What's wrong with just so stories, anyway?

Nothing. It's the Readers Digest.

Should have asked somebody who knew the answer.

You think someone knows the answer?

Browsing? Who knew elephants were familiar with databases and Windows and the like?

And just how effective would a dangling lip have been 20 million years ago? Does Darwinism posit foolishness before usefulness?

If you're starting from something like a pig's or mole's nose I suppose it's not crazytalk. But really:

probably emerging from the upper lip and the nose

Way to go out on a limb, Doc.

Should have asked somebody who knew the answer.

Isn't that what they tried to do by going to the professor?

God gave elephants trunks so the Republicans would have an endearing mascot.

They would look silly without them.

How did elephants come to have trunks?

Their overnight bags were too small?

They needed them to go swimming?

Tom: There's nothing wrong with Just So stories, but they ain't science. This one is teleological (the elephant was destined to have its trunk), Lamarkist (the elephant kept puffing out its lips and they stuck that way) and specious (as the article says, there is no fossil evidence). This story is also a perfect explanation of how the giraffe got his trunk.

Tom:

They seem to fill the same role in the materialist faith that inspirational stories do for many religious people. Sort of like intellectual comfort food to be enjoyed quickly without too many questions.

"Should have asked somebody who knew the answer". That pretty much sums it up. I assume you're kidding, Harry, although from where I sit, it's impossible to 'know'.

Once upon a time, there was a large rock that sat in a stream bed. Over time, the force of the water smoothed and rounded the rock, until one day, the rock finally took the shape of a wheel.

Much more time passed--two, maybe three weeks--and the wheel-shaped rock suddenly became a bias-ply steel-belted radial. And sprouted 3 more tires--and together, they evolved into a 2005 Chevy Silverado with tinted windows, XM Satellite Radio and OnStar.

And that is why, even today, people still say "Chevy Trucks--Like A Rock."

Hey; it could happen.

Noel, that it happened that way is now clearly a fact, as the fossil record in Biff's junk yard proves. But can you resolve the bitter controversy that still rages among us natural evolutionists as to why the Edsel became extinct?

David: In the interest of avoiding a ten-year debate with you about the meaning of the word "science" I'll just mention that we're talking about reality. We're talking about an attempt to explain the observed world. If we see that elephants have trunks, then that calls for an explanation; if we see that giraffes don't then there's no explanation called for.
I explain the fact that Hiroshima was radioactive ruble in 1945 by the fact that there was a nuke recently dropped on it. New York was not radioactive rubble because a nuke was not dropped on it. According to you, is there something wrong with these statements? Are they mere "just-so stories" and therefore unsound? "We need a general theory!" you cry. No, actually, not for every oindividual observed fact, we don't.
Yes, the account is Lamarckian as the interviewee phrased it, but it easily can be re-cast so that it's not Lamarckian, in terms of differential selective pressures, etc.
It is NOT teleological.

Peter: It's called explaining an observed fact.

If we see that elephants have trunks, then that calls for an explanation; if we see that giraffes don't then there's no explanation called for.

That seems an obvious error to me, Tom. The elephant's trunk and the giraffe's lack of one are facts of equal standing, and theory will eventually have to explain both.

No, Tom, it's called feeling impelled to explain an observed fact by reference to a pre-existing theory that you have convinced yourself explains all observed facts, and therefore struggling determinedly to make it fit by hook or by crook no matter how implausible or irrational.

David's giraffe example is good. Tom, the published "explanation" explains nothing. There is no equivalent of the "nuke" dropped on Hiroshima but not New York. What nuke-equivalent hit the elephant but not the giraffe? Evolution itself, from which the giraffe was exempt? Did the giraffe not evolve from smaller creatures?

I don't doubt an evolutionary story can be developed. But where to find evidence that can prove it?

Peter,

The Edsel lives. I just saw Elvis drive by in one; he said something about going to study the mating hobbits of Australian pygmys.

Tom: Hiroshima was radioactive rubble because its nation was at war. True, but insufficient, as it doesn't explain New York.

As for teleology, were you worried that the story might end without the elephant getting his trunk?

what is the probability that both sides of this argument are wrong ? no more than 100%, certainly.

myself, i will wait until the actual answer presents itself.

David - You simply ignored what I said about Hiroshima.

Peter - If it's the best going theory, you use it as the default until it's refuted. For example, when I see a magician seem to levitate an object I don't immediately discard the theory of gravity; I first try to explain what I'm seeing in a way consistent with it. Only if evidence steadily accumulates against gravity does it call for a revision or abandonment of the theory. I also bet that you do the same thing (regardless of what you might say in debates about evolution). Evolution is the best theory because (1) we've actually seen it happen–e.g., in microbes evolving resistance to antibiotics, (2) we've actually seen it happen in the flu virus changing every year, (3) because it's consistent with "mistakes" like the human appendix, which does no good and occasionally kills its owner, the blind spot in the human eye, etc., which problems are NOT consistent with the various forms of intelligent design theory, (4) it's consistent with the age of the Earth as calculated in various ways, i.e., more than 4 billion years old, which is not consistent with ID theory (at least, the traditional religious versions). You could probably address each of these points, Peter, but then who would be explaining away facts he didn't like to preserve a theory he did?

Joe - By your logic, every one of an infinite number of facts requires explanation: Why people don't have wings, why the national language of Spain isn't Russian, why Bill Clinton wasn't born in Toronto, why the UK is in the Atlantic instead of the Pacific, why the sun isn't cold, etc., etc. This is just silly.

PJ - Yes, it is of course true that we didn't actually see the evolution of the elephant as we saw the nuking of Hiroshima. But again, the point is that we have a fact we want to explain. I walk into the kitchen and see my son with chocolate sauce on his face and the bottle of chocolate sauce on the floor. Am I entitled to infer that he was drinking the chocolate sauce even though I didn't actually see it? And that he didn't drink the sauce on other days, which is why sauce wasn't on the floor on those days? Or is this a desperate, ad hoc attempt to come up with a "just-so story"? To repeat: I call it attempting to explain an observed fact. Honestly, what do you do? As with Peter, I rather strongly suspect that you do something like what I just said.

And to everyone: Intelligent design theory is a set of silly just-so stories by your standards: Why do elephants have trunks? Why, because the designer(s) decided to give them trunks!

And you criticize evolutionary theory for being ad hoc?

Tom: I didn't ignore it, I rejected it. The proferred explanation for how Elephant got his trunk is not like explaning the damage to Haroshima by noting the nuke. It is like explaining the damage by noting the war. It's like explaining the chocolate on your son's face by saying, "He likes sweets."

Why do elephants have trunks? As a result of a series of random mutations, none of which were inconsistent with survival. As you imply by using the example of the appendix, phenotypes are phenotypes. It is silly to ask why.

That is why I think Darwinism, properly understood, is trivial. It is also why this sort of naive Darwinism, in which justifications for the smallest variation in the genotype are proferred, is so annoying. You seem to want to push me into either a creationist or ID slot, but I'm neither. (Or, rather, I am a solipsistic creationist, which doesn't interfere with my accepting that the Earth is however many billions of years old or that all life has evolved from a single-cell organism. About the latter I am an agnostic, which is, as far as I can tell, the only rational position.)

As for your points to Peter: (1) We haven't seen microbes "evolve" drug resistence. This is a common and interesting mistake akin to saying that the elephant found that a trunk was useful, so it kept evolving a longer and longer trunk. Within a breeding population of microbes, some are drug resistent to a greater or lesser degree. An incomplete course of antibiotics leaves only the most resistent microbes, and their offspring can inherit their resistence. If this is repeated enough times, we will end up with very hardy microbes. It is always important to remember that DNA does not "know" if the population is under attack and does not then design a defense. Mutations are random and do not occur in response to a particular threat.

(2) Viruses mutate. Some mutate quickly, particularly if the genotype is "young", others don't. I don't think that anyone here denies mutation.

(3) Nature is not red in tooth and claw. It's actually pretty accomodating and, on the level of species, the living is easy. The test is not whether a new mutation helps; the test is whether it kills, which it rarely does. Thus biodiversity. In particular, "design flaws" that tend not to kill until adulthood are very hard to weed out of the genome. But I'm not sure why you think that these mutations are inconsistent with ID. You have to have some idea of the designer's intent before you can decide whether the design is flawed. In any event, any engineer will tell you that every design choice is a trade of certain benefits for certain costs.

(4) The age of the Earth is only barely long enough if, indeed, it is long enough at all.

Tom: I see you posted while I was composing.

Where did you get the idea that I believed in Intelligent Design? Stereotype, much?

By your logic, every one of an infinite number of facts requires explanation.

Tom : if I were being contrary just for the fun of it I'd say yes: a good scientific theory has to stand ready to explain, or at a minimum take note of, any novel fact in its domain of expertise that's presented to it by any curious questioner. You should be able to roust your theory out of bed at 2am, like Napoleon, and she should be ready to stand and deliver. But in the case of the elephant vs. a giraffe, no; David's example is better chosen than that. Let me rephrase the question: how did the elephant come to have a trunk instead of a long neck? And how the giraffe a long neck instead of a trunk? The proferred explanation (I know, I know, at the Reader's Digest level) for the elephant's trunk is that it is an adaptation to solve a problem (or exploit an advantage), the problem/advantage of tallness. Why not a long neck instead? Either is plausible as an outcome of natural selection and each, so far as I'm aware, is equally plausible.

Tom:

I am not a scientist and my interest here is in the philosophy and logic of evolution. What gives it its cachet is its claim to explain( or be theoretically capable of explaining) the reason for all observed facts by way of natural, discoverable processes to the exclusion of any other. It is that unshakeable conviction that causes all the controversy and not arguments about how antibiotics work or how, why or when Darwin's finches change their beaks. It is also the basis of all those charming just so stories.

You say; "If it's the best theory going, you use it as a default until its refuted." That argument would be more persuasive if we were still in the days when natural selection and the survival imperative purported to explain all, because there were alternative theoretical explanations within naturalism and, as David points out, controversy about just how tough the battle to survive is. But once random mutation and non-teleological gene shift entered the picture, it isn't theory anymore. It's just natural history, the history of everything, and David is right about it's triviality. There is nothing "theoretical" to accept or reject on the mechanics of physical change if all you are talking about is purposeless change without rhyme or reason. Stuff happens. If a species survives, that's evolution. If it doesn't,that's evolution too. If nothing much at all happens, that's...hey, guess what? Happenstance is not a theory.

The fact that you would point to "mistakes" like the appendix as a proof of natural evolution just reinforces this, because the whole notion of mistakes makes no sense within the modern synthesis. Do you consider the elephant's trunk to be a "success"? Probably, because elephants are still with us. But just imagine how many more there would be if they hadn't made the "mistake" of failing to evolve wings instead. Of course Joe's objection that evolution has to address missed opportunities and why things didn't happen is fair comment. Don't worry, though, you can just say "random" over and over and he'll eventually go away.

Like most proponents of evolution, you seem to be almost desperate for those of us who demur to come up with a competing self-contained theory and defend it. Can't be done. Evolutionists have used gobbledegook and logical legerdemain to cover the whole turf. Even ID is more a rejoinder than a competing discrete theory. Arguing with evolutionists is like arguing with one who expands the definition of germ theory to encompass all diseases, including those that aren't caused by germs,(explained by something called "random pathology") and then dismisses as wilfilly thick anyone who challenges germ theory because they don't have a better one.

I won't eventually go away, because I'm going away right now. Happy Mother's Day y'all. You did call her, right?

Perhaps some ancient large reptilians began inserting stones into their upper lips, like the Makololo tribe from Malawi. They might have been gazing at the green leaves above the waterline, and were moving the stones to reach the leaves.

Perhaps a pre-historic bee stung an eohippus on the upper lip, just at the moment that its ovaries (or testes) were struck by a cosmic ray.

Perhaps some beast put a rock containing more than the typical amount of uranium in its mouth.

Perhaps there was a run of buck-toothed births in a herd or group. Or perhaps the tusks forced the upper lip to protrude more and more, and voila!

But oh, the sores and infections and tumors from those stretched lips. Had they known that one day, they would become a full-flowing trunk, it might have made it all worthwhile.

The interim state in an evolution - what if it is a hindrance? Then it hinders. Seems to me that this is an example. What good is a 60 lb. (or more) protrusion swinging from the face? The elephant may not have had predators who could take advantage of it, but you can bet the bugs and bacteria did.

David -
"We haven't seen microbes "evolve" drug resistence." Wrong, as you then concede with this: "Within a breeding population of microbes, some are drug resistent to a greater or lesser degree. An incomplete course of antibiotics leaves only the most resistent microbes, and their offspring can inherit their resistence. If this is repeated enough times, we will end up with very hardy microbes." Precisely. This constitutes an observed existence proof of evolution.
You also state, correctly, "Mutations are random." Please tell everyone else on this thread. Additionally, "Viruses mutate. Some mutate quickly, particularly if the genotype is "young", others don't. I don't think that anyone here denies mutation." Good; we have a point of agreement.

Joe (and others) - Your objections amount to the old saw that evolutionary theory is not falsifiable because it will just adjust to whatever it finds. This is based on the straw man version of evolutionary theory as "survivors survive." Yes, this version is unscientific (in fact, content-free), but this is not the real version. Evolutionary theory is falsifiable, properly done.

For example, suppose you have a theory that domestic dogs split off from wolves (ie, speciated) and then coyotes split off from wolves, while another biologist has a theory that coyotes split off from dogs after dogs split off from wolves (i.e., coyotes are dog descendants that went feral). You now have two distinct falsifiable hypotheses. If the second hypothesis is correct, then we should see common features between dogs and coyotes that wolves don't have, e.g., delayed adult behavior. (Domestic canines display behaviors long into adulthood, or throughout life, that disappear in wolves while they're still pups.) The first hypothesis does not have that implication. So you look for such features in coyotes, and what you find will tend to falsify one of the hypotheses and support the other. E.g., if coyotes do not display delayed pup behavior, then the second hypothesis has taken a blow; enough such blows and it would have to be rejected.
The same thing is possible with the elephant story. I COULD be falsified. For example, if we found a preserved creature that was one foot tall and had a trunk: That would refute the hypothesis that they evolved trunks because they grew tall. All of this is falsifiable; it is not the desperate ad hocery that some of you are portraying it as.

Peter -
"But once random mutation and non-teleological gene shift entered the picture, it isn't theory anymore. It's just natural history, the history of everything, and David is right about its triviality."
Random mutation is part of the explanation because it's part of reality. By all means, deny this, if you want to deny the existence of cancer, radiation sickness, etc.

"The fact that you would point to "mistakes" like the appendix as a proof of natural evolution just reinforces this, because the whole notion of mistakes makes no sense within the modern synthesis." No; they're the heart of it. Evolution involves such mistakes precisely because it's a blind, purposeless process.

"Stuff happens. If a species survives, that's evolution. If it doesn't,that's evolution too. If nothing much at all happens, that's...hey, guess what? Happenstance is not a theory." See my previous comment about the straw man version of evolutionary theory. Peter, we've SEEN organisms evolve. We see it in the fossil record, too. The "survivors survive" tautology is long dead; we're in evolutionary theory v.4.0 now.

"Like most proponents of evolution, you seem to be almost desperate for those of us who demur to come up with a competing self-contained theory and defend it. Can't be done." Actually, I don't much mind if you don't want to put forth an alternative. Some people say "It takes a model to beat a model," and I'm sympathetic to that view, but I won't get my back up about it.

As an obiter dictum on all of this, notice there are two points here. One is whether evolution happens at all. We've observed it, QED.
The other is regarding attempts to explain particular features of particular organisms in terms of evolutionary theory. This is the one that is in danger of being ad hoc *if it's not done correctly*, as all of you have been pointing out, but again, properly done it's not ad hocery; it's falsifiable.

Is evolution as observable as, say, gravity? Radioactive decay? The way of a man with a woman? Or is it 'just so' with millions of words of explanation?

Tom: good to see you back. I wasn't attacking a straw man (or wasn't trying to, anyway) last night, I was trying to point out something specific about David's example that didn't become clear to me until I'd thought about it. Which was why it was a good example. Your hypothesis about coyotes vs common dogs vs. wolves is another such. I agree that it's falsifiable, and I expect that it's well-confirmed by DNA. But it's also a hypothesis that makes no mention of natural selection, that is, it does not speculate as to why domestic dogs split off first and coyotes later, it merely says that dogs split off first. Unless I'm missing something subtle this is a hypothesis that doesn't depend on whether I assent to natural selection or not. And I suspect that the absence of natural selection from your hypothesis is what makes it a falsifiable hypothesis. Your thoughts? By the way, the folks in our little order of battle mean various things when they say "evolution." What I mean is , "common descent with modification, driven by natural selection." My position : no argument on common descent with modification, agnostic (and mighty surprised to find myself so, after having been raised up with it) on natural selection. It's the best we've got, but that's not saying much. As far as Intelligent Design, Peter's entirely right: it's a rejoinder cooked up because opponents feel they have to have a rejoinder. That strikes me as wrong-headed: "nobody knows" is a perfectly respectable answer for a science to give, and is sometimes the best answer.

The most interesting thing I've learned in this thread is that Eritrea has a university. Think they serve UNICEF barley in the dorm cafeteria?

Jim - It's more observable than gravity. We never actually see gravity; we see objects falling.

Peter, I don't know of any evolutionist who claims that the theory 'explains all observed facts.'

If you guys ever actually read any evolution books, you'd discover that there are lots and lots of observations that are unexplained, or, sometimes, apparently equally explained by two different approaches.

What evolutionists say is that, so far, all observed facts are consistent with the theory.

Also, that it makes predictions that, on occasion, are later verified.

I understand why Orrin refuses to engage evolution. He'll jeer at Reader's Digest, but he won't duel with Edis or Pennock, because he knows they'll clean his clock.

He has an open agenda.

The rest of you, I can't figure out.

Hi Joe. Well, the whole thing is a natural selection story.

Whoops, as soon as I wrote that I realized that that's not true, since in this particular example humans are said have been involved in domesticating dogs. So, damn, I chose a bad example. But think of a similar thing that involved some species other than dogs. The whole theory would be a natural selection theory.

Regarding the question of whether it takes a model (or theory) to beat a model (or theory), I think it depends on the particular question. In some philosophical sense agnosticism is always a safe answer. But in some cases we can do better. I think this is such a case.

Follow-up: Just realized I wasn't complete. What I meant was, if it doesn't involve humans (or postulated deities, etc.) then it's a natural selection story.
If the biologist came up with a hypothesis about why it happened as it did, so much the better. That would make it a sharper, easier to confirm or refute, theory. For example, suppose the hypothesis is that speciation happened for some reason connected with a decrease in the canines' prey population. We then can go to the fossil record and see if the postulated prey population decreased around the time the speciation happened. We'll find something that will tend to support or refute the hypothesis.

I'm buying drinks for anyone who can make a persuasive case that there is any meaningful distinction between Harry's claim that evolutionists (modest folk that they are) do not claim all observed facts can be explained by the theory, only that all observed facts (since the dawn of time) are consistent with the theory. Ah, the modesty of scientists.

Tom: The problem isn't the noun, mutation. It's the adjective, random. The first speaks to objective reality, the second to purpose.

Tom: I don't know how to say this any more clearly: I accept evolution.

I was, perhaps, somewhat unclear in my discussion of the evolution of drug resistance. What I meant to say was that we have never witnessed the emergence of drug resistance as a new trait. This is what makes it relevant to the elephant story: drug resistance no more springs up in response to a course of antibiotics than a trunk emerges as a response to height.

Harry: It wasn't OJ who posted this, it was me. My point wasn't that evolution is bunk, but that this type of naive "Just So" story is bunk.

Peter - What's the problem with the idea of randomness?

David - Evoluition doesn't have to mean a completely new trait appears. A change from a population ranging from no resistance to some resistance, to a population with only resistance, is still evolution. Recap: In 1930 (or whenever) you could kill off any strain of some disease (gonorrhea?) with penicillin. Now there are strains that are completely resistant, that is, no matter how much penicillin you load onto them, they won't die. I call this the appearance of a completely new trait; resistance, total resistance, which we never saw before.

Regarding "just so" stories, as I said, they ARE bunk IF they're done incorrectly. Here's an example of the difference. Prof X above said he thinks the elephant evolved the trunk because it was tall. As I noted earlier, this could be falsified, e.g., if we found fossils of a 1-foot tall elephant species with a trunk. Thus, his hypothesis would be rejected and biologists would try to come with another one that fit the facts better. That's science.

It would be bunk if we found a 1-foot tall elephant species and Professor X still clung to his "tallness" hypothesis, saying "Someone must have falsified the fossil record!" or whatever. THAT would be bunk.

Similarly, if I looked more closely at my son's face and found that what was on it was teriyaki sauce, I'd reject the hypothesis that the chocolate bottle was on the floor because he dropped it there. That's scientifiic.

On the other hand, if I said, "He must have cleverly wiped off the chocolate and put on teriyaki sauce in an attempt to fool me," then I'd be indulging in non-scientific bunk.

The key is putting forth hypotheses that can in principle be falsified, and indeed dropping those of them that are falsified.

Tom: Yes, evolution can simply mean the variation in the frequency of a trait in a breeding population in response to exogenous events. But the point is that the exogenous event is not responsible for the existence of the new trait. That is the aspect of popular Darwinism that drives me up the wall.

As for the Elephant's trunk, I did falsify the proffered explanation. Professor Shoshani suggested that the trunk evolved because the elephant grew bigger. I noted a big animal without a trunk. But the real point is that there is no "Because."

e.g., if we found fossils of a 1-foot tall elephant species with a trunk...

I am liking you better and better, Tom, not least because you give me an excuse to invoke my favorite , though probably apocryphal, Abraham Lincoln anecdote, to wit:

"How long should a dog's legs be?" Lincoln was asked.
To which he replied: "Long enough to reach the ground."

In other words I suggested that the elephant's trunk is alleged to have evolved to solve the problem of tallness. That was misleading, and I sincerely apologize. I should instead have said that the elephant's trunk is alleged to have evolved to solve the problem of long enough to reach the ground-ness. You are the first breath of fresh air in the Permanent Floating Darwin-Bashing Thread in some months. There are in fact some serious things at stake, and it does get very dark and stuffy in here.

Tom:

Let's reflect on the word "random". If you mean random in the sense of non-repeating, then all mutations are random and natural selection becomes a meaningless luck of the draw. You don't see identical mutations in identical circumstances in different places, do you?

If you mean random in the sense of "unrelated to the survival imperative", then the call on what is random and what is conducive to survival has to be filtered through man's very imperfect and very unscientific judgments as to what promotes survival and what doesn't. That quickly leads you to David's tautological banality, i.e. "the proof that this mutation was conducive to survival is that the species survived". That's about as scientific as my saying that the proof that my lifestyle is a healthy one is that I am still here. If elephants had gone extinct a hundred years ago, would our good Eritrean professor be telling us the trunk was the result of a random mutation?

Gentlemen - I have final exams throughout today (Tuesday) and might not be able to post again until tonight. Don't give up on me; Ah'll be bahck.

Tom,

The same thing is possible with the elephant story. I COULD be falsified. For example, if we found a preserved creature that was one foot tall and had a trunk: That would refute the hypothesis that they evolved trunks because they grew tall.

As it happens, we don't need to look for a preserved creature.

The Tapir is a bit taller than a foot but it does have a prehensile trunk.

Cute little bugger, too.

By the way, this thread is one of the very best I've ever read on Bros Judd.com.

Special thanks to David Cohen and Peter B.

David - "As for the Elephant's trunk, I did falsify the proffered explanation. Professor Shoshani suggested that the trunk evolved because
the elephant grew bigger. I noted a big animal without a trunk."
No, it doesn't prove it false; it merely establishes that it's incomplete.

Completing the argument is where all the fun begins, because completing it uses the concept of random mutation affecting elephants and not giraffes, which causes Peter to ignite his lightsaber, elicits a disdainful "Just So Story!" from you, and earns a politely witty comment to the effect of "I remain unconvinced" from Joe.

But, gentlemen, but, but, but…

The concept of random mutation is not unscientific, i.e., it is falsifiable or confirmable based on relevant evidence. For example, suppose we found remains of two elephants that were genetically identical (i.e., twins) but one had a trunk and the other didn't. Then the idea that random mutation mattered would be disconfirmed, since it would mean genes didn't matter at all. On the other side of the ledger, suppose we found the remains of ten elephants, five with a certain mutation and trunks, and five without that mutation and without trunks. That would be a piece of evidence tending to confirm the random mutation theory. At this point Peter says, "You haven't actually shown randomness." Patience; I'll get to that. Continuing, suppose we looked a million years earlier in the fossil record and found lots of elephants, all without that mutation and without trunks, and then looked at modern elephants and found they all have that mutation and have trunks. That would be more evidence in favor.

Now, on randomness: Well, we observe that mutations are random, i.e., they have no particular pattern. E.g., when sunlight damages skin cells and causes melanoma, it doesn't do so with any particular pattern. Same thing for looking at the DNA of radiation sickness patients; their DNA is altered in random ways.
There's also lots of indirect evidence, e.g,. the pointless genetic junk in the human genome that does no particular good or ill. That supports the randomness theory.

Regarding elephants in particular, randomness could be established by looking at a time series of elephant remains and looking for patterns in the DNA changes over time. If we see mutations have no particular pattern, well, there we are. On the other hand, if there were some pattern, then the randomness hypothesis would be falsified. If a crypto expert looked at the DNA and deciphered it as saying "Alpha Centauri Bioengineering Company, copyright 12 million BC," we'd have to reject the randomness hypothesis. On a more serious note, suppose that elephants have 40 chromosomes and we notice, in lots of elephant specimens spread through time and space, that only chromosome 27 ever undergoes mutation; 1-26 and 28-40 never changed. That plainly would be a non-randomness and we'd have to reject the randomness hypothesis.

Also: If elephants never underwent any mutation, in tens of millions of years of fossils, except for convenient mutations that happened to create trunks, that would support non-randomness. If they experienced mutations frequently, most of which were harmful or at least not helpful (e.g., didn't cause any noticeable effect on phenotype), that would support the randomness hypothesis.

By the way, I realize it's not easy to extract DNA from millions-of-years-old remains, if it's possible at all, but that just means we have to be clever in terms of looking at current mutations in current organisms (e.g., radiation sickness), looking at current elephant DNA, etc. Also, we may get lucky in terms of remains-I seem to remember that the Yale Museum of Natural History has a chunk of dinosaur skin that was preserved (in amber or whatever) and that settled some debates about what dinosaurs looked like that hadn't been settled by fossilized skeletons.

The basic point is how very falsifiable/confirmable the random mutation theory is, properly done; it's NOT just "They evolved trunks because they evolved trunks."

Joe - "You are the first breath of fresh air in the Permanent Floating
Darwin-Bashing Thread in some months."
Thanks!

Eugene - Then the tallness hypothesis is false, and they'll have to start looking for other explanations for the elephant's trunk.
See how easy that was, guys? No desperate clinging to an untenable hypothesis (on my part, anyway, I can't speak for Professor X). Next hypothesis.

By the way, can I now get everyone to admit that hypotheses of evolutionary theory are not constructed so as to be unfalsifiable?

Tom: I can't help but feel that you're fighting the wrong fight. I agree that mutations happen and that they're random. That's my whole point. When added to the realization that survival is a gaping sieve, it makes evolution trivial. So, I'm entirely in agreement with what you write, right up until you write that "The basic point is how very falsifiable/confirmable the random mutation theory is, properly done; it's NOT just 'They evolved trunks because they evolved trunks.'"

The first part of this statement is, I think, just your misconception that you've fallen in among committed IDers. The second part is counter to everything else you just wrote: of course it's just that they evolved trunks because they evolved trunks. If the mutation is random and not necessary for survival, what else could it be that is consistent with the modern synthesis? I mean, it might just be that females prefer big noses (accounting for Jewish perserverance), but that just pushes everything back one step.

By the way, can I now get everyone to admit that hypotheses of evolutionary theory are not constructed so as to be unfalsifiable?

Of course not. If the elephant had a button nose, we'd have a Just So story telling us how evolution had given it the perfect nose for its height.

David
"I agree that mutations happen and that they're random. "
Perhaps there's more agreement here than it seemed at first. Good. Peter, though, does seem to take issue with the appositeness of the random mutation idea.

"When added to the realization that survival is a gaping sieve, it makes evolution trivial...of course it's just that they evolved trunks because they evolved trunks. If the mutation is random and not necessary for survival, what else could it be that is consistent with the modern synthesis?"

Well, if the evidence I mentioned as an example turned up-elephants display mutations at random, all elephants with a certain random mutation have trunks, those without it don't have trunks-then it would prove that the random mutation story was true. So, we'd have something like the following--non-tautologous--statement:

"The conversion of the AAAG sequence in chromosome 12 to ACTT causes the trunk to exist."

Nothing tautologous, just-so, ad hoc, or unfalsifiable about it. Now of course, you can say, "That just pushes the question back one step because you didn't say why that mutation happened." But that is, of course, a game you can always play, with any explanation of any event. That is, it's always true that, given the explanation "X caused Y," someone can then say, "Okay, but you didn't explain why X occurred." We can play this game here on this thread, if you like: Postulate an explanation for any event, ever, and watch me then say, "Yes, but you didn't explain why that first thing happened..."

David, I believe that the quest for knowledge should always lead one to ask the next deeper-level question. But that does not obligate one to say "The previous answers to the previous questions were all non-sensical." Ultimately, if you push biologists (or IDers or advocates of any other theory, for that matter) hard enough, they'll be compelled to explain the elephant's trunk in terms of the initial condition of the universe one femtosecond after the Big Bang. And someone will be there to say, "Yeah, but you didn't explain WHY the universe one femtosecond after the Big Bang was in that state..."

David

By the way, can I now get everyone to admit that hypotheses of evolutionary theory are not constructed so as to be unfalsifiable?

Of course not. If the elephant had a button nose, we'd have a Just So story telling us how evolution had given it the perfect nose for its height.

Well, I just said Eugene's comment falsifies the "tallness" hypothesis. If the Buttion Nose hypothesis were constructed so as to be falsifiable or confirmable, then it would be entirely appropriate.

David:

Or that the button nose evolved to let them reach up into the trees for food without being weighed down by that burdensome trunk. :-)

Tom:

I don't take issue with randon mutation. For the ten gazillionth time, no one here does. My point is that to say mutations happen randomly is not a coherent theory and certainly not a defence of the idea that all history can be explained by natural causes.

Peter - Well, I don't know whether all history can be explained by natural causes. I'm inclined to think so.

On the other matter --"to say mutations happen randomly is not a coherent theory"-- I'm simply going to go head to head with you. It IS a coherent theory, or rather, part of a coherent theory that also has other elements, e.g., selective pressures, etc.

Tom, why don't you read some evolutionist books, in which they compare competing theories (subtheories, I suppose you might want to call them) and reject some.

I suggested Wallace Arthur's 'Theories of Life,' which is a whole book about how various subtheories within darwinism have been 'deselected' because they were falsified.

Tom:

I've tried this before, but let me have another go.

For years my wife, who I love dearly, was a complete mystery to me. I just couldn't make head nor tail of her and, in the very early years of our marriage, was often beset by confusion and an uncanny ability to do and say the wrong thing. I adored and was fascinated her by her, but I just couldn't understand what made her tick. So I decided to take a rigorous, scientific approach in order to better comprehend the nature of She Who is Perfect in Every Way. After much observation and experimentation, I cracked it and a now have a coherent, rational theory that explains her perfectly. Want to hear it? You do? Well, ok.

It is this. Everything (and I do mean everything) my wife says and does can be understood through one of three categories: a) selfless things; b) selfish things; and c) random things for which there is no explanation.

Isn't that complete, self-contained and profound, Tom? Doesn't that give you a good handle on understanding the mystery that is She? What other questions could anyone possibly have?

David:

I mean, it might just be that females prefer big noses (accounting for Jewish perserverance), but that just pushes everything back one step.

You do know, don't you, that according to former Chess world champion Bobby Fisher Jews hate elephants because...

... their trunk reminds them of an uncircumcised penis?

(Now where do I click to insert one of them eye-roll thingies)

Personally, I am adopting Colombo.

He is cute, he mugs for the camera, what's not to like?

Harry - Thank you for the tip.

Peter - How is that like saying, e.g., "The conversion of the AAAG sequence in chromosome 12 to ACTT causes the trunk to exist"? This is a statement with semantic content; if we see an elephant with that mutation but without a trunk it would be falsified. Whereas what you said about your wife is simply an identity.

Of course, you could always say, "But you didn't explain where the mutation comes from," but that's a game anyone could play with any explanation of anything.

On another note, are you getting as bored with this as I am?