Quantifying the Statistical Challenge to Evolution

In today's response to the tiktaalik fish at the CSC, I read with interest the proposed way to calculate the number of transitional fossils we should see if evolution were true.  Check it out below. 

As Stephen Meyer et. al. explain in an essay on the Cambrian explosion in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, paleontologist Michael Foote (a mainstream evolutionist, not an ID proponent) has "developed a method by which evolutionary models can be tested against several variables." His analysis shows that

“given estimates of [a] completeness [of the fossil record], [b] median species duration, [c] the time required for evolutionary transitions, and [d] the number of ordinal- or higher-level transitions, we could obtain an estimate of the number of major transitions we should expect to see in the fossil record.” Michael Foote, “On the probability of ancestors in the fossil record,” Paleobiology 22 (1996): 141-51

As Meyer et. al. go on to explain,

"His method provides a way to evaluate, as he puts it, “whether the small number of documented major transitions provides strong evidence against evolution.” Or as Meyer explains elsewhere, "Because estimates of the completemness of the fossil record [a], median species duration [b], and the number of ordinal- or higher-level transtions [d] are reasonably well established, the time required for plausible mechanisms to produce macroevolutionary transitions, stands as the crucial variable in any such analysis. If the time required to produce major evolutionary change is high, as it is for neo-Darwinian mechanisms of change, then given current estimates of ... [a, b, and d], neo-Darwinism fails to account for the data of the fossil record. (p. 343)

And as they also note, the transitional speed suggested by punctuationalists like Stephen Gould also conflicts with what a statistical analysis of the fossil record shows us.

There's a problem with the Darwinist position that runs even deeper than this, however: If Darwinian evolution is an undisputed fact, as its chief defenders routinely claim, why is this fossil find being billed as such an crucial piece of evidence?

Comments

[Sam]

The leading undisputed theory Seeker, not fact.

[seeker]

BTW, those aren't my words, that a quote. I quite agree that we're talking about the dominant, disputed theory ;)

[Sam]

Yes, but you're disputing the dominant theory with what amounts to nothing. You don't have nearly the body of evidence behind you as evolution does.

[seeker]

Could you outline the body of evidence that supports evolution? By the way, you'll have to exclude anything that also fits in the creation model, including natural selection, adaptation, and speciation. We all agree those happen. I think you're stuck w/ the fossil record. Good luck. You'll find that the evidence is not as significant as you believe, and that the contrary evidence has been filtered out for you.

[Cineaste]

To say that proponents of intelligent design are unmoved by the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae is no surprise. Sharon Begley’s assertion (The Wall Street Journal, science journal), “No scientific discovery will end the evolution wars,” is true because ID proponents are motivated by religion not science. One cannot argue with faith because of the nature of faith. Science can provide all the evidence needed to prove a point but a person of faith will never budge because it’s a matter of faith to them. This makes faith, by definition, irrational. On the other hand, science is rational (based on empirical evidence) and as such, if it is replaced by a new scientific theory that has a better scientific explanation for species, so be it. Evolution is proving itself resilient to ID arguments trying to discredit it (see U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruling). The more ID proponents argue from such a weak position, the more they look like fools. It reminds me of the people who walked out on Bill Nye...

The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.

A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.

“We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children.

[seeker]

Actually, I'd say that evolutionists also act like people of faith, unable to separate their faith from their fiction.

But the reason that IDers and creationists don't give up their position at every new piece of supposed evidence is

1. Evolutionists are notorious for misinterpreting and misrepresenting what they find

2. There is signifincant amounts of data that contradict evolution, and one new piece of data is not going to turn over the applecart.

3. IDists are not anti-evolution per se - many of them believe in common ancestry.

As for talking about the great lights, if you are a biblicist, you might be offended by Bill Nye's poor exegesis of scripture. However, if you are an evangelical with a more rational and consistent hermeneutic, you realize that the OT is largely phenomenological rather than scientifically literal - which means that even though the moon doesn't create light, it most certainly GIVES light to us, even if by reflection. And there are very good explanations about the use of the words light and stars that go beyond the simplistic and confused remarks of those who are looking for a way to "prove" that the scriptures contradict.

[Cineaste]

"Actually, I'd say that evolutionists also act like people of faith, unable to separate their faith from their fiction." -seeker

I'm an evolutionist but I don't have faith in evolution. As I said earlier, if a better scientific theory that explains species replaces it; proves it as fiction as you say, so be it. Can you say the same about creationism?

I think this evolution vs. intelligent design debate parallels the controversy over Copernicus's heliocentric theory (still theory in 1543). Like evolution, his heliocentric theory had holes in it. Chiefly, that Copernicus had the planets orbiting around the sun in circles rather than ellipses, which throws the math off. At the time, the church could not accept the heliocentric theory because it contradicted scripture and Aristotle’s teachings.
Evolution may have holes in it still, but like Copernicus’s theory, that does not necessarily mean it is wrong. The Earth does orbit the Sun, theory or not! In the future, evolution may be accepted by Christians like the heliocentric theory was. But here is the rub. Christianity would again have to change its doctrine (or interpretation of doctrine), like they changed for Copernicus, to accept evolution. They would have to rethink creationism. Probably not going to happen, it contradicts Adam and Eve. Since its faith we are talking about here, no amount of evidence will change a fundamentalist’s faith. So, as I said, faith is irrational. What evidence would it take to convince you of Darwinism, for example?

About Bill Nye... then you do agree with what he said though right; from a scientific perspective? The moon does reflect the suns light! Were his statements true? If you think they are true, then we agree, the woman took offense with the truth… and if that is the case, it will be really tough to educate her about the sun and the moon.

[Irrational Entity]

Actually, one theistic evolutionist position argues that Adam and Eve were the first humans, as God gave them souls and placed them in the Garden of Eden. This understanding has its problems, but for clarity I wanted to note that the position does exist.