4 ms·

The most trivial bit of research would have given you an answer. I put in "wing evolution wiki" which got me a top hit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_o

The most trivial bit of research would have given you an answer. I put in "wing evolution wiki" which got me a top hit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight, which has an entire list of hypotheses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight#Hypotheses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight#Hypothe... including Pouncing Proavis model Cursorial model Wing-assisted incline running Arboreal model

jibal 3y ago
Indeed. All these evolution-denying arguments have been repeatedly refuted in great depth.
- brap 3y ago
  I don’t think he was denying evolution. He was suggesting that maybe slow, random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. I’m not saying there’s an intelligent creator (I personally don’t believe in one), but perhaps the way genes mutate is more “intelligent” than we think. In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. That seems kind of “intelligent”. Maybe it’s kind of like the exploration/exploitation tradeoff in RN.
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    > random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. maybe. What is it? > In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. Wiki link suggests wing evolution didn't need that. Even crap wings were better than none.
    - EGreg 3y ago
      Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life, including detective work etc. Now, let me refine my statement. Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history, and it has produced a ton of false theories with apparent explanatory power. The four humors. The theory of spontaneous generation. The luminiferous ether. Phlogiston. Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong? In my opinion, it should be required reading in school so people can see what mistakes were made in the past, to at least be aware of the patterns. Even the age of the earth, until radioactivity was discovered, hovered around 100 million years because of dogma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle However it is exactly the sort of thing that adherents of, say Marx or Freud’s theories, use. They see “confirming evidence” everywhere, and all they are doing is concocting narratives which are fitting every observed case into their framework. They add details that perhaps weren’t there. But if after a century all you have is just-so stories, many people will call that pseudoscientific. It’s fine to admit you don’t know, but shaming skeptical people into submission — like a sister comment does — betrays the insecurity that adherents of neo-Darwinism should probably feel if they are intellectually honest. > maybe. what is it? Well, we don’t know what can fill the gaps in our knowledge. But people who adhere to this or that school of thought insist it must be what they believe, and often their passive-aggressive tactics seem similar to each other.
      - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        > Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories If you're going to rebut me, please be specific. Looking again at my link, you're right, the cursorial hypothesis has questions around it, the others don't seem to. Can you point specifically to the evidence against, please. > In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life ... Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history What is 'this' here? Making hypotheses, or something else? > just-so stories ... pseudoscientific ... shaming skeptical people into submission — ... betrays the insecurity ... if they are intellectually honest. Meh. Stick to facts. State clearly what you're talking about and stop implying stuff about people who disagree with you otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself. I've no idea what you're talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you're saying there's some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us. (edit: "Have you studied the history of science" - yes "and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong?" - They were the best people could do at the time given the mathematical, intellectual, instrumental etc. limitations they had at the time. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how they could have done better).
        jibal 3y ago
        "otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself" That's evident ... his comment is wall-to-wall bad faith.
        EGreg 3y ago
        >> Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries? > Yes The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information, are typical when you don’t have much substantive information, haven’t thought things through and are subconsciously worried you’ll “lose an argument”. The goal is to mutually improve understanding. Very few people have studied the historu of science and how and why scientific thought changed. I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent. But if you have, would you mind recommending a book on the subject? I can’t seem to find many on that particular subject. I genuinely want to learn more about it. I think it is fascinating, and that I know than most people on it, but I haven’t found great books on it so if you did in fact study it do recommend something. > I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you’re saying there’s some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us. I think I have been quite clear, and you have chosen to ignore most of my direct questions. “Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories, and you shouldn’t be conflating them to make a disingenuous argument. For example, the theory of common descent says that animals of various species have common ancestors. It says nothing about speciation occurring only through random mutation and natural selection. There are other theories about punctuated equilibria etc. that are postulated to try to explain available evidence. What you are asking for is essentially a “neo darwinism of the gaps” argument. If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”. My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear? I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms. It isn’t my task to disprove your stories, it’s hard to prove a negative, and if you are making a positive claim the onus is on you to provide evidence for the story. It seems many of the stories are problematic. But even if they weren’t, merely following Darwin in this way isn’t doing actual science any more than a follower of Marx or Freud.
EGreg 3y ago
Have you actually read it? What makes you think I haven’t looked into it? In fact your article just proves my point. It lists four hypotheses, ie just-so stories, each of which slavishly following the model of random mutation and natural selection. Not only does this not prove a theory, but even on their own terms they are highly problematic. For example to quote your own article: Although the evidence in favor of this model is scientifically plausible, the evidence against it is substantial. For instance, a cursorial flight model would be energetically less favorable when compared to the alternative hypotheses. In order to achieve liftoff, Archaeopteryx would have to run faster than modern birds by a factor of three, due to its weight. Furthermore, the mass of Archaeopteryx versus the distance needed for minimum velocity to obtain liftoff speed is proportional, therefore, as mass increases, the energy required for takeoff increases. Other research has shown that the physics involved in cursorial flight would not make this a likely answer to the origin of avian flight. Once flight speed is obtained and Archaeopteryx is in the air, drag would cause the velocity to instantaneously decrease; balance could not be maintained due to this immediate reduction in velocity. Hence, Archaeopteryx would have a very short and ineffective flight. In contrast to Ostrom's theory regarding flight as a hunting mechanism, physics again does not support this model. In order to effectively trap insects with the wings, Archaeopteryx would require a mechanism such as holes in the wings to reduce air resistance. Without this mechanism, the cost/benefit ratio would not be feasible. But consider even if the just-so stories were somewhat believable. What exactly does it prove? Isn’t it simply digging the heels in and doubling down on the original framework being the only one? It seems Planck’s Principle is true for evolutionary biology like it has been for many other fields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle The style of this comment is exactly the sort of religious attack-dog attitude I often encounter on this topic. Very low on substance, high on bluster. When the evidence or argument is not on the side of your dogma, is best defense is a good offense, eh? This kind of passive-aggressive comment is oozing self-assuredness while clearly having never delved into the material, nor ever read the thing they linked to. It’s almost as if they have just googled it briefly, found a wikipedia article, and said “you are totally mistaken! See, just a minute of googling will have shown how deluded you are, you unbeliever / heterodox person / whatever.” Except your article doesn’t do what you hope it does, and most of the substance of your comment is an adhominem swipe at whoever dared question the premises. You’re hoping there’s something in the article you barely read, to answer the major issue, without bothering to delve into it yourself. Or perhaps the person will be embarrassed enough by your bluster, to stop questioning. Either way, a win for the dogma. Imagine in any other area of life (eg solving a murder) if you always drew the target around an arrow (eg assuming that murders are always done by men) and then in every tough case came up with a million plausible but problematic just-so stories that always follow the model. What would it prove? Rather, the fact that the you keep concocting problematic stories in itself may reveal a major bias towards your underlying hypothesis, which makes you less objective as a scientist (or detective, or whatever in other areas of life). Read this essay by Karl Popper, called Science as Falsification, it’s not very long: https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf It was during the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories—the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, ‘What is wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton’s theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?’ To make this contrast clear I should explain that few of us at the time would have said that we believed in the truth of Einstein’s theory of gravitation. This shows that it was not my doubting the truth of those other three theories which bothered me, but something else. Yet neither was it that I merely felt mathematical physics to be more exact than the sociological or psychological type of theory. Thus what worried me was neither the problem of truth, at that stage at least, nor the problem of exactness or measurability. It was rather that I felt that these other three theories, though posing as sciences, had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy. I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still ‘un-analysed’ and crying aloud for treatment. The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which ‘verified’ the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasized by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation—which revealed the class bias of the paper—and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their ‘clinical observations’. As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. ‘Because of my thousandfold experience,’ he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: ‘And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold. That is what just-so stories are for adherents of neo-Darwinianism!

jibal 3y ago

Indeed. All these evolution-denying arguments have been repeatedly refuted in great depth.

brap 3y ago
I don’t think he was denying evolution. He was suggesting that maybe slow, random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. I’m not saying there’s an intelligent creator (I personally don’t believe in one), but perhaps the way genes mutate is more “intelligent” than we think. In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. That seems kind of “intelligent”. Maybe it’s kind of like the exploration/exploitation tradeoff in RN.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  > random natural selection is not the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. maybe. What is it? > In some cases it sure looks like there was a “goal” to achieve, even at the cost of sacrificing something for a while. Wiki link suggests wing evolution didn't need that. Even crap wings were better than none.
  - EGreg 3y ago
    Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life, including detective work etc. Now, let me refine my statement. Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history, and it has produced a ton of false theories with apparent explanatory power. The four humors. The theory of spontaneous generation. The luminiferous ether. Phlogiston. Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong? In my opinion, it should be required reading in school so people can see what mistakes were made in the past, to at least be aware of the patterns. Even the age of the earth, until radioactivity was discovered, hovered around 100 million years because of dogma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle However it is exactly the sort of thing that adherents of, say Marx or Freud’s theories, use. They see “confirming evidence” everywhere, and all they are doing is concocting narratives which are fitting every observed case into their framework. They add details that perhaps weren’t there. But if after a century all you have is just-so stories, many people will call that pseudoscientific. It’s fine to admit you don’t know, but shaming skeptical people into submission — like a sister comment does — betrays the insecurity that adherents of neo-Darwinism should probably feel if they are intellectually honest. > maybe. what is it? Well, we don’t know what can fill the gaps in our knowledge. But people who adhere to this or that school of thought insist it must be what they believe, and often their passive-aggressive tactics seem similar to each other.
    - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      > Wiki link says that there is a lot of evidence against these just-so stories If you're going to rebut me, please be specific. Looking again at my link, you're right, the cursorial hypothesis has questions around it, the others don't seem to. Can you point specifically to the evidence against, please. > In any case, this isn’t how science is done. You’d be laughed out of the room if this was tried in most areas of life ... Non-rigorous scientists have done this a lot throughout ancient history What is 'this' here? Making hypotheses, or something else? > just-so stories ... pseudoscientific ... shaming skeptical people into submission — ... betrays the insecurity ... if they are intellectually honest. Meh. Stick to facts. State clearly what you're talking about and stop implying stuff about people who disagree with you otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself. I've no idea what you're talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you're saying there's some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us. (edit: "Have you studied the history of science" - yes "and why people believed these theories for centuries, when they were so wrong?" - They were the best people could do at the time given the mathematical, intellectual, instrumental etc. limitations they had at the time. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how they could have done better).
      - jibal 3y ago
        "otherwise you're not being intellectually honest yourself" That's evident ... his comment is wall-to-wall bad faith.
      - EGreg 3y ago
        >> Have you studied the history of science and why people believed these theories for centuries? > Yes The short terse answers yielding very little substantive information, are typical when you don’t have much substantive information, haven’t thought things through and are subconsciously worried you’ll “lose an argument”. The goal is to mutually improve understanding. Very few people have studied the historu of science and how and why scientific thought changed. I highly doubt you have done it to any great extent. But if you have, would you mind recommending a book on the subject? I can’t seem to find many on that particular subject. I genuinely want to learn more about it. I think it is fascinating, and that I know than most people on it, but I haven’t found great books on it so if you did in fact study it do recommend something. > I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you make your position clear please. If you’re saying there’s some alternative to evolution, please state it instead of teasing us. I think I have been quite clear, and you have chosen to ignore most of my direct questions. “Evolution” is a very broad term that encompasses many theories, and you shouldn’t be conflating them to make a disingenuous argument. For example, the theory of common descent says that animals of various species have common ancestors. It says nothing about speciation occurring only through random mutation and natural selection. There are other theories about punctuated equilibria etc. that are postulated to try to explain available evidence. What you are asking for is essentially a “neo darwinism of the gaps” argument. If you don’t know how it came about then “random mutation did it”. My whole point is that merely concocting just-so stories within a framework to double-down on it is not scientific. Do you agree? Or you disagree? Can you be clear? I have already quoted from your own article that the stories are problematic on their own terms. It isn’t my task to disprove your stories, it’s hard to prove a negative, and if you are making a positive claim the onus is on you to provide evidence for the story. It seems many of the stories are problematic. But even if they weren’t, merely following Darwin in this way isn’t doing actual science any more than a follower of Marx or Freud.

EGreg 3y ago

Have you actually read it? What makes you think I haven’t looked into it? In fact your article just proves my point. It lists four hypotheses, ie just-so stories, each of which slavishly following the model of random mutation and natural selection. Not only does this not prove a theory, but even on their own terms they are highly problematic. For example to quote your own article: Although the evidence in favor of this model is scientifically plausible, the evidence against it is substantial. For instance, a cursorial flight model would be energetically less favorable when compared to the alternative hypotheses. In order to achieve liftoff, Archaeopteryx would have to run faster than modern birds by a factor of three, due to its weight. Furthermore, the mass of Archaeopteryx versus the distance needed for minimum velocity to obtain liftoff speed is proportional, therefore, as mass increases, the energy required for takeoff increases. Other research has shown that the physics involved in cursorial flight would not make this a likely answer to the origin of avian flight. Once flight speed is obtained and Archaeopteryx is in the air, drag would cause the velocity to instantaneously decrease; balance could not be maintained due to this immediate reduction in velocity. Hence, Archaeopteryx would have a very short and ineffective flight. In contrast to Ostrom's theory regarding flight as a hunting mechanism, physics again does not support this model. In order to effectively trap insects with the wings, Archaeopteryx would require a mechanism such as holes in the wings to reduce air resistance. Without this mechanism, the cost/benefit ratio would not be feasible. But consider even if the just-so stories were somewhat believable. What exactly does it prove? Isn’t it simply digging the heels in and doubling down on the original framework being the only one? It seems Planck’s Principle is true for evolutionary biology like it has been for many other fields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle The style of this comment is exactly the sort of religious attack-dog attitude I often encounter on this topic. Very low on substance, high on bluster. When the evidence or argument is not on the side of your dogma, is best defense is a good offense, eh? This kind of passive-aggressive comment is oozing self-assuredness while clearly having never delved into the material, nor ever read the thing they linked to. It’s almost as if they have just googled it briefly, found a wikipedia article, and said “you are totally mistaken! See, just a minute of googling will have shown how deluded you are, you unbeliever / heterodox person / whatever.” Except your article doesn’t do what you hope it does, and most of the substance of your comment is an adhominem swipe at whoever dared question the premises. You’re hoping there’s something in the article you barely read, to answer the major issue, without bothering to delve into it yourself. Or perhaps the person will be embarrassed enough by your bluster, to stop questioning. Either way, a win for the dogma. Imagine in any other area of life (eg solving a murder) if you always drew the target around an arrow (eg assuming that murders are always done by men) and then in every tough case came up with a million plausible but problematic just-so stories that always follow the model. What would it prove? Rather, the fact that the you keep concocting problematic stories in itself may reveal a major bias towards your underlying hypothesis, which makes you less objective as a scientist (or detective, or whatever in other areas of life). Read this essay by Karl Popper, called Science as Falsification, it’s not very long: https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf It was during the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories—the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, ‘What is wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton’s theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?’ To make this contrast clear I should explain that few of us at the time would have said that we believed in the truth of Einstein’s theory of gravitation. This shows that it was not my doubting the truth of those other three theories which bothered me, but something else. Yet neither was it that I merely felt mathematical physics to be more exact than the sociological or psychological type of theory. Thus what worried me was neither the problem of truth, at that stage at least, nor the problem of exactness or measurability. It was rather that I felt that these other three theories, though posing as sciences, had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy. I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still ‘un-analysed’ and crying aloud for treatment. The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which ‘verified’ the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasized by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation—which revealed the class bias of the paper—and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their ‘clinical observations’. As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. ‘Because of my thousandfold experience,’ he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: ‘And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold. That is what just-so stories are for adherents of neo-Darwinianism!