Yeah, there are certainly specifics that would have been hard to figure out, but I think the most important parts could have been figured out. For example, they would probably be able to tell that humans and other mammals are related, and probably most other vertebrates. From there, I guess it's not too big of a leap to think that all life (at least animal life) could have evolved from a common ancestor--though I think a caveman could reasonably have rejected that step.
In any case, I'm not too worried that a caveman could not have figured out the details of how eyes of flagella developed--as I understand it, we don't really know how a reproducing population gets started to begin with yet, but I don't think that's a problem for our justification in other parts of the theory. I have not been very clear with how detailed a theory of evolution cavemen should be able to figure out, but I'm pretty satisfied with the fact that you could be reasonably justified in believing that much/most life is related and developed through evolution--something of a common evolution W.
Ah sad, I wrote my comment before seeing Amos Wollen had already got in there with the micro evolution.
Silas, I don't see how it would be 'reasonable to just extrapolate' that some level of evolution instantly implies new species emerging... and this is shown to be nontrivial by the fact that wo many great minds missed it until Darwin..
I certainly don't think it's trivial (though something can be obvious once you think of it, even if missed for a long time), and I don't think that you should be especially sure that all species are a result of evolution from everyday experience. I may have been a little too rash in my initial assertions, and I think it's mostly so-called microevolution that is really very plausible from everyday experience.
Despite that, I still think that you could be reasonably justified in believing in macroevolution from everyday experience (depending on how you characterize everyday experience). Of course, as mentioned most vertebrates are very similar on closer inspection, and could easily be imagined as a result of small changes in proportions etc. Such changes are easily observable, so unless you have special reason to think that there's a limit to how much a species can change in this respect, it seems like you should conclude that at least these are related through evolution.
The real trouble is with more radically different species, where there are novel organs and body plans. The step to concluding that these are also the result of the same evolutionary process is not at all very certain from everyday experience, I think, so I don't want to give that impression. However, I still think some things can be said in favor of it. For one, as noted, most cases of things like irreducible complexity are discovered through scientific inquiry, so they are not even to be explained here. Furthermore, as I also noted, we don't have much evidence from everyday experience for how large variations can occur through generations, and without such knowledge, it's at least not unreasonable to think that there could occasionally be large variations. In fact things like birth defects seem to give pretty good evidence in favor of this from a caveman perspective. Finally, if you thought that the universe was incredibly old, or infinitely old, you should think that (basically) any creature reachable from evolution would at some point have been so, and those traits (like eyes, say) that promote fitness would stick around, at least for a pretty long while. If so, it would be *very* reasonable to think that all animals are a result of evolution.
also big questions on evolutionary jumps and on the very origin of cells. don’t think insolvable questions but do think mean that simply reasoning about the matter alone is insufficient to have strong evidence that this occurred
Yes definitely! I take it that we are not sure how this happened even now, so it would be pretty foolish to think that you could figure it out through everyday experience.
True! It may be a problem that "everyday experience" is sorta vague to begin with, so it's not really clear what evidence ug-ug is allowed to consider in the first place. Most examples of irreducible complexity are discovered through scientific experience/theorizing, I take it. But if that's so, then there isn't much evidence to be explained away to begin with. In fact, ug-ug would not even know what is the process by which evolution occurs, so it's not really clear whether it's surprising that stuff like eyes evolved in the first place, or whether the mechanism for evolution naturally takes big jumps like that. But what he *would* see was the ingredients for evolution happening in front of him, as well as seemingly completely different creatures basically being squashed and stretched versions of himself. Having only that, it seems like it would be reasonable to just extrapolate that these apparent humps were somehow overcome through evolution.
There might still be some examples that he *would* be allowed to include. For example, it seems strange that wings would evolve. But when he sees a dodo (RIP in peace) with it's tiny baby-wings, it may make sense to think that wings might occur even if they don't serve the function of aviation--especially when he considers how sexily that dodo flutters its wings (idk if they did that).
But I suppose I can just make ug-ug justified in believing anything if i cherrypick which evidence he is allowed, and what theories he comes up with.
I’m religious, and most religious people I know have no issue believing in evolution meaning variation/selection pressure/heritability. But them, including me, would take issue with thinking the existence of evolution proves that there isn’t a God who had a hand in creation. Often when people say they don’t believe in evolution, that’s what they really mean.
I don't know... historical alternatives to evolution like Lamarckism are difficult to rule out, and you need a lot of background knowledge about geology to know the earth has been around long enough for evolution to happen.
I guess I might count Lamarckism as something like an account of variation rather than an alternative to evolution more generally. I don't think people in the good ol days would have gotten a completely precise formulation of evolution, but I think they could reasonably have gotten something close enough.
With regards to the age of the earth, I don't think they would have needed geological evidence to believe that the earth was old. Something like Aristotelianism and Neo-platonism held that the universe is eternal, and many eastern traditions thought that the earth/universe was very old, so it would certainly not have been an obstacle for everyone. And even those who believed in a younger earth might just have thought that evolution was way faster than we know it to be now (this seems quite plausible if combined with Lamarckism, I think).
Yep, if cultural evolution is evolution, then I think Lamarckism counts, though Darwinian evolution is a bit trickier to pin down. Although on reflection, the point of your post is more general, so sorry for the poor reading comprehension! Lamarckism offers a different mechanism for how traits are inherited, but it doesn’t mean faster evolution. Nothing in its framework dictates the frequency or magnitude of inherited variation. There’s no reason to think it would require shorter timescales, than evolution by random mutation.
As for the age of the earth, you're right that some ancient thinkers thought it was eternal, but plenty of people also denied this. That only puts evolution on the level of reasonably plausible if you hold the right set of philosophical views, which weren't completely obvious. I suppose someone in the ancient world could have thought evolution happened really quickly, but they’d still need some empirical evidence to back up a timescale of tens of thousands of years. If the earth has been around for much longer, though, they could argue more broadly without having to demonstrate that inheritance can happen fast enough for their timescale to make sense.
Yeah, I guess that Lamarckism doesn't entail faster evolution, but I sure think it makes it more plausible--if variation is a result of useful capacities being exercised, which then can be inherited, then it seems that would result in faster evolution than the "trial and error" or darwinism, all else being equal. But that's a minor point anyways:)
And I suppose I agree that it would only really be certain groups that should find it plausible, but I guess I'm not *too* disheartened at that--if the only "theoretical" assumption necessary is a pretty old earth, then that's not so bad, I think.
I think the basic point here is that yes, heritability is quite obvious and therefore traits can proliferate or decline when under selective pressure - which I think _was_ appreciated for thousands of years before Darwin, hence proto eugenics of ancient times. Whether that implies that this selective pressure and heritability can lead to one species turning into an entirely different one is not 'painfully obvious' a priori however, and we rely on a lot of additional evidence to infer that it happens at that scale.
I agree evolution is totes fr, but I’m not sure a caveman could’ve had his worries about—say—irreducible complexity resolved a priori
Yeah, there are certainly specifics that would have been hard to figure out, but I think the most important parts could have been figured out. For example, they would probably be able to tell that humans and other mammals are related, and probably most other vertebrates. From there, I guess it's not too big of a leap to think that all life (at least animal life) could have evolved from a common ancestor--though I think a caveman could reasonably have rejected that step.
In any case, I'm not too worried that a caveman could not have figured out the details of how eyes of flagella developed--as I understand it, we don't really know how a reproducing population gets started to begin with yet, but I don't think that's a problem for our justification in other parts of the theory. I have not been very clear with how detailed a theory of evolution cavemen should be able to figure out, but I'm pretty satisfied with the fact that you could be reasonably justified in believing that much/most life is related and developed through evolution--something of a common evolution W.
I guess Ray “ug-ug” Comfort would say “that’s micro evolution, not *macro* evolution—that’s what needs to be shown”
Ah sad, I wrote my comment before seeing Amos Wollen had already got in there with the micro evolution.
Silas, I don't see how it would be 'reasonable to just extrapolate' that some level of evolution instantly implies new species emerging... and this is shown to be nontrivial by the fact that wo many great minds missed it until Darwin..
I certainly don't think it's trivial (though something can be obvious once you think of it, even if missed for a long time), and I don't think that you should be especially sure that all species are a result of evolution from everyday experience. I may have been a little too rash in my initial assertions, and I think it's mostly so-called microevolution that is really very plausible from everyday experience.
Despite that, I still think that you could be reasonably justified in believing in macroevolution from everyday experience (depending on how you characterize everyday experience). Of course, as mentioned most vertebrates are very similar on closer inspection, and could easily be imagined as a result of small changes in proportions etc. Such changes are easily observable, so unless you have special reason to think that there's a limit to how much a species can change in this respect, it seems like you should conclude that at least these are related through evolution.
The real trouble is with more radically different species, where there are novel organs and body plans. The step to concluding that these are also the result of the same evolutionary process is not at all very certain from everyday experience, I think, so I don't want to give that impression. However, I still think some things can be said in favor of it. For one, as noted, most cases of things like irreducible complexity are discovered through scientific inquiry, so they are not even to be explained here. Furthermore, as I also noted, we don't have much evidence from everyday experience for how large variations can occur through generations, and without such knowledge, it's at least not unreasonable to think that there could occasionally be large variations. In fact things like birth defects seem to give pretty good evidence in favor of this from a caveman perspective. Finally, if you thought that the universe was incredibly old, or infinitely old, you should think that (basically) any creature reachable from evolution would at some point have been so, and those traits (like eyes, say) that promote fitness would stick around, at least for a pretty long while. If so, it would be *very* reasonable to think that all animals are a result of evolution.
nice nice
also big questions on evolutionary jumps and on the very origin of cells. don’t think insolvable questions but do think mean that simply reasoning about the matter alone is insufficient to have strong evidence that this occurred
Yes definitely! I take it that we are not sure how this happened even now, so it would be pretty foolish to think that you could figure it out through everyday experience.
True! It may be a problem that "everyday experience" is sorta vague to begin with, so it's not really clear what evidence ug-ug is allowed to consider in the first place. Most examples of irreducible complexity are discovered through scientific experience/theorizing, I take it. But if that's so, then there isn't much evidence to be explained away to begin with. In fact, ug-ug would not even know what is the process by which evolution occurs, so it's not really clear whether it's surprising that stuff like eyes evolved in the first place, or whether the mechanism for evolution naturally takes big jumps like that. But what he *would* see was the ingredients for evolution happening in front of him, as well as seemingly completely different creatures basically being squashed and stretched versions of himself. Having only that, it seems like it would be reasonable to just extrapolate that these apparent humps were somehow overcome through evolution.
There might still be some examples that he *would* be allowed to include. For example, it seems strange that wings would evolve. But when he sees a dodo (RIP in peace) with it's tiny baby-wings, it may make sense to think that wings might occur even if they don't serve the function of aviation--especially when he considers how sexily that dodo flutters its wings (idk if they did that).
But I suppose I can just make ug-ug justified in believing anything if i cherrypick which evidence he is allowed, and what theories he comes up with.
I’m religious, and most religious people I know have no issue believing in evolution meaning variation/selection pressure/heritability. But them, including me, would take issue with thinking the existence of evolution proves that there isn’t a God who had a hand in creation. Often when people say they don’t believe in evolution, that’s what they really mean.
I agree, I'm a Christian myself, so I don't really think there is any conflict there.
I don't know... historical alternatives to evolution like Lamarckism are difficult to rule out, and you need a lot of background knowledge about geology to know the earth has been around long enough for evolution to happen.
I guess I might count Lamarckism as something like an account of variation rather than an alternative to evolution more generally. I don't think people in the good ol days would have gotten a completely precise formulation of evolution, but I think they could reasonably have gotten something close enough.
With regards to the age of the earth, I don't think they would have needed geological evidence to believe that the earth was old. Something like Aristotelianism and Neo-platonism held that the universe is eternal, and many eastern traditions thought that the earth/universe was very old, so it would certainly not have been an obstacle for everyone. And even those who believed in a younger earth might just have thought that evolution was way faster than we know it to be now (this seems quite plausible if combined with Lamarckism, I think).
Yep, if cultural evolution is evolution, then I think Lamarckism counts, though Darwinian evolution is a bit trickier to pin down. Although on reflection, the point of your post is more general, so sorry for the poor reading comprehension! Lamarckism offers a different mechanism for how traits are inherited, but it doesn’t mean faster evolution. Nothing in its framework dictates the frequency or magnitude of inherited variation. There’s no reason to think it would require shorter timescales, than evolution by random mutation.
As for the age of the earth, you're right that some ancient thinkers thought it was eternal, but plenty of people also denied this. That only puts evolution on the level of reasonably plausible if you hold the right set of philosophical views, which weren't completely obvious. I suppose someone in the ancient world could have thought evolution happened really quickly, but they’d still need some empirical evidence to back up a timescale of tens of thousands of years. If the earth has been around for much longer, though, they could argue more broadly without having to demonstrate that inheritance can happen fast enough for their timescale to make sense.
Yeah, I guess that Lamarckism doesn't entail faster evolution, but I sure think it makes it more plausible--if variation is a result of useful capacities being exercised, which then can be inherited, then it seems that would result in faster evolution than the "trial and error" or darwinism, all else being equal. But that's a minor point anyways:)
And I suppose I agree that it would only really be certain groups that should find it plausible, but I guess I'm not *too* disheartened at that--if the only "theoretical" assumption necessary is a pretty old earth, then that's not so bad, I think.
I think the basic point here is that yes, heritability is quite obvious and therefore traits can proliferate or decline when under selective pressure - which I think _was_ appreciated for thousands of years before Darwin, hence proto eugenics of ancient times. Whether that implies that this selective pressure and heritability can lead to one species turning into an entirely different one is not 'painfully obvious' a priori however, and we rely on a lot of additional evidence to infer that it happens at that scale.