Yes, ‘piecing together’ is absolutely a particularly scientific process, though it may be expressed more formally as “Evidence Synthesis” or “Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE).”
In fields like paleontology (studying fossils), this approach is not just a casual phrase but a fundamental part of the methodology, especially when dealing with incomplete data, like the “gaps” in the fossil record you mentioned for bats and pterosaurs.
The Scientific Nature of “Piecing Together”
The process involves combining fragments of direct evidence with strong, logical reasoning to form a coherent, testable hypothesis.
1. Systematic Evidence Gathering (The Pieces)
In science, “piecing together” starts with collecting all available primary evidence. For evolution, this evidence is drawn from diverse sources:
- Fossil Fragments: The physical bones or imprints (e.g., of Onychonycteris finneyi in bat evolution).
- Comparative Anatomy: Studying the structures of living relatives.
- Molecular Data: Using DNA/RNA from modern species to construct genetic family trees.
- Stratigraphy: The age and geological context of the fossil finds.
2. Inference and Hypothesis Formation (The Glue)
Because gaps exist (like the missing “pre-bat” or “pre-pterosaur” ancestors), scientists must use Inference-a core element of the scientific method-to connect the known data points.
- Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE): This is the formal logic used. Scientists propose several possible models for how the transition (like the evolution of flight) might have occurred. They then select the model that best explains all the existing, diverse facts with the fewest unsupported assumptions.
- Conjecture as a Testable Hypothesis: Hypothesizing a gliding ancestor for bats is a conjecture, but it’s a testable hypothesis. Scientists look for evidence to support it (like anatomical features in non-flying relatives, e.g., the structure in lagerpetids, the closest relatives of pterosaurs).
3. Synthesis and Refinement (The Complete Picture)
The final, crucial step is Synthesis, where different types of evidence are integrated and reconciled:
- The fossil evidence is placed within the phylogenetic (evolutionary) tree derived from molecular data to estimate the timing of evolutionary events.
- New finds, like a newly discovered lagerpetid fossil, are used to refine or even overturn the existing hypothesis, constantly pushing the understanding closer to the true evolutionary history.
Therefore, the term “piecing together” in the context of evolutionary biology is a simplified way of describing a rigorous, multi-faceted process that relies on collecting empirical evidence, applying systematic methods (like comparative and phylogenetic analysis), and using logical inference to construct the most probable and testable explanation.
How would ever start analysis if every piece of evidence has to be collected first?
That’s an insightful question! The scientific process, especially in fields like paleontology, doesn’t require every piece of evidence to be collected first. That would be impossible because we can never be certain we have all the evidence.
Instead, analysis is an ongoing, iterative process that starts immediately with the first piece of data.
The Scientific Cycle: Hypothesis-Driven Analysis
Scientific analysis begins as soon as sufficient data exists to form a working hypothesis. It follows a continuous cycle:
- Initial Observation & Question A scientist notices a phenomenon (e.g., a fossilized bone fragment) and asks a question (e.g., “What creature did this belong to, and how did it move?”).
- Hypothesis Generation Based on this initial evidence and existing knowledge (like comparative anatomy), a testable explanation (hypothesis) is proposed. For example, upon finding the first pterosaur fossils, the hypothesis was: “This was a flying reptile, unlike anything known today.”
- Analysis & Prediction The current evidence is analyzed to see if it supports the hypothesis. Crucially, the hypothesis is used to make predictions about what new evidence should look like.
- Example (Pterosaur): If the early form flew, then later discoveries should show transitional features, or at least a close, related non-flying ancestor that shares some of its unique skeletal traits.
- New Data Collection (The Search) The predictions guide the search for new evidence. Scientists don’t just randomly dig; they target geological layers or locations where the predicted transitional forms are most likely to be found.
- Refinement or Falsification When a new piece of evidence is found (like the lagerpetid fossils related to pterosaurs), the original analysis is updated.
- If the new data supports the hypothesis, the confidence in it increases.
- If the new data contradicts the hypothesis, the original hypothesis is falsified (proven wrong) or significantly refined (modified).
The process isn’t linear (“collect all, then analyze”); it’s a feedback loop where initial analysis directs subsequent collection, and new collection refines the analysis. The “gap” you mentioned is simply the space where the evidence collected so far hasn’t yet supported a continuous, piece-by-piece narrative.
So you have to decide what is evidence and what is not
That’s an excellent philosophical point, and you are absolutely right: a core part of the scientific process is deciding what counts as valid evidence and what does not.
This decision isn’t arbitrary; it relies on established principles to ensure reliability and objectivity.
Criteria for Valid Scientific Evidence
Scientists don’t simply “decide” what is evidence; they evaluate data against criteria designed to minimize bias and error. This process is called scrutiny or peer review.
1. Empirical Reliability
- Observability and Measurement: The evidence must be something that can be observed, measured, or recorded using standardized tools and methods (e.g., bone length, chemical composition, geological layer depth).
- Reproducibility: Ideally, if another scientist uses the same method, they should be able to get the same result. For unique finds (like a single fossil), this means confirming the accuracy of the initial measurements and observations.
2. Context and Consistency
- Contextual Relevance: Evidence is only useful if its context is known. For a fossil, this includes the stratum (rock layer) it was found in, which determines its age and the environment it lived in. A bone fragment found out of its original context (e.g., washed down a river) is less reliable.
- Internal Consistency: The evidence must be consistent with itself. A bone fragment shouldn’t show characteristics of a flying reptile and a modern mammal simultaneously without a plausible evolutionary explanation.
3. The Test of Falsifiability
- Testable Claims: The hypothesis derived from the evidence must be falsifiable-meaning it must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the hypothesis wrong. If a claim cannot be tested or proven false, it is generally not considered scientific. For example, the hypothesis “bats evolved from gliders” is scientific because finding a pre-bat fossil that was terrestrial (ground-dwelling) and non-gliding would contradict and falsify that idea.
The Role of Peer Review
The final check on what constitutes valid evidence is the scientific community itself through the process of peer review.
When a scientist publishes a finding:
- They must present their data, methods, and interpretations transparently.
- Experts (peers) in the same field scrutinize the work. They question the reliability of the measurements, the statistical analysis, and the logical steps in the argument.
- Only after the evidence and methods withstand this rigorous scrutiny is the finding formally accepted into the body of scientific knowledge.
Therefore, the decision about “what is evidence” is less a subjective judgment and more a collective agreement based on established rules of logic, reliability, and methodology.
But in example like Egyptology we know that this is far from the case
That’s an insightful comparison! You’re pointing out a critical difference between how hard sciences (like paleontology and evolutionary biology) and historical or interpretive fields (like Egyptology and archaeology) evaluate evidence and form conclusions.
While both fields are scientific in the broad sense that they use systematic observation and evidence, the nature of their evidence and the way they bridge the “gaps” are fundamentally different.
Paleontology vs. Egyptology: The Nature of Evidence
The difference lies primarily in the types of gaps and the reliability of the source material.
Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology (Hard Science)
- The Gap is Material: The “gap in the fossil record” is a physical absence of a transitional species. The evidence that does exist (fossils) is generally direct, physical, and subject to consistent natural laws (geology, biology).
- Evidence is Primarily Objective: A bone fragment’s age, dimensions, and chemical composition are objective facts. Interpretation comes in connecting these facts to build an evolutionary tree.
- Goal: To establish the most probable truth about natural history based on physical laws.
Egyptology and Archaeology (Historical/Interpretive Science)
- The Gap is Interpretive: The “gap” is often not a complete absence of material (Egypt has countless artifacts) but a gap in understanding the meaning, context, or purpose of the existing material.
- Evidence is Often Subjective/Contradictory: The evidence includes texts, art, and ceremonial objects, which require interpretation of language, culture, intent, and religious beliefs.
- Contradiction is Common: Two different pharaohs might claim the same victory in their inscriptions, or a single text might contain symbolic language that defies a literal interpretation.
- Goal: To reconstruct human culture and history using fragments that are filtered through layers of human bias and interpretation.
Why ‘Piecing Together’ is Different in Egyptology
In Egyptology, the process you call ‘piecing together’ involves a higher degree of subjectivity and debate because the evidence is often indirect or incomplete in its meaning:
- Reliance on Textual Interpretation: If a tomb inscription is damaged or uses rare hieroglyphs, its entire meaning can be debated for decades. There is often no single “correct” answer, but rather a “best fit” interpretation supported by other texts or art.
- Lack of Experimental Control: You cannot perform an experiment to see if the building techniques mentioned in an ancient papyrus are correct, as you can test the structural integrity of a fossil.
- The Risk of Over-Interpretation: Archaeologists must constantly guard against forcing modern assumptions onto ancient cultures.
In essence, while paleontology pieces together the natural timeline with objective physical pieces, Egyptology pieces together the human narrative with often ambiguous cultural pieces. Both processes are rigorous, but the nature of the evidence means Egyptology will always have more areas where fundamental interpretations remain highly contested.
