|
Author
|
Topic: Article in Commentary critiques eye evolution
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 15. June 2003 13:02
I have two final remarks, and then I'll leave it to readers to assess whether warren accurately represents the issue.
First, warren wrote most recently quote:
Biologists can measure or estimate rates of some types of morphological change. They also know perfectly well that you can not simple extrapolate rates from on type of change to another, and that there are limits to how far you can extrapolate observed rates. The knowledge does not exist to predict the complex changes associated with eye evolution. The Nilsson and Pelger study provided only speculative calculations based on arbitrary assumptions, because that is all that is achievable with current knowledge.
And I ask again, specifically what are those "arbitrary assumptions"? List them, with references to text and page numbers in the Nilsson and Pelger paper that warren claims makes them. If warren is unable to do so, I for one conclude that he is indulging on rhetorical hyperbole with no basis in a reading of the original literature.
Second, warren wrote in a 12. June 2003 08:03 posting about Pim's and my interpretation of the Nilsson and Pelger paper, quote:
RBH and Pim/Frances are interpreting the article as providing evidence supporting some not explicitly defined form of Darwinian causal process.
This is a short thread, just two pages. In the portion of the thread preceding warren's assertion I had written just two posts. I invite warren to point to specific text in those two posts that interpret the Nilsson and Pelger paper as "providing evidence supporting some ... Darwinian causal process," defined or not. In fact, I invite warren to point to any posts I have made in this thread that interpret the N&P paper as providing evidence for any causal process. What specific text does warren take as supporting his claim?
In my posting of 11. June 2003 14:59 I pointed out that warren had made an extravagant general claim about biology, namely that "there is no Darwinian model or theory capable of explaining such complex changes." I then pointed him to several examples where biologists had actually proposed models of such complex processes. I specifically did not point to the Nilsson & Pelger paper in that context for the simple reason that they did not offer a causal model and thus I did not interpret their paper as doing so.
I leave it to the participants and readers to assess the reliability, or lack thereof, of warren's representations of other people's expressed opinions, published interpretations, and the general state of knowledge in biology. warren wrote above of "enforcement rules." The practice that I find appealing in this context is disregard. In life, people who are consistently unreliable reporters come to be disregarded in their community. That's the status that warren_bergerson has reached with me.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 15. June 2003 13:18
Warren: Frances/Pim, is back to his rather boring strategy of 1)not addressing any of the arguments being presented and 2)demanding anyone who doesn’t agree with his unsupported beliefs must provide evidence.
It seems clear to me that Warren not only made accusations and assertions he now seems to be unwilling or unable to support but also that Warren is now creating his own strawmen arguments to distract from the issues.
Let me remind the reader that Warren made some specific accusations and assertions about the Nilsson Pilger paper, a paper which Warren had obviously not read. In addition Warren made some very strong and similarly unsupported accusations about biological research.
So not only has Warren not shown any support for his accusations and assertions but worse he has imho engaged in the conduct he seems to oppose.
Do I demand Warren to support his opinions because they disagree with mine or do I hold Warren to support his opinions because they remain so far unsupported and are in fact quite insulting.
If Warren is truely unable to support his accusations then may I suggest that he withdraws his claims and admits that he was wrong. Maybe in the future Warren can be more careful in his claims?
In fact reading the actual papers in question may be helpful for the accuracy of the discussion and help avoid misleading interpretations and claims.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 16. June 2003 04:10
Warren, don't you see the problem in demanding a level of detail in explanation that's (1) inappropriate (2) only really understood fully by you and (3) achieved in part unbeknownst to you; and then when those demands are not met, labeling the study "deceptive"?
I am sorry if you are deceived by the paper. However, I suggest that the remedy for this is to become familiar with scientific practices and interpret the papers in that context.
If you do so, you may also understand why I say that the level of detail you're asking for is inappropriate (but achieved in part).
[ 16. June 2003, 04:11: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 16. June 2003 09:13
Rex,
The issue here is the level of scientific rigor required to make certain claims, not the level of detail required. The issue here is not whether I am setting too high a standard, but who or what justifies lowering the standard to the level where the Nilsson study can legitimately be interpreted as 1)providing meaningful scientific evidence supporting evolution via Darwinian processes or 2)a meaningful scientific estimate of the time required for eye evolution.
The standards that would clearly differentiate a 1)morphological transformation from 2)computer modeling of eye evolution have been around for a long time. The standards that would differentiate 1)assumption driven speculation from 2)experience validated estimates, have also been around for a long time. The standards that would require severely limiting or qualifying the scientific significance of the Nilsson study are not mine. Failure to include the appropriate qualifiers in referring to the Nilsson study is misleading or deceptive by standards that at one time were well established in the scientific community.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 16. June 2003 11:55
Warren: The issue here is the level of scientific rigor required to make certain claims, not the level of detail required.
Indeed and the failure of those objecting to these papers to actually have read the paper allowing them to make scientifically rigorous claims.
Warren: Failure to include the appropriate qualifiers in referring to the Nilsson study is misleading or deceptive by standards that at one time were well established in the scientific community
Failure to support the accusations and assertions when refering to scientific research that one has not read may be misleading or deceptive by standards that at one time were well established in the scientific research...
Warren, your strawmen claims, your ad hominem accusations have no place in any serious scientific discussion not now, not ever.
Until you give specific examples from the literature your claims and assertions remain as usual unsupported.
Is that the scientific rigor you are envisioning?
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 16. June 2003 15:58
If gradual morphological change could not produce a functioning compound eye from a light-sensitive spot, then the evolution of eyes would be more doubtful.
Nilsson&Pelger show that a gradual pathway is available, and this is therefore supportive of an evolutionary model.
If you use a computer to aid in your calculations of the impact of morphological transformation, then you are creating a computer model. Hence, this is computer modeling.
Finally, qualifiers are routinely dropped outside of scientific journals, probably because most people don't have a very finely developed sense of degrees of certainty. Qualifiers, therefore, can simply be confusing. While I personally think that one should instead try harder to explain the qualifications, it's hard to justify calling the standard dropping of qualifications "deceptive"--unless you mean that all reports on science intended for the layperson are deceptive, in which case I agree (to a small degree). This is why I read the primary research papers rather than summaries in various popularized accounts in areas where I care about accuracy.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 16. June 2003 16:59
Rex,
Gradual morphological change is a matter logical necessity. Morphological change by itself will not create vision.
Quote: Finally, qualifiers are routinely dropped outside of scientific journals, probably because most people don't have a very finely developed sense of degrees of certainty.
I don’t deny that qualifiers that it is not an uncommon practice to drop qualifiers. But dropping qualifiers can be and often is far more than a little misleading. In the case of the Nilsson study dropping the qualifiers turned a study addressing a very minor issue into something with the appearance of substantial scientific significance.
To drop the qualifiers and suggest that ‘a morphological transformation’ is ‘computer modeling of eye evolution’ is more than a little misleading. To drop the qualifiers and suggest that a calculation based almost entirely on assumptions that were not experience validated is an estimate of rates of evolutionary change is more than a little misleading.
As the Berlinski article apparently points out, the some of the uses and interpretations of the Nilsson study are more than a little misleading. Given the reactions observed in this thread, I think we are talking about more than misleading interpretations directed at the layman.
I agree with your observation that going back to the original study can be an effective technique for avoiding being personally misled by an article. Going back to the original source is not, however, the only effective technique for identifying misleading claims, nor is it always either practical or effective.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 16. June 2003 19:17
warren wrote quote:
Gradual morphological change is a matter logical necessity. Morphological change by itself will not create vision.
But that's not the main point of the Nilsson and Pelger study. What they found was that each gradual morphological step had selective advantage. They didn't merely show a morphological pathway, they showed a pathway that could be in principle by followed by natural selection for visual acuity. That's the missed point that invalidates warren's "Disney" rhetoric. No cartoonist that I am aware of worries about selective advantage.
And once again warren claims quote:
To drop the qualifiers and suggest that a calculation based almost entirely on assumptions that were not experience validated is an estimate of rates of evolutionary change is more than a little misleading. (Emphasis added)
What assumptions? I've asked three times now for the specific assumptions that warren believes to be invalid and/or arbitrary.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 16. June 2003 20:28
Warren,
I'm going to ask that you not post at ISCID for a few days. Your generalizations and triumphant posturing are getting tedious. If they don't stop, then I'm going to ask that you leave the ISCID community for a while. For example:
"The Pelger article, as described, appears to provide a Disney like artistic representation of the evolution of the eye."
"A statement of an obvious fact does not require supporting evidence."
"There are in fact no scientifically defined Darwinian causal processes which could have produced the sequence of changes described. "
"the evolution of the eye had to have been a complex multi-dimensional process, and there is no Darwinian model or theory capable of explaining such complex changes."
"given the current state of knowledge, no computer models or simulations exist of complex evolutionary changes. "
"The knowledge does not exist to predict the complex changes associated with eye evolution. The Nilsson and Pelger study provided only speculative calculations based on arbitrary assumptions, because that is all that is achievable with current knowledge. "
There are more, this is not an uncommon event. I'm just getting frustrated by it at the moment.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic