Creationist dishonesty: the case of RS Scadding

[tas8831]

One of Darwin's arguments in favor of his theory was that of Vestigial Organs.
He wrote of such structures (he referred to them as 'rudimentary' in the 1st Edition):

"Rudimentary parts...are apt to be highly variable. We shall have to recur to the general subject of rudimentary and aborted organs... Thus rudimentary parts are left to the free play of the various laws of growth, to the effects of long-continued disuse, and to the tendency to reversion.
...A part developed in any species in an extraordinary degree or manner, in comparison with the same part in allied species, tends to be highly variable" p. 150-151​

And here, Darwin nearly predicts the subject of this thread's position (p. 416):

"Again, no one will say that rudimentary or atrophied organs are of high physiological or vital importance; yet, undoubtedly, organs in this condition are often of high value in classification. No one will dispute that the rudimentary teeth in the upper jaws of young ruminants, and certain rudimentary bones of the leg, are highly serviceable in exhibiting the close affinity between Ruminants and Pachyderms. "​

and later (p. 450-451):

"The meaning of rudimentary organs is often quite unmistakeable: for instance there are beetles of the same genus (and even of the same species) resembling each other most closely in all respects, one of which will have full-sized wings, and another mere rudiments of membrane; and here it is impossible to doubt, that the rudiments represent wings. Rudimentary organs sometimes retain their potentiality, and are merely not developed: this seems to be the case with the mammæ of male mammals...
An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose; and remain perfectly efficient for the other. "​

But this is about Scadding, a relatively obscure zoologist, who penned an article in 1981 that creationists have been putting on a pedestal ever since.

Or, more accurately, they have been putting a quote, single sentence he wrote in that paper on a pedestal.
An example is here, from that great fibber for Jesus Dr. David Menton at 'Answers in Genesis':

The evolutionist S.R. Scadding, for example, has critically examined vestigial organs as evidence for evolution. He concluded: “Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.”​

Funny that Menton - nor the hundreds or thousands of other creationists that glowingly paste that quote - thought anything odd about the phrase "special evidence."

As can be seen in Scadding's paper, he actually sees vestigials as good evidence for evolution, but only as homologous structures:

Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs, i.e. structures similar i.n fundamental structure, position, and embryonic development,, but not necessarily in function. That al1 vertebrates, for example, are built along a common basic structural plan is obvious to any student of anatomy. While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument, given above asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution. Our knowledge of anatomy, necessary to identify homologies, is based on straightforward observation of adult or embryonic structure. However, when one begins to investigate the function of these structures necessary to identify vestigiality, the situation is not so clear. In many cases the functions of minor structures are not well understood. Identification of function is often based on experimental procedures, the results of which require some interpretation....​

later:

He described these as structures which are of no use to man but were of great, use to his ancestors and hence interprets these observations as supporting common descent. "In order to understand the existence of rudimentary organs, we have only to suppose that a former progenitor possessed the parts in question in a perfect state, and that under changed habits of life they became greatly reduced, either from simple disuse, or through the natural selection of those individuals which were least encumbered with a superfluous part ' aided by the other means previously indicated" (Darwin 1874, p. 24). Darwin never makes entirely clear why this particular class of homologous structures should provide such important support to his theory of descent with modification.​

Scadding's major problem, according to one critic, was his idiosyncratic definition of vestigial as being completely useless, and he sadly seemed to employ a common creationist "argument" indicating that a structure that can be claimed to do ANYTHING is thus not vestigial.

Scadding:

I would suggest that the entire argument that vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution is invalid on two grounds, one practical, the other more theoretical. The practical problem is that of unambiguously identifying vestigial organs, i.e. those that have no function. The analysis of Wiedersheim's list of vestigial organs points out the difficulties. As our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial structures has decreased.... Anatomically, the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function since the submucosa is rnuch thickened and almost entirely occupied by lymphatic nodules and lyrnphocytes (Cray and Goss 1973, p. L242)....The coccyx serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus (Gray and Goss 1973, p. 118).... I would conclude that in practice it is difficult if not impossible to unambiguously identify organs totally lacking in function.​

These are standard creationist claims.

Naylor, in response:

ABSTRACT: Consideration of examples of vestigial organs and of the nature of scientific
statements (hypotheses) confirms the continued use of vestigial organs as evidence for the
theory of evolution. It is unreasonable to inf er any function for many vestigial
organs. whereas others possess altered or reduced functions. The claim that vestigial
organs cannot be used to support evolution is shown to be false.​

and more detail:

That the paper by Scadding is seriously flawed is evident even on cursory reading. I shall,
however. rebut the arguments case by case in order to document the strength of the argument
from vestigial organs.
Scadding (p. 173) begins with the assumption that vestigial organs are necessarily non-functional and that they are, in any case, "simply a special case of homologous organs." As a vestigial organ is obviously the homolog of some non-vestigial organ in another. related organism, the second assumption contributes nothing one way or the other to the argument. The first assumption is potentially damaging, but is fallacious on two accounts: first, it is incorrect to state that to be vestigial an organ must be non-functional; and, secondly, there exist organs for which all available evidence suggests that they are truly non-functional....


In addition, there are organs for which all available evidence suggests that the only reasonable
hypothesis is that they lack functions. To argue that someone, somewhere. at some time
may suggest an imaginative function for such organs is to very seriously misunderstand the
structure of science (see also below). Science is concerned with possibilities and
probabilities for which evidence from the material world allows continued testing. Science
does not deal in absolute proof, but with statements that seem reasonable given the
available data (e.g., Popper, 1959)....

Even a cursory glance at the morphological and evolutionary literature shows a plethora of
vestigial and rudimentary structures overlooked by Scadding. Some of these are undoubtedly
functioning in reduced and/or altered manner; for others it is not reasonable to hypothesize any
sort of function. A summary of examples follows:

A Mammals:
1. Teeth in embryos of whale-bone whales (de Beer, 1958).
2. Milk teeth, with replacement buds, in young platypus (Anderson and Jonas, 1967).
3. Upper incisors, which never cut through the gums, in embryonic calves (Darwin in
Stauffer, 1975).
4. Egg tooth and caruncle in some marsupial embryos (Hill and de Beer, 1950).
5. Variable expression of canines in modern horses -- usually present in males and
usually lacking in females (Simpson, .1951).
6. Vestigial incisors in rats, mice, and rabbits (Mose-Salentjin, 1978).
7. Vestigial pelvic bones in whales (Grant, 1963).
8. Rudiment of Jacobson's organ in human embryos (de Beer, 1958).
9. Body hair in embryonic whales and humans (de Beer, 1958).​

and so on.

Scadding did eventually respond (1982). He admitted what he had hinted at originally - that what most consider vestigial are actually just examples of homology, and that homology is good evidence for evolution:

Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality.​

He stuck to his guns re: vestigiality, but it seems that only creationists care, and only creationists cite his paper as anything other than a short-lived curiosity.

The dishonesty comes from the creationist insistence that Scadding's position (SOLELY the part about vestigial organs not being evidence for evolution) is unassailable, correct, and proves that vestigial organs can be ignored - all the while ignoring in toto his argument that they are just homologous structures which in and of itself is good evidence for evolution.

ALWAYS be wary of creationists bearing quotes.

 

[Bear Wild]

One of Darwin's arguments in favor of his theory was that of Vestigial Organs.
He wrote of such structures (he referred to them as 'rudimentary' in the 1st Edition):

"Rudimentary parts...are apt to be highly variable. We shall have to recur to the general subject of rudimentary and aborted organs... Thus rudimentary parts are left to the free play of the various laws of growth, to the effects of long-continued disuse, and to the tendency to reversion.
...A part developed in any species in an extraordinary degree or manner, in comparison with the same part in allied species, tends to be highly variable" p. 150-151​

And here, Darwin nearly predicts the subject of this thread's position (p. 416):

"Again, no one will say that rudimentary or atrophied organs are of high physiological or vital importance; yet, undoubtedly, organs in this condition are often of high value in classification. No one will dispute that the rudimentary teeth in the upper jaws of young ruminants, and certain rudimentary bones of the leg, are highly serviceable in exhibiting the close affinity between Ruminants and Pachyderms. "​

and later (p. 450-451):

"The meaning of rudimentary organs is often quite unmistakeable: for instance there are beetles of the same genus (and even of the same species) resembling each other most closely in all respects, one of which will have full-sized wings, and another mere rudiments of membrane; and here it is impossible to doubt, that the rudiments represent wings. Rudimentary organs sometimes retain their potentiality, and are merely not developed: this seems to be the case with the mammæ of male mammals...
An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose; and remain perfectly efficient for the other. "​

But this is about Scadding, a relatively obscure zoologist, who penned an article in 1981 that creationists have been putting on a pedestal ever since.

Or, more accurately, they have been putting a quote, single sentence he wrote in that paper on a pedestal.
An example is here, from that great fibber for Jesus Dr. David Menton at 'Answers in Genesis':

The evolutionist S.R. Scadding, for example, has critically examined vestigial organs as evidence for evolution. He concluded: “Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.”​

Funny that Menton - nor the hundreds or thousands of other creationists that glowingly paste that quote - thought anything odd about the phrase "special evidence."

As can be seen in Scadding's paper, he actually sees vestigials as good evidence for evolution, but only as homologous structures:

Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs, i.e. structures similar i.n fundamental structure, position, and embryonic development,, but not necessarily in function. That al1 vertebrates, for example, are built along a common basic structural plan is obvious to any student of anatomy. While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument, given above asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution. Our knowledge of anatomy, necessary to identify homologies, is based on straightforward observation of adult or embryonic structure. However, when one begins to investigate the function of these structures necessary to identify vestigiality, the situation is not so clear. In many cases the functions of minor structures are not well understood. Identification of function is often based on experimental procedures, the results of which require some interpretation....​

later:

He described these as structures which are of no use to man but were of great, use to his ancestors and hence interprets these observations as supporting common descent. "In order to understand the existence of rudimentary organs, we have only to suppose that a former progenitor possessed the parts in question in a perfect state, and that under changed habits of life they became greatly reduced, either from simple disuse, or through the natural selection of those individuals which were least encumbered with a superfluous part ' aided by the other means previously indicated" (Darwin 1874, p. 24). Darwin never makes entirely clear why this particular class of homologous structures should provide such important support to his theory of descent with modification.​

Scadding's major problem, according to one critic, was his idiosyncratic definition of vestigial as being completely useless, and he sadly seemed to employ a common creationist "argument" indicating that a structure that can be claimed to do ANYTHING is thus not vestigial.

Scadding:

I would suggest that the entire argument that vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution is invalid on two grounds, one practical, the other more theoretical. The practical problem is that of unambiguously identifying vestigial organs, i.e. those that have no function. The analysis of Wiedersheim's list of vestigial organs points out the difficulties. As our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial structures has decreased.... Anatomically, the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function since the submucosa is rnuch thickened and almost entirely occupied by lymphatic nodules and lyrnphocytes (Cray and Goss 1973, p. L242)....The coccyx serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus (Gray and Goss 1973, p. 118).... I would conclude that in practice it is difficult if not impossible to unambiguously identify organs totally lacking in function.​

These are standard creationist claims.

Naylor, in response:

ABSTRACT: Consideration of examples of vestigial organs and of the nature of scientific
statements (hypotheses) confirms the continued use of vestigial organs as evidence for the
theory of evolution. It is unreasonable to inf er any function for many vestigial
organs. whereas others possess altered or reduced functions. The claim that vestigial
organs cannot be used to support evolution is shown to be false.​

and more detail:

That the paper by Scadding is seriously flawed is evident even on cursory reading. I shall,
however. rebut the arguments case by case in order to document the strength of the argument
from vestigial organs.
Scadding (p. 173) begins with the assumption that vestigial organs are necessarily non-functional and that they are, in any case, "simply a special case of homologous organs." As a vestigial organ is obviously the homolog of some non-vestigial organ in another. related organism, the second assumption contributes nothing one way or the other to the argument. The first assumption is potentially damaging, but is fallacious on two accounts: first, it is incorrect to state that to be vestigial an organ must be non-functional; and, secondly, there exist organs for which all available evidence suggests that they are truly non-functional....


In addition, there are organs for which all available evidence suggests that the only reasonable
hypothesis is that they lack functions. To argue that someone, somewhere. at some time
may suggest an imaginative function for such organs is to very seriously misunderstand the
structure of science (see also below). Science is concerned with possibilities and
probabilities for which evidence from the material world allows continued testing. Science
does not deal in absolute proof, but with statements that seem reasonable given the
available data (e.g., Popper, 1959)....

Even a cursory glance at the morphological and evolutionary literature shows a plethora of
vestigial and rudimentary structures overlooked by Scadding. Some of these are undoubtedly
functioning in reduced and/or altered manner; for others it is not reasonable to hypothesize any
sort of function. A summary of examples follows:

A Mammals:
1. Teeth in embryos of whale-bone whales (de Beer, 1958).
2. Milk teeth, with replacement buds, in young platypus (Anderson and Jonas, 1967).
3. Upper incisors, which never cut through the gums, in embryonic calves (Darwin in
Stauffer, 1975).
4. Egg tooth and caruncle in some marsupial embryos (Hill and de Beer, 1950).
5. Variable expression of canines in modern horses -- usually present in males and
usually lacking in females (Simpson, .1951).
6. Vestigial incisors in rats, mice, and rabbits (Mose-Salentjin, 1978).
7. Vestigial pelvic bones in whales (Grant, 1963).
8. Rudiment of Jacobson's organ in human embryos (de Beer, 1958).
9. Body hair in embryonic whales and humans (de Beer, 1958).​

and so on.

Scadding did eventually respond (1982). He admitted what he had hinted at originally - that what most consider vestigial are actually just examples of homology, and that homology is good evidence for evolution:

Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality.​

He stuck to his guns re: vestigiality, but it seems that only creationists care, and only creationists cite his paper as anything other than a short-lived curiosity.

The dishonesty comes from the creationist insistence that Scadding's position (SOLELY the part about vestigial organs not being evidence for evolution) is unassailable, correct, and proves that vestigial organs can be ignored - all the while ignoring in toto his argument that they are just homologous structures which in and of itself is good evidence for evolution.

ALWAYS be wary of creationists bearing quotes.

Scadding's lack of insight on vestigial structures only goes to show the genius of Darwin. Considering what was not known at the time, he created such an amazing presentation of the theory even presenting the issues of what is not known. No wonder creationists and ID proponents use his name so much over anyone else despite the impressive new evidence coming out all of the time.

 

[tas8831]

Scadding's lack of insight on vestigial structures only goes to show the genius of Darwin. Considering what was not known at the time, he created such an amazing presentation of the theory even presenting the issues of what is not known. No wonder creationists and ID proponents use his name so much over anyone else despite the impressive new evidence coming out all of the time.

Upon re-reading the OP, I was struck by Darwin's implicit subsidiary argument about vestiges - 'why else would these organs - rudimentary in some but functional in others, even BE THERE if not via shared ancestry'.
In a sense, Scadding is correct that vestigial organs are homologous organs, having been inherited from a common ancestor but no longer needed in their original form. But this is a triviality - homologous structures very often perform different functions in different organisms, or may even have quite different forms (e.g., arms of primates, wings of birds), this is obvious - this does not make for a very informative argument, it is mere hairsplitting. That these homologous structures persist in reduced or non-functional forms, IMO, make the notion of common 'designer' very hard to accept intellectually.

 

[tas8831]

Scadding's lack of insight on vestigial structures only goes to show the genius of Darwin. Considering what was not known at the time, he created such an amazing presentation of the theory even presenting the issues of what is not known. No wonder creationists and ID proponents use his name so much over anyone else despite the impressive new evidence coming out all of the time.

And despite the fact that creationists misrepresent the 'debate' in the fist place.. I am sure, despite having the context and background laid out will not deter a one of them from repeating their disinformation as they see fit.

And I am certainly not claiming that I have done this - I came across an 'original' debunking of the Scadding quote on TO from the 1990s.l I just quoted Darwin and Scadding directly.

 

[Chris Lovel]

The creationist are clearly in the realm of Agnotology. The study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit.Dr. Robert Proctor of Stanford U. says it best: "the deliberate creation of ignorance propagated under the guise of balance debate when in fact there is no debate. We live in a world of radical ignorance.

 

[tas8831]

The creationist are clearly in the realm of Agnotology. The study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit.Dr. Robert Proctor of Stanford U. says it best: "the deliberate creation of ignorance propagated under the guise of balance debate when in fact there is no debate. We live in a world of radical ignorance.

Shameful, isn't it....

 

[Revoltingest]

There's a human tendency to see only the things one wants to see.
This happens in religion, politics, economics, & everything else.
I wouldn't leap to accusations of creationist dishonesty too quickly.
Ordinary human bias is also a good explanation for error.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's a human tendency to see only the things one wants to see.
This happens in religion, politics, economics, & everything else.
I wouldn't leap to accusations of creationist dishonesty too quickly.
Ordinary human bias is also a good explanation for error.

That's been a point of debate in science-advocacy circles for decades....do the creationists understand what they're doing and just don't care, or are they really that clueless. A good example is the practice of quote mining. When a creationist takes part of one sentence from a paper and puts it with part of another sentence to make it look like the author is saying the opposite of what they said, is that deliberate dishonesty or extreme obliviousness?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's been a point of debate in science-advocacy circles for decades....do the creationists understand what they're doing and just don't care, or are they really that clueless. A good example is the practice of quote mining. When a creationist takes part of one sentence from a paper and puts it with part of another sentence to make it look like the author is saying the opposite of what they said, is that deliberate dishonesty or extreme obliviousness?

Just don't underestimate the power of bias.
I see many posters here, even TOE fans, accuse others of
dishonesty, when they commit the very same sins. Yet they
appear to believe themselves to be honest..

 

[Polymath257]

That's been a point of debate in science-advocacy circles for decades....do the creationists understand what they're doing and just don't care, or are they really that clueless. A good example is the practice of quote mining. When a creationist takes part of one sentence from a paper and puts it with part of another sentence to make it look like the author is saying the opposite of what they said, is that deliberate dishonesty or extreme obliviousness?

Well, I'd say that most of the people who re-quote the quote mine are doing it out of ignorance, not maliciousness. The real question is whether the original quote miners understand what they are doing. In that, I'd say some really are that out of it and others do understand what they are doing.

Let's face it, anyone that can use the way the hand fits around a banana as an argument for creationism seriously isn't all there. Could someone like that quote-mine and not get that they did something wrong? Yes, I think they could.

Others, well, I think others are just out for the money.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The creationist are clearly in the realm of Agnotology. The study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit.Dr. Robert Proctor of Stanford U. says it best: "the deliberate creation of ignorance propagated under the guise of balance debate when in fact there is no debate. We live in a world of radical ignorance.

Fortunately there are sciences that can counter that misinformation. Particularly in genetics.

I would love to see in a technologically advanced future, a single creationist vemenitly denying his ancestry who thinks he's faithful enough in his beliefs to allow geneticists to go ahead and have a few dormant genes woken up in him.

 

[tas8831]

There's a human tendency to see only the things one wants to see.
This happens in religion, politics, economics, & everything else.
I wouldn't leap to accusations of creationist dishonesty too quickly.
Ordinary human bias is also a good explanation for error.

Generally, I would agree. But in the case of this example (and, of course, many many others), that 'excuse' seems to fall to the sidelines when the errors of omission/context are exposed and explained and documented.
This Scadding thing, for example, was refuted decades ago, yet I started this thread because a certain someone used the Scadding quote to 'dismiss' even the notion of vestigiality just a few weeks ago.

Bias can explain the original sin, but I'm not sure I accept that when the error was publicly refuted so long ago.

 

[tas8831]

When a creationist takes part of one sentence from a paper and puts it with part of another sentence to make it look like the author is saying the opposite of what they said, is that deliberate dishonesty or extreme obliviousness?

On that, I do not recall the specifics, but I think it was Nick Matzke who had documented what has to be the most egregious creationist quote mine ever - and the guy was (as I recall) a priest of some sort, not a standard creationist hack - he had taken a part of a sentence, linked it to a part of another sentence, and ellipsed-out something like 25 pages of text. I'll see if I can find it...

 

[Polymath257]

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Generally, I would agree. But in the case of this example (and, of course, many many others), that 'excuse' seems to fall to the sidelines when the errors of omission/context are exposed and explained and documented.
This Scadding thing, for example, was refuted decades ago, yet I started this thread because a certain someone used the Scadding quote to 'dismiss' even the notion of vestigiality just a few weeks ago.

Bias can explain the original sin, but I'm not sure I accept that when the error was publicly refuted so long ago.

It can be extremely difficult for people to face their being wrong.
Tortured reasoning can afflict people with faith, eg, GW, anti-GW,
religion, economics, politics, feminism, baseball.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just don't underestimate the power of bias.
I see many posters here, even TOE fans, accuse others of
dishonesty, when they commit the very same sins. Yet they
appear to believe themselves to be honest..

Let's not engage in false equivalency here. I'm sure there are some on the science side who behave unethically, but it's certainly not as pervasive as among creationists. For all the deliberate frauds in evolutionary biology that creationists love to cite, in reality a single creationist webpage contains more deliberate falsehoods than the entire history of evolutionary biology.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, I'd say that most of the people who re-quote the quote mine are doing it out of ignorance, not maliciousness.

I agree.

The real question is whether the original quote miners understand what they are doing. In that, I'd say some really are that out of it and others do understand what they are doing.

Probably, but I guess we'll never really know.

Let's face it, anyone that can use the way the hand fits around a banana as an argument for creationism seriously isn't all there. Could someone like that quote-mine and not get that they did something wrong? Yes, I think they could.

Others, well, I think others are just out for the money.

I believe you're likely correct.

 

[Jose Fly]

On that, I do not recall the specifics, but I think it was Nick Matzke who had documented what has to be the most egregious creationist quote mine ever - and the guy was (as I recall) a priest of some sort, not a standard creationist hack - he had taken a part of a sentence, linked it to a part of another sentence, and ellipsed-out something like 25 pages of text. I'll see if I can find it...

I remember that. I think we discussed it at Pandas Thumb?

 

[tas8831]

I remember that. I think we discussed it at Pandas Thumb?

That could be - I gave up looking for it, however - Google things like 'very long creationist quote mine' returned thousands of returns...

 

[tas8831]

Let's not engage in false equivalency here. I'm sure there are some on the science side who behave unethically, but it's certainly not as pervasive as among creationists. For all the deliberate frauds in evolutionary biology that creationists love to cite, in reality a single creationist webpage contains more deliberate falsehoods than the entire history of evolutionary biology.

Other than Piltdown, I cannot think of any other deliberate frauds/hoaxes - and Piltdown seemed more of a hoax ON evolutionists, than by them. Mistakes? Sure. Unwarranted extrapolations? Yup. But outright fraud?
But agreed - any creationist site contains dozens to hundreds acts of at least misleading claims, at worst outright fraud/misrepresentation.