Science vs History - a source of equivocation?

One of the most common cases of equivocation I see in this debate is conflating the Theory of Evolution with Natural History.This is rarely deliberate - it probably stems from the usage of the word 'evolution'. For example: 'evolution of man', 'evolution of flight', 'birds evolved from dinosaurs' etc. We have never seen this macroevolution occur in the lab, therefore it is not scientific. I'm sure we've heard it all.We also see the argument that abiogenesis is part of the Theory of Evolution, thus if abiogenesis is proven wrong - so has evolution. Often we see this go further and big bang and cosmology. Abiogenesis is part and parcel of Natural History but it is nothing to do with the the Theory of Evolution which focuses on populations of living organisms.Natural History is very much like other histories, it does not claim infallibility, but does rely on evidence. It is common for certain elements of the history to be disputed, but the main points are generally agreed upon. Certain historical events will sometimes be so extreme that some people deny they ever happened at all. Holocaust deniers spring immdiately to mind, but also the infamous 'Moon Hoax' crowd should get a mention too.And so the Natural History of earth has its share of deniers. Its conclusions are so radical that it blatantly contradicts every religious creation story, which naturally upsets those of a conservative nature or those who are unswervingly fundamentalist.So what is the relationship between Natural History and the Theory of Evolution?The fossil record show us that over its existence, the life on earth changed over time. Victorian Creationists accepted this, and struggled to work out how it tied in with the creation story; eventually settling on things like catastrophism. This change on earth gives us a basic timeline of natural history.The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain this change using non-miraculous (scientific) explanations based on observations. Such observations include fecundity, heredity, natural selection, and random mutations of the genome.Natural History uses the Theory of Evolution to attempt to get a more specific timeline of natural history (thus:- 'evolution of man'. 'evolution of flght' etc). The Theory helps construct evolutionary pathways. Such things are heavily supported by genetic examinations. Natural History cannot use the Theory of Evolution to explain abiogenesis or the Big Bang.

Conclusion

Natural History isn't necessarily science in its own right, but like other histories it employs science to reach its conclusions. Unlike most other histories, natural history relies soley on science to reach its conclusions, we cannot examine written records or artefacts beyond the natural remains of organisms or the tools employed by intelligent creatures.I'm not sure how much room for discussion there is here, but I needed to complete the thought I started in another thread. I assume Biological evolution is the best forum for it.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Mod,Nice writing, as usual. Pretty clear. But I have a problem Aren't natural history and the TOE interdependent? If natural history changes, so does the TOE. If the TOE changes, so does natural history. Some evidence for the TOE comes from natural history. Some evidence of natural history comes from TOE.In this case, I don't see how you can separate the two "theories." Without the TOE, natural history wouldn't make any sense. But without the historical elememts of natural history, the extent or generalizability of the TOE would be questionable. That's because part of the evidence for the TOE is the fossil record. We can predict that it would be the case, but the actual confirmation and support is important to the theory itself.Maybe what I'm ultimately saying is that "theory" is a special kind of word. Maybe the "postulation" or "hypothesis" of evolution is separate from the evidence that supports it, but the THEORY is not. Without the evidence, the theory becomes just a postulation. The theory actually shapes how we view the data itself as well.Just a thought.

Thanks, and good - gives us something to talk about A dramatic change in natural history may call ToE into question...for example, if we find a group of humans being eaten by T-Rex then natural history has to be rewritten. The ToE could still stand, but it wouldn't be sufficient to explain natural history. Perhaps. It depends on the nature of the changes of course. Small changes in the theory might only involve minor tweaks to the history. The one supports the other for sure. It's doubtful we would have developed a theory to explain the change in life on earth over time, if we didn't know that life on earth changed over time In a way, the fossil record can be used to support ToE. ToE principally explains the fossil records; however predicted transitionals being found lends support to the theory.

---

I think I'll rephrase my original post to try to tidy this response up (which comes across as being confused (sorry about that)) So we have a basic Natural History. Invertebrates then fish then amphibians then reptiles and dinosaurs, followed by birds and mammals. ToE provides a mechanism that explains how populations change over time. Assuming that populations have shifted form over time as per the Theory, more specific History can be discussed (eg birds evolved from dinosaurs).So yes, the two are linked together, but one being wrong does not imply the other is. If Natural History is blatantly wrong we can still predict that over time populations will change. If the Theory is wrong, we can still say with confidence that dinosaurs were around before humans.

Thanks for starting this, Modulous. Great topic.You are right about the equivocation, and my subtitle attempts to illustrate that. We often say that there is no problem with the fossil record. But that's because our concern is with the Theory of Evolution. If we had been concerned with natural history, then indeed the gaps would be a problem.This topic can help us illustrate the difference between theory and fact, and the role of theory in science.Theories have to do with processes and what we can predict from them. Thus ToE has to do with biological propogation and genetics. From the processes we can predict that this will create diversity, comparable to what we actually see. But the theory alone does not allow us to predict which species will be seen. For that, facts are required.Analogously, Newtonian law (motion, gravitation) allows us to predict that if there are planets, they will move in nearly circular orbits. But it doesn't tell us which planets there will be, nor what orbits they will have. For that we need facts.In the Newtonian case, the facts are measurements of positions of the planets at various times. The theory allows us to interpret these facts so as to determine the actual orbits of the planets (to high accuracy).In the case of ToE, the fossils are part of the fact base. There are enough of these facts to tell us a great deal about natural history. But there are not enough to answer all of the natural history questions we might have. That's where we can say that there are gaps in the fossil record.Modulous is right. Many of the questions that keep coming up are more properly questions about natural history. There are gaps, at least as far as natural history is concerned. There is enough evidence to convince most scientists that humans evolved from earlier apes. But, strictly speaking, the evidence falls short of a certain proof. But that's a problem for natural history, not a problem for ToE.

nwr,First of all, I want to say that I agree with you and Mod on this very important point: I agree totally.But I think you two are saying something more, something I don't agree with. I feel you're trying to separate data from theory. I still feel this is an artificial separation. Here's what I said to Mod: Newton's theory may stand alone, but without supporting data, it is nothing but a postulation. As more and more evidence is gathered, newton's theory depended less and less on any one specific piece of evidence--but the dependency, as a whole, still exists.The postulation is independent of any evidence. But the "theory" is not. To separate "theory" from data is a mistake. In that way, the TOE depends very much on Natural History. And Newton's Gravitational Law depends on observations of planetary motion.Mod has a section titled "What is the relationship between Natural History and Evolution?" and he doesn't address this dependency. I don't feel that you addressed it either. That is why I bring it up. Equivocation is wrong, but implying that the TOE is independent of Natural History is, IMHO, wrong.Ben

quote:

---

So what is the relationship between Natural History and the Theory of Evolution?

---

In another recent thread, I quoted this passage from Matt Ridley's The Red Queen, and it seems worth repeating here:-------------------------
In physics, there is no great difference between a why question and a how question. How does the earth go arund the sun? By gravitational attraction. Why does the earth go around the sun? Because of gravity. Evolution, however, causes biology to be a very different game because it includes contingent history. [. . .] When a neo-Darwinian asks, "Why?" he is really asking "How did this come about?"
He is a historian.
-------------------------There is a reciprocal relationship between Natural History and the Theory of Evolution.

quote:

---

nwr:
Analogously, Newtonian law (motion, gravitation) allows us to predict that if there are planets, they will move in nearly circular orbits.

---

Newton observed regularities, but offered nothing by way of theory to explain the underlying mechanisms.

I disagree with Matt's distinction.How is the sky blue is explained by refraction absorbtion of light waves by molecules in the airWhy is the sky blue is not, this is the subjective appearance that is not predicted by any specific wavelength it could be called green for the same effect. the sky is blue because that is what we call it.why the earth orbits the sun is similar: the answer is either "it just is" or "goddidit"how is not whyThis message has been edited by RAZD, 10*14*2005 11:30 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

No, I'm not separating them. But I am probably relating them in ways that you don't expect.The primary data for ToE is the data from biological reproduction, genetics, cell biochemistry. This is all data that can be tested quite thoroughly in lab experiments. The primary data for natural history is the fossil data (except for the case of recent natural history, where other forms of data are also available).There isn't a lot of overlap in the data for the two areas. ToE is involved in natural history, because it is part of the basis for interpreting the fossil data. There is a view that is popular among the general public, and some epistemologists, which says that scientific laws are inductive generalizations of the data. I believe that to be mistaken. I side more with the view that scientific laws are a priori. Here is a quote supporting my view:

quote:

---

the fundamental laws of any science--or those that are treated as fundamental--are a priori because they formulate just such definitive concepts or categorical tests by which alone investigation becomes possible.

​

C.I. Lewis, "A Pragmatic Conception of the A Priori", The Journal of Philosophy, XX, 1923, pp. 169-177.

---

In the case of Newton, bear in mind that he invented the concept of mass, admittedly influenced greatly by Galileo's experiments. Similarly, he reinvented force in the sense that his notion of force was quite different from that of earlier times. I'm certainly not suggesting that they are independent, and I doubt that Modulous is either. ToE is used in developing a natural history. However, the basic data for natural history is not very important to ToE. Granted, it is imaginable that data used for natural history could force a re-examination of ToE. But it isn't the primary data on which ToE is based.

Not sure about the meaning of "a priori" in this context. I do agree with the second part (they formulate...). I don't see how that makes them "a priori." I would probably say a hypothesis is a priori to a theory. A hypothesis is what creates the concepts. What distinguishes a hypothesis from a theory is the supporting evidence.But I could totally be missing your point, because I can't figure out the first half of the statement. So I'm guessing. Please clarify for me, if you will.Thanks
Ben

Here "a priori" is being used as a technical term in philosophy (epistemology). Roughly speaking, it says that the laws are known to be true prior to testing them with any data.I should add that there are many who disagree with Lewis on that. His is probably a minority opinion, albeit a respectable one. I happen to share that opinion.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm sure I addressed it, perhaps you can expand? Let me try again. The two are not independent.The natural history tells that life has changed.
The theory explains how this could happen.
The theory can be used to construct a more detailed natural history.The two are intertangled which can be the cause of confusion, which leads to accidental equivocation. However, when examining them in the scrutiny of a debate, they sometimes need to be addressed seperately.For example: Naturally the Theory doesn't say frogs turned into princes (or even amphibians turned into mammals). It just says that life changes by a process of random mutation and natural selection and that this would result in the eventual need for higher taxonomic designations. Natural History, by applying the theory (in conjunction with excavating the fossil record), has it that amphibious populations (lung breathing vertebrates) eventually diverged to include mammals.

I thought I'd add Miller's testimony to this thread.:

quote:

---

The next sentence reads, gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. I continue -- I have to tell you, I have read that statement hundreds of times, and I don't understand what it means by gaps in the theory.

​

There certainly are elements in the natural history of our planet for which evidence is missing. There are pieces of our natural history that we don't know, just like there are pieces of our political, military, and human history that we don't know.

​

I can only trace one part of my family back to about 1850. I don't know what happened before that. That doesn't mean I couldn't possibly be here because I don't have any ancestors before 1850. It means, I don't
have the whole story.

​

Well, that's true about evolution as well. There are parts of our recent past that are gaps, that are missing, that we don't have the story. But to say that's a gap in the theory strikes me as very very strange.
There are missing pieces of evidence but not gaps in the theory. And then the last sentence, a theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Do you know what? That's fine.

---

Actually this particular testimony is filled with this kind of talk, it is in an around page 45 of the document.

Its kinda similar to the presuppositions/conclusions discussion, right?Science has no reason to be evasive, after all!

Huh?