swamidass
December 6, 2018, 6:45pm
1
Continuing the discussion from The First Principles of Created Kinds :
An important conversation started that I wanted to continue in a more protected way. To keep this conversation on track, there are a few rules at play in this conversation. In general, give @AJRoberts and @Agauger time to respond. As actual OEC scientists who are outnumbered here, do not spam the thread with a Gish Gallop of questions and objections. Give them time to respond. Wait till outstanding questions are answered before following up.
Once their point it out there, then there may be space for larger discussion. However, give priority to scientists using their real names here. Anonymous posters should only comment on a side thread.
Calling the absence of evidence “a gap” is a theory laden evaluation. A lack of evidence is just that. The data, or actual observations (not “gaps”), can be fit to a variety of competing models. If one cannot see this one is too entrenched in one’s own paradigm. This is the hurdle for most meaningful dialogue and affects salaried professionals, the general public, and all other categories of people in between.
I agree with this. Lack of evidence is absence of evidence.
The point I’m making is more nuanced. For anyone to say there are gaps in the fossil record and then conclude one way or another what those gaps mean, he or she is simply making inferences. Evolutionists infer they are merely gaps and imply that they will persist (because some evolutionary perspectives support that interpretation) or be filled one day (because some evolutionary perspectives support this interpretation). Creationists infer or imply that gaps will remain. The gaps are just a lack of particular kinds of observations. Persistent gaps can imply a fit to creationist models, but all that can be said is that gaps are predicted by these models. Whether or not they are interpreted as gaps in life’s history, is just that, an arguably reasonable interpretation .
The fact that we know where the gaps in the fossil record are is because of evolution. The theory of evolution predicts a specific nested hierarchy, and it is this predicted nested hierarchy that tells us where the gaps in the fossil record are. For creationism, there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy and therefore no gaps. In the creationist model there should be a mix of many types of features without requiring a nested hierarchy. You are just as likely to find fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features as you are a fossil with a mixture of mammal and reptile features.
I also don’t see how you can look at a fossil and determine that it had no ancestors. What method allows you to do that? Also, how can someone determine that our fossil collections contain a specimen from every species that has lived? The problem is that people treat the fossil record as a complete record of life. It isn’t. This is proven almost every month as a new fossil species is discovered.
For creationism, there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy and therefore no gaps.
No, there are gaps and forms of nested hierarchies in creationist models as well . The gaps occur between created kinds and the nested hierarchies exist within created kinds due to adaptation, diversification and speciation.
You are just as likely to find fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features as you are a fossil with a mixture of mammal and reptile features.
This is an unsupported inference. Creationists (or evolutionists critiquing creationists) cannot make any predictions about which “mixtures” (using your word) of phenotypic traits are more likely between different created kinds. I don’t know any that do or have made any of these kinds of predictions or inferences. It seems ludicrous to try to guess what these might have been.
I also don’t see how you can look at a fossil and determine that it had no ancestors.
I don’t see how anyone can do this either.
how can someone determine that our fossil collections contain a specimen from every species that has lived?
I agree with you, these are inferences and predictions that are not supported by observations and need not be true.
The fact that we know where the gaps in the fossil record are is because of evolution.
This seems like an absurd assertion. We know where the gaps are because of observations - observations free of any interpretive paradigm.
No, there are gaps and forms of nested hierarchies in creationist models as well .
None of those models are supported by any reasoning or mechanisms. They aren’t predictions from first principles.
This is an unsupported inference. Creationists (or evolutionists critiquing creationists) cannot make any predictions about which “mixtures” (using your word) of phenotypic traits are more likely between different created kinds.
If they can’t predict which mixtures of features should or shouldn’t exist as part of creationism then a nested hierarchy can’t be a prediction of creationism.
I don’t see how anyone can do this either.
This is the main criticism of Meyer’s work. He looks at a fossil and pronounces that it doesn’t have any ancestors.
This seems like an absurd assertion. We know where the gaps are because of observations - observations free of any interpretive paradigm.
Really? Then why did we think there was a gap between dinosaurs and birds and not between mammals and birds? Why is there a presumed gap between humans and apes and not humans and dogs?
At this point, I’d invite @AJRoberts and @T_aquaticus to continue the conversation here.