Palaeontologists not using multiple working hypotheses

[SteveF]

At least that's what this creationist says, concerning this recent paper (http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/w0t76745507q5346/):

"The early evolution of feathers: fossil evidence from Cretaceous amber of France"

The creationist in question is Britains very own Dave Tyler and he says:

The authors are over-quick in declaring that these fossils are primitive. They are not utilising a methodology of multiple hypotheses. There are at least two other hypotheses worth considering. The first is that the fossils are of down from a chick. This must be considered because the fossils are "morphologically close" to down. Since the fossils are so small, the comparison needed is with down feathers from a newly hatched chick, not a mature bird. There is no indication that the work has been done to make any valid comparisons. The second alternative is that the fossils are degenerate feathers that have lost functionality and taken on a simplified structure. The present lack of suitable derived bird fossils should not prevent this hypothesis being explored. The approach adopted by the authors illustrates Kuhnian "normal science", where data are fitted into the paradigm. This is theory-led science.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/02/26/feathers_with_remarkably_primitive_featu

I'm partly bringing this to peoples attention to see what our resident palaeontologists think and also to highlight a creationist source that seems to be relatively unheard of.

Dave Tyler used to post a lot at TWeb (though he no longer does) and is a YEC. He's a proponent of the "recolonisation model", wherein the earth is around 8000 years old and the flood is the Hadean and Archean. The rest of the geological record is post flood and records the recolonisation of the earth after the flood. He is known for his extraordinarily pompous style, calling for the use of multiple working hypotheses and so on. His qualifications as a geologist? Well, he's an expert in textiles:

http://www.hollings.mmu.ac.uk/~dtyler/

Some of his geological wafflings can be seen here:

How can we recover the principle of multiple working hypotheses? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=22667)

Escaping from uniformitarianism with deep sea ash layers (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=41463)

Stone Domes in the Pine Valley Mountains, Utah. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=21319)

Why planktonic forams are absent before the Jurassic (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=84397)

[Martin B]

I was tempted to take his word for it and say: "he's right", only because I have actually seen my colleagues do such things as he accuses. Then I remembered the creationist habit of not reading the actual papers and pulling their statements directly from their own arses. The "search" function on Adobe Acrobat is a marvellously powerful tool, but apparently not part of the creationist methodological kit:

However, they have a thick and long rachis, unlike classical down feathers whose barbs generally diverge from the very short apex of the rachis.

[Dlx2]

I was tempted to take his word for it and say: "he's right", only because I have actually seen my colleagues do such things as he accuses.

Yup.

Then I remembered the creationist habit of not reading the actual papers and pulling their statements directly from their own arses.

Yup.

The "search" function on Adobe Acrobat is a marvellously powerful tool,

Yup.

but apparently not part of the creationist methodological kit:

Yup.

[SteveF]

Sigh. Thanks Martin - I only scanned the paper when it came out. I should have re-checked. Anyway, this gives you an insight into Dave's style - smug, pompous and ignorant. Still, he did once have a paper published in the noted journal Stitch World. Seriously.

Oh and here are his postings on tetrapods, just to aid your blood pressure:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature?s=tetrapod&sentence=AND&submit=Search

[Steviepinhead]

SteveF"
Still, he did once have a paper published in the noted journal Stitch World. Seriously.
I hear they have fastidious purl-review.

[SteveF]

Tee hee!

[Ray Moscow]

Re the OP: the reviewer seems to think that scientists should always consider "alternate" world views as paradigms for new data -- especially those which include YEC -- instead trying to fit the data into something compatible with the oppressive "uniformitarianism" of mainstream science.

For example, exploration of the moon should consider whether it is made of green cheese.

Exploration of the ocean should consider the last known position of Atlantis.

Chemistry should not presuppose the immutability of "elements" but should allow for transformation between them, as proposed by Aristotle and alchemy as well as the oppressive tenets of nuclear chemistry.

Medical research should not assume a "mechanistic" view of the human body but should include spiritual, aryvedic, energetic and demonic mechanisms as well.

And so forth.

[SteveF]

Re the OP: the reviewer seems to think that scientists should always consider "alternate" world views as paradigms for new data -- especially those which include YEC -- instead trying to fit the data into something compatible with the oppressive "uniformitarianism" of mainstream science.

For example, exploration of the moon should consider whether it is made of green cheese.

Exploration of the ocean should consider the last known position of Atlantis.

Chemistry should not presuppose the immutability of "elements" but should allow for transformation between them, as proposed by Aristotle and alchemy as well as the oppressive tenets of nuclear chemistry.

Medical research should not assume a "mechanistic" view of the human body but should include spiritual, aryvedic, energetic and demonic mechanisms as well.

And so forth.

Dave does take this approach - his multiple working hypotheses approach requires geologists to deal with a section with the possibility in mind that it is a few thousand years old and deposited catastrophically (albeit not by a flood, unless you are in the Hadean or Archean). He doesn't use this approach himself, because he is constrained by his Bible. In other words, he's an enormous hypocrite.

However, to be fair, in this particular instance, his alternative hypotheses aren't of the bat shit crazy variety. Indeed, the down alternative was sensible enough that the authors actually tested it.