I can see, the cause of novel traits is very relevant to the question of nested hierarchies.

@John_Harshman

You will note that Behe is not talking about nested hierarchy or common descent, but about the origin of novel features.

He is talking about natural processes ruling out intelligent design which is the concept that started this whole thread.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

Not in the modern sense, true. Here’s David Morrison’s take on it: The Genealogical World of Phylogenetic Networks: Who published the first phylogenetic tree?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

Hey! Great find! This is an article I will definitely enjoy reading! Thanks very much!

[John_Harshman]

@T_aquaticus

Can you have a nested hierarchy if all species are identical?

You can’t have species if all species are identical. But I don’t see the reason for bringing up identical adaptations. What would predict such a thing? It doesn’t appear that ID would necessarily do so, and if it did, that would be a problem with discerning the tree that really did exist, not an alternative explanation for nested hierarchy.

@T_aquaticus

From what I can see, the cause of novel traits is very relevant to the question of nested hierarchies.

Only if the cause would not be expected to produce a nested hierarchy. Did Romanes claim that design would have produced identical adaptations in distantly related species? If so, on what basis?

@T_aquaticus

He is talking about natural processes ruling out intelligent design which is the concept that started this whole thread.

Nevertheless, he’s not talking about nested hierarchy or common descent, which is what you were talking about. Behe in fact accepts common descent in the ordinary way and also accepts all the usual evidence for it. Still don’t see the relevance.

Incidentally, at the level of individual nucleotides, all homoplasies are indeed identical, and we must detect homoplasy, only imperfectly, by its failing to fit the general pattern.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Eddie

@Roy

@Roy

I note that you’ve not only admitted once more that the arguments of YECs and IDers are indistinguishable

They’re very distinguishable. YEC is premised on a literal-historical reading of Genesis, ID is not. I could easily have distinguished YEC-slanted papers, if any had been presented, but none were.

You couldn’t distinguish them when they didn’t mention God.

You couldn’t distinguish a correct equation by atheist Larry Krauss from the same correct equation by John Polkinghorne, either. Neither equation would mention God.

That’s because atheistic physics is the same as Christian physics without the mentions of God. Exactly like intelligent design being creationism without the mentions of God.

QED.

Wouldn’t someone competent concentrate on trying to refute ID arguments, instead of trying to undermine them in an ad hominem way, which is what you’re doing here?

If you ever produced any ID arguments, I’d happily refute them. But you never do. Instead, we get 1000+ post threads in which you fail to provide even one ID hypothesis, let alone a supporting argument.

(Look up ad hominem if you don’t recognize this.)

I’m familiar with it. You need to look up ad (non) verecundiam.