NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/origins/16877

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 2.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!tdat!tools3!swf
From: [e-mail] (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Johnson uses Argument from Personal Incredulity
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jan 93 19:22:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
Lines: 46

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
|>     In this particular case, the assumption being made is that
|>     only animals that are preyed upon need camouflage.  What is
|>     overlooked is that predators also benefit from being
|>     concealed from the prey.  Polar bears stalk seals resting
|>     on the ice.  If the seal sees the bear coming from far
|>     enough away, it can escape.

Not only that, but this particular item has been confirmed by observation
of stalking polar bears.

That is, the fact that a seal can escape if it sees the bear in time is
confirmed by observed instances of this happening.

And by comparing stalking by young, inexperienced bears, and older, more
experienced ones, it can be shown that camoflouge is an important component
of hunting success in polar bears. (The younger bears make no effort to
make optimal use of the camoflouge opportunities available to them).

|>        The polar bear argument turned out to be almost too easy
|>     to demolish but, in an important sense, this is not the
|>     point.  Even if the foremost authority in the world can't
|>     explain some remarkable biological phenomenon, this doesn't
|>     mean that it is inexplicable. ...  But we
|>     aren't testing human ingenuity.  Even if we found one
|>     example that we *couldn't* explain, we should hesitate to
|>     draw any grandiose conclusions from the fact of our own
|>     inability.  Darwin himself was very clear on this point.

I agree.  Unfortunately biologists themselves often fall into this trap.
The main argument against a monophyletic origin of all arthropods (from
a arthropods ancestor) is based largely on an inability to imagine how
crustacean and insect style leg joints could evolve from the same (already
jointed) ancestor.

For this reason I *never* accepted these arguments.  Fairly recently a new
analysis of leg form in early arthropods has shown that there *is* a series of
viable intermediates, and there are even fossils of them.

So, given how easily even a trained scientist is taken in by this sort of
fallacy, it is easy to understand how it could confuse many people.

--
[e-mail]            (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
[e-mail]