Predictions of the T0E?
david ford
2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
theory of evolution?
If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
Regarding 2), these conceivable states of affairs would disprove the
theory of evolution:
biology did not exist
the universe did not exist
time did not exist
the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist
matter did not exist
the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
days old
rnew...@austin.rr.com
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com...
These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require a
major overhaul of it.
These are predictions:
1. That a human skeleton will never be found unmistakably in the same strata
as a dinosaur and having lived at the same time.
2. That a bird fossil, for example, will never be found dating from, for
example, 3 billions years ago.
3. That those most adapted to a particular environment will come to dominate
that environment.
These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require a
major overhaul of it.
1. Finding that characteristics acquired by an individual are inherited.
2. Finding a human fossil unmistakably in the same strata as a dinosaur and
having lived at the same time.
3. If we ever investigate enough planets with earth like environments, then
never finding evidence of life.
Enough?
.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> news:b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com...
>> 1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
>>
>> 2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
>> theory of evolution?
>> If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
>>
>>
>> Regarding 2), these conceivable states of affairs would disprove the
>> theory of evolution:
>> biology did not exist
>> the universe did not exist
>> time did not exist
>> the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist matter did
>> not exist
>> the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
>> days old
>>
>>
> These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require
> a major overhaul of it.
>
> These are predictions:
> 1. That a human skeleton will never be found unmistakably in the same
> strata as a dinosaur and having lived at the same time.
No, that is simply a fact of history, not fallout from the ToE. If we
discovered that some dinosaurs (excluding birds) lived until recently we
would be *very* surprised, but it would not reflect one way or the other
on the ToE.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> 1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
Traits are heritable.
The inheritance isn't perfect.
Variations in traits cause variations in fitness.
> 2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
> theory of evolution?
Yes.
> If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
Traits aren't heritable.
Traits are heritable, but the inheritance is always perfect.
Variations in traits do not result in variations in fitness.
rnew...@austin.rr.com
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.16....@mail.utexas.edu...
No, you are wrong. It is a fact of history that such a human fossil has
never been found as described.
But, that does not show that one will never be found. If one was, then it
would present
major challenges to the TOE.
Ville Ruokonen
<rnew...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PySNb.33354$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require a
> major overhaul of it.
> 1. Finding that characteristics acquired by an individual are inherited.
> 2. Finding a human fossil unmistakably in the same strata as a dinosaur
and
> having lived at the same time.
> 3. If we ever investigate enough planets with earth like environments,
then
> never finding evidence of life.
Number three is, as far as I know, incorrect. It might well be that the
probabilities of life arising are infinitely small, and no amount of
exploring would yield any evidence of extraterrestrial life. However, the
theory of evolution would still stand as the best explanation for the
diversity of life we do find.
Let's not confuse abiogenesis theories with evolution, as the
anti-evolutionists are wont to do.
--
Ville Ruokonen
firstname dot surname at charlie sierra two
dot tango papa uniform dot foxtrot india
"Swedish foreign policy has had the luxury
of serving the people the caviar of idealism,
while Finland has had to make do with the
gruel of realpolitik..." -Max Jakobson
rnew...@austin.rr.com
"Ville Ruokonen" <see.si...@for.ad> wrote in message
news:bu8vkk$gdv$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>
> <rnew...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:PySNb.33354$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require
a
> > major overhaul of it.
>
> > 1. Finding that characteristics acquired by an individual are inherited.
> > 2. Finding a human fossil unmistakably in the same strata as a dinosaur
> and
> > having lived at the same time.
> > 3. If we ever investigate enough planets with earth like environments,
> then
> > never finding evidence of life.
>
> Number three is, as far as I know, incorrect. It might well be that the
> probabilities of life arising are infinitely small, and no amount of
> exploring would yield any evidence of extraterrestrial life. However, the
> theory of evolution would still stand as the best explanation for the
> diversity of life we do find.
>
> Let's not confuse abiogenesis theories with evolution, as the
> anti-evolutionists are wont to do.
Well, I think that the TOE does imply that under Earth like conditions life
will evolve.
I was saying that if this is never found to occur after many thousands, say,
of planets explored, then
the TOE might need a serious refinement.
Bobby D. Bryant
No, it wouldn't. The ToE simply doesn't make predictions about what
organisms have or will suffer mass extinctions, or when. The discovery of
a living or recently dead dinosaur wouldn't be any more problem for the
_theory_ than the discovery of living coelacanths was.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Ville Ruokonen" <see.si...@for.ad> wrote in message
> news:bu8vkk$gdv$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>>
>> <rnew...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:PySNb.33354$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> > These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would
>> > require a major overhaul of it.
>>
>> > 1. Finding that characteristics acquired by an individual are
>> > inherited. 2. Finding a human fossil unmistakably in the same strata
>> > as a dinosaur and having lived at the same time. 3. If we ever
>> > investigate enough planets with earth like environments, then never
>> > finding evidence of life.
>>
>> Number three is, as far as I know, incorrect. It might well be that the
>> probabilities of life arising are infinitely small, and no amount of
>> exploring would yield any evidence of extraterrestrial life. However,
>> the theory of evolution would still stand as the best explanation for
>> the diversity of life we do find.
>>
>> Let's not confuse abiogenesis theories with evolution, as the
>> anti-evolutionists are wont to do.
>
> Well, I think that the TOE does imply that under Earth like conditions
> life will evolve.
No, the ToE says that where life exists it will evolve, assuming it is
based on imperfect replication. It says _nothing_ about where life will
exist.
> I was saying that if this is never found to occur after many thousands,
> say, of planets explored, then the TOE might need a serious refinement.
No, the ToE explains a phenomenon that occurs in systems of imperfect
replicators, such as biology AWKI. The absence of such a system is no
problem for the theory, which is still necessary to explain what has
happened and continues to happen in the one system we _do_ know about.
As Ville said, the absence of life or the relics of life elsewhere would
simply suggest that the probability of abiogenesis or the conditions
necessary for abiogenesis is very low in our universe.
Ken Shaw
rnew...@austin.rr.com wrote:
No, if a human skeleton was found in situ in a strata dated to more than
65 MYA that would require significant reexamination of the theories on
human and mammalian development or investigation into whether time
travel was possible but would not in and of itself invalidate the ToE.
Ken
rnew...@austin.rr.com
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my statement.
I meant that if a human fossil that dated, say, 250 million years ago was
found
then it would present major problems for the TOE.
Malachi
>
> "Ville Ruokonen" <see.si...@for.ad> wrote in message
> news:bu8vkk$gdv$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> >
> > <rnew...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:PySNb.33354$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require
> a
> > > major overhaul of it.
> >
> > > 1. Finding that characteristics acquired by an individual are inherited.
But this would not disprove evolution, it would disprove Darwin's
mechanism of evolution (ie. decent with modification and natural
selection).
Of course, Lamarckianism was disproved long ago. Bringing it up as a
possible disprove to Darwinism is akin to positing geocentricism (is that
a word?) as a possible disprove of modern orbital mechanics.
> > > 2. Finding a human fossil unmistakably in the same strata as a dinosaur
> > and
> > > having lived at the same time.
> > > 3. If we ever investigate enough planets with earth like environments,
> > then
> > > never finding evidence of life.
> >
> > Number three is, as far as I know, incorrect. It might well be that the
> > probabilities of life arising are infinitely small, and no amount of
> > exploring would yield any evidence of extraterrestrial life. However, the
> > theory of evolution would still stand as the best explanation for the
> > diversity of life we do find.
> >
> > Let's not confuse abiogenesis theories with evolution, as the
> > anti-evolutionists are wont to do.
>
> Well, I think that the TOE does imply that under Earth like conditions life
> will evolve.
For a planet to be 'Earth like' it would have to already have life on it
as life has dramatically influenced this planet.
Also, life must be present for life to evolve. You, as the previous
poster pointed out, are referring to abiogenesis.
For the mechanisms of decent with modification and natural selection to
work you must have, I imagine, at least some form of primitive replicator.
Without that we are no longer discussing ToE.
> I was saying that if this is never found to occur after many thousands, say,
> of planets explored, then
> the TOE might need a serious refinement.
No, abiogensis would need some serious refinement. Without the presence
of life, the mechanisms of decent with modification and natural selection
can't even be tested.
rnew...@austin.rr.com
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.16....@mail.utexas.edu...
>
> > "Ville Ruokonen" <see.si...@for.ad> wrote in message
> > news:bu8vkk$gdv$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> >>
> >> <rnew...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> news:PySNb.33354$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >> > These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would
> >> > require a major overhaul of it.
> >>
> >> > 1. Finding that characteristics acquired by an individual are
> >> > inherited. 2. Finding a human fossil unmistakably in the same strata
> >> > as a dinosaur and having lived at the same time. 3. If we ever
> >> > investigate enough planets with earth like environments, then never
> >> > finding evidence of life.
> >>
> >> Number three is, as far as I know, incorrect. It might well be that the
> >> probabilities of life arising are infinitely small, and no amount of
> >> exploring would yield any evidence of extraterrestrial life. However,
> >> the theory of evolution would still stand as the best explanation for
> >> the diversity of life we do find.
> >>
> >> Let's not confuse abiogenesis theories with evolution, as the
> >> anti-evolutionists are wont to do.
> >
> > Well, I think that the TOE does imply that under Earth like conditions
> > life will evolve.
>
> No, the ToE says that where life exists it will evolve, assuming it is
> based on imperfect replication. It says _nothing_ about where life will
> exist.
>
The problem here is whether we are talking about the origin of life or the
evolution
of life. You are right about neo-darwinian evolution not addressing the
ultimate
origin or life. But science as a whole does try to answer that question and
the
currently accepted explanation is that under earth like conditions given
enough time life will
evolve.
> > I was saying that if this is never found to occur after many thousands,
> > say, of planets explored, then the TOE might need a serious refinement.
>
> No, the ToE explains a phenomenon that occurs in systems of imperfect
> replicators, such as biology AWKI. The absence of such a system is no
> problem for the theory, which is still necessary to explain what has
> happened and continues to happen in the one system we _do_ know about.
>
> As Ville said, the absence of life or the relics of life elsewhere would
> simply suggest that the probability of abiogenesis or the conditions
> necessary for abiogenesis is very low in our universe.
>
Well then, after exploring many thousands of planets all of which
have primitive life with imperfect replicatory systems on them and
all of which have Earth like conditions
on them, then we see no evidence of evolution after hundreds of millions of
years then
we would need to modify the TOE.
rnew...@austin.rr.com
"Ken Shaw" <non...@your.biz> wrote in message
news:P_TNb.48621$6y6.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
But the TOE is a theory of human and mammalian development! Time travel,
let's be real here.
rnew...@austin.rr.com
"Malachi" <Mal...@Earth.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.56.0401161053420.2449@shell1...
Hey, wake up out there. Abiogenesis MUST have occurred at some time in
Earth's history. Or do, you think life has existed from the moment of the
big bang?
Nathan Baum
> 1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
ToE really only makes two predictions of future events:
a. Over time, organisms will gain new features, lose old features, or
redesign existing features. (Mutation of genotypes effects phenotypes)
b. Organisms which are well suited to their environment will survive. Those
which are not will not survive. (Natural selection)
It also makes a prediction about what we'll find in the geological column:
c. Organisms X which appear to be descendants of organisms Y will not be
found before Y in the geological column.
> 2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
> theory of evolution?
> If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
The underpinnings of all theories of evolution are common descent, mutation,
and natural selection. The only way to disprove evolution once and for all
is to disprove one of those.
a. Show that the descendants of species lived at the same time or before
their supposed ancestors.
b. Show that mutation does not occur, or, if it does, it cannot benefit the
organism.
c. Show that the survival of a species is unrelated to its fitness for its
particular environment.
I think each of these findings are decreasingly probable, I don't believe
it's even possible to show C. Also note that for A it isn't sufficient to
show an example of *one* species which lived before one of its supposed
ancestors. That could easily just mean the original interpretation of the
strata was in error. But if a great many species are found to have lived
before their ancestors, that would be much harder to explain.
Even then, if one *could* disprove common descent, that wouldn't actually
put paid to evolution. It would disprove that the explanation for the
origin of species is evolution (or at least, that it is purely evolution),
but it wouldn't disprove the observed instances of natural selection,
mutation and speciation. It wouldn't disprove that evolution is happening
now, and will happen in the future. You'd would *have* to show B or C in
order to disprove evolution now and in the future.
To me, evolution currently appears to be unfalsifiable. Not because it is
not a scientific theory, but because, like Newton's contention that apples
fall to the ground because of the Earth's gravitational field, there is
such a body of evidence that supports it that I feel it is not conceivable
that one could show that even a quarter of the evidence contradicts
evolution.
> Regarding 2), these conceivable states of affairs would disprove the
> theory of evolution:
> biology did not exist
What does this mean? The study of biological systems? If that didn't exist,
evolution would still be true. If you mean that the absence of biological
systems would disprove evolution, I wonder how you, as a biological system,
can conceive of that state.
> the universe did not exist
This is not a conceivable state.
> time did not exist
This is not a conceivable state.
> the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist
This is not a conceivable state.
> matter did not exist
This is not a conceivable state.
> the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
> days old
This would disprove common descent, but not the rest of evolution.
Significantly, it would not disprove the claim that the species that exist
in the future would be descendants of the species that exist now.
Nathan Baum
This statement is entirely true, but perhaps slightly misleading.
The ToE does indeed imply that under Earth-life conditions, life will
evolve. However, it explicitly does *not* deal with the origin of life. All
its says is 'existing life will evolve', not 'life will occur and then
Nathan Baum
I disagree here. "Those most adapted to a particular environment will be
most likely to survive in that environment." 'Domination' is neither
desirable nor probable, from an evolutionary perspective.
> These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require a
> major overhaul of it.
> 1. Finding that characteristics acquired by an individual are inherited.
True, this *would* require a major overhaul.
We *know* that, on the whole, traits are not inherited. If we found that
traits were inherited by humans, that would be very puzzling indeed.
OTOH, if some *new* species turned out to have inheritable traits, we would
be excited by this, but since it wouldn't contradict existing evidence,
whilst the ToE would need to be modified, the old evidence would not need
to be reinterpreted.
gen2rev
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in
<pan.2004.01.16....@mail.utexas.edu>:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:26:10 +0000, david ford wrote:
>
> > 1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
>
> Traits are heritable.
>
> The inheritance isn't perfect.
>
> Variations in traits cause variations in fitness.
Keep in mind that Ford is inquiring about the "theory of evolution", and
not neodarwinism. For instance, the evolutionary theory of orthogenesis
would probably make none of the predictions you list above, yet it's
still a theory of evolution. Evolution is an observation, not a theory,
and Ford's "theory of evolution" is a straw man.
Nathan Baum
You all seem to be working under the assumption that rnewland is talking
about finding a dinosaur that lived at the same time as modern man. I
rather think he's talking about finding a 100 million year old Homo sapiens
sapiens, which I would imagine would cause a bit of confusion.
gen2rev
in <MSSNb.33471$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com>:
Very true.
> But, that does not show that one will never be found. If one was, then it
> would present
> major challenges to the TOE.
Why? Why couldn't non-avian dinosaurs have survived until fairly
recently in some out of the way place, a la Arthur Conan Doyle's "Lost
World"?
Malachi
Hey, wake up!
If life never has and never will occur anywhere else in the universe it
doesn't matter a hill of beans to the correctness of ToE!!! We are
observing evolution on this planet right here, right now whether or not
life exists anywhere else in the universe or not!
What is so hard to understand about that? How life started on this planet
is simply not relevant to the question that started this thread.
Seppo Pietikainen
Since we have not been able to explore even *two* of the planets in
just our solar system, the question is rather moot, isn't it?
Assuming that you are talking from a science fiction POV, one might
equally well ask the contrary question: If we were to find imperfect
replicatory systems on a planet in another solar system, far removed
from ours, would it provide evidence for or against the TOE?
If we *were* to find evidence contrary to the evidence of evolution on *earth*
(multiple inheritance, multiple genders, LaMarckism as a prevailing mechanism
of passing new characteristics to next generations, etc. etc., for example),
that would provide *tons* of material for *our* investigators and scientists.
However, it would (probably) not change one bit in the theory of evolution
on our planet.
Seppo P.
rnew...@austin.rr.com
"gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:4v3g00pqpumf3cq0t...@4ax.com...
The theory of evolution, TOE, is an ambiguous term granted.
Does it mean neo-darwinism or the the evolution of the universe.
If the later it must account for abiogenesis.
Evolution is not an observation. We cannot observe evolution.
We can only observe the artifacts of the history of life on earth.
gen2rev
in <OpVNb.34249$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com>:
Based on his previous posting behavior, I'm assuming that Ford is
referring to biological evolution (which is not synonymous with
neodarwinism), it which case evolution isn't concerned with abiogenesis,
although at what point evolution takes over from abiogenesis may be a
point of contention.
> Evolution is not an observation. We cannot observe evolution.
> We can only observe the artifacts of the history of life on earth.
I think this is hair-splitting. One could also argue that we can't
observe gravity, but only it's effects. Similarly, one could claim that
we don't observe much of anything directly, but rather perceive photons
that happen to collide with our retinas, or changes in air pressure that
impinge upon our eardrums.
rnew...@austin.rr.com
Well, we do observe micro-evolution. There is nothing in principle
that would prevent us from observing macro-evolution. What prevents us
from observing macro-evolution is the long time spans involved.
us...@example.com
>1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
>
>2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
>theory of evolution?
>If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
Is there no one in the Biology Department at UMBC that you could ask?
Ken Shaw
First the ToE is a very large umbrella. Inside that framework are many
other theories with varying degrees of evidentiary support. the theories
of mammalian and human development are 2 such theories. Invalidating one
or more of these theories would not falsify the whole of the ToE. Only
something striking at the fundamental framework of the ToE could do
that. Such thing would include proving the inheritance of acquired
characters, disproving common descent and disproving natural selection.
If you posit a human fossil found in a Mesozoic strata that after
careful examination is found to be from that era there are a number of
possibilities:
1) The Hindu fundies are right and you better get crackin on that shrine
to Vishnu.
2) What we thought we new about human and therefore mammalian
development needs to be reexamined.
3) The poor sod was trapped under a dino during the flood and was
therefore not properly sorted to the correct layers.
4) Time traveler who got unlucky.
Since all other evidence is so overwhelmingly against options 1 through
3 serious consideration would have to be given to number 4.
Ken
gen2rev
in <q3WNb.34430$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com>:
Actually, we *have* observed macro-evolution. Check out
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Geoff
news:F0UNb.33845$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.01.16....@mail.utexas.edu...
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:46:10 +0000, rnewland wrote:
snip
> > >> > These are predictions:
> > >> > 1. That a human skeleton will never be found unmistakably in the
same
> > >> > strata as a dinosaur and having lived at the same time.
> > >>
> > >> No, that is simply a fact of history, not fallout from the ToE. If
we
> > >> discovered that some dinosaurs (excluding birds) lived until recently
> > >> we would be *very* surprised, but it would not reflect one way or the
> > >> other on the ToE.
> > >>
> > > No, you are wrong. It is a fact of history that such a human fossil
has
> > > never been found as described.
> > > But, that does not show that one will never be found. If one was, then
> > > it would present major challenges to the TOE.
> >
> > No, it wouldn't. The ToE simply doesn't make predictions about what
> > organisms have or will suffer mass extinctions, or when. The discovery
of
> > a living or recently dead dinosaur wouldn't be any more problem for the
> > _theory_ than the discovery of living coelacanths was.
> >
> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my statement.
>
> I meant that if a human fossil that dated, say, 250 million years ago was
> found then it would present major problems for the TOE.
Ahh...that's better...shades of Paluxy.
Ken Shaw
rnew...@austin.rr.com wrote:
<rant>
No such thing as micro or macro evolution just evolution. The same
mechanism that results in small changes we have observed will in time
result in the large changes we see in the fossil record. Using the micro
and macro terms gives the creationists a wedge for their arguments.
</rant>
Sorry pet peeve
Ken
John Harshman
Ken Shaw wrote:
<rant on top of rant>
We observe macroevolution about as well as we observe microevolution.
The distinction between "observation" and "inference" is arbitrary, and
is largely due to the fact that various hardwired inference processes
within your brain are invisible to you. The evidence for macroevolution
is just as good as the evidence for microevolution, and that's what counts.
</rant on top of rant>
<rant in response to rant>
The two terms can be useful even if one is only the accumulation of the
other over time. An ocean is just drops of water, but you probably won't
complain that there is no such thing as oceans or drops, just water.
</rant in response to rant>
Nathan Baum
So what? The OP wasn't about 'science as a whole', it was about the
predictions made by ToE, a small subset of 'science as a whole'.
>> > I was saying that if this is never found to occur after many thousands,
>> > say, of planets explored, then the TOE might need a serious refinement.
>>
>> No, the ToE explains a phenomenon that occurs in systems of imperfect
>> replicators, such as biology AWKI. The absence of such a system is no
>> problem for the theory, which is still necessary to explain what has
>> happened and continues to happen in the one system we _do_ know about.
>>
>> As Ville said, the absence of life or the relics of life elsewhere would
>> simply suggest that the probability of abiogenesis or the conditions
>> necessary for abiogenesis is very low in our universe.
>>
>
> Well then, after exploring many thousands of planets all of which
> have primitive life with imperfect replicatory systems on them and
> all of which have Earth like conditions
> on them, then we see no evidence of evolution after hundreds of millions
> of years then
> we would need to modify the TOE.
Two points.
Firstly, you are clearly begging the question by assuming that we won't see
any evidence of evolution.
Secondly, we see evidence of evolution on Earth. Nothing we see on other
planets will disprove that evolution occurs and occured on Earth, except
perhaps the remains of an ancient starfaring civilisation that created life
on Earth without using the evolutionary process.
Geoff
snip
> If you posit a human fossil found in a Mesozoic strata that after
> careful examination is found to be from that era there are a number of
> possibilities:
>
> 1) The Hindu fundies are right and you better get crackin on that shrine
> to Vishnu.
> 2) What we thought we new about human and therefore mammalian
> development needs to be reexamined.
> 3) The poor sod was trapped under a dino during the flood and was
> therefore not properly sorted to the correct layers.
> 4) Time traveler who got unlucky.
#5.....
Humans evolved exactly the same on another planet in Andromeda, although a
billion years earlier. Several hundred thousand years later, they master
intergalactic travel and one stout fellow finds his way to earth. Just as he
is approaching our solar system, his engine drops a rocker arm. Sensing the
trouble, he does a quick scan of all the planets.
"Ah, the 2nd through 4th planets look like a good place to set down for
repairs," Capt. McGyver says to himself. He looks closely at Venus. "Too
hot," he exclaims. Then Mars. "Too cold," he mutters. And finally Earth,
"Oh, goody, just right! 92 deg F. (Amazingly, not only have they evolved
exactly as terrestrial humans will a billion years later - and remained that
way for several hundred thousand years - but they have also come up with all
the same measurment units. British system only. Metric never caught on.)
As his engine cuts out, he carefully lays the craft down. As he is scouting
about for some pine cones with which he will repair his craft, Capt.
MacGyver runs into Mommy, Daddy and Baby yangchuanosaurus. They quickly eat
him up and shit out his bones which are found 150 million years later by
Nobel laureate Ed Conrad.
Nathan Baum
The ToE is a theory of how accumulated gradual changes in individuals, over
time, leads to the diversity of life we see today. It is not exclusively a
'theory of human and mammalian development', neither is it dependent upon
human and mammalian development having occured at a particular time.
Nathan Baum
Yes, but unfortunately they wouldn't give him the answer he wanted.
Andrew Arensburger
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:26:10 +0000, david ford wrote:
>> 1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
> Traits are heritable.
> The inheritance isn't perfect.
> Variations in traits cause variations in fitness.
It seems to me that these are premises of the ToE, not
predictions. Also, I believe you're missing one: that not all
individuals will survive long enough to reproduce.
Starting with these premises, we can make some predictions, in
particular that those variants best adapted to a given niche will take
over the niche.
Also, the premises above are shared by both the ToE and by
Behe-style ID. To distinguish between them, we should add that
mutations are random with respect to usefulness.
With this further premise, we can add a lot of predictions:
any given change that makes a difference is likely to be harmful; a
large change is more likely to be harmful than a small change. This
allows us to say that evolution is likely to be slow (large changes
are due to the accumulation of small changes over many generations;
they do not appear from one generation to the next).
We can also add embryological "recapitulation" to the list of
predictions: embryos in closely-related species will most likely
develop the same way up until the end. The more distantly related two
species are, the earlier their embryological development will diverge.
(This falls out of the fact that if you make a random change in one
step of embryological development, it is likely to mess up something
that comes later; if you're going to make a change, it's safer to tack
on something at the end).
We can also add the prediction that "new" features are
modifications of existing features, whether these features be bones,
organs, proteins, behavioral patterns, or whatever.
We can also predict that the phylogenetic trees derived from
different criteria will match (e.g., trees based on morphology match
ones based on genes).
If speciation is common enough, we should be able to see
examples of it going on in the present day (e.g., ring species).
I suspect that by throwing game theory into the mix, you
should be able to predict a whole lot of things, including parasitism,
cooperation, symbiosis, defenses against parasitism and cheating, etc.
Most of the predictions above are positive statements, meaning
that they need only be observed once to be confirmed; to prove them
wrong would require proving a negative. But that's okay, since the
burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion (that is,
we begin by not believing the ToE, and accept it only after its
proponents have presented evidence that its predictions are true).
Of course, just because natural selection (I'm including
sexual selection here) works doesn't mean that other things don't work
as well. Genetic drift, the founder effect, and other mechanisms
(possibly including tweaking by an intelligent designer) play a role
as well.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
I just had a mental breakdown. Got any jumper cables?
Ken Shaw
Ok, there is of course that and a host of other extremely unlikely
possibilities. I still think that my #4 would be the most likely
explanation.
Ken
Ken Shaw
John Harshman wrote:
If the terms are useful then please define them. Where does micro end
and macro begin? is it at the species boundary? genus? higher?
Ken
Penny Dean Nickels
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.16....@mail.utexas.edu...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:26:10 +0000, david ford wrote:
>
> > 1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
>
> Traits are heritable.
>
> The inheritance isn't perfect.
>
> Variations in traits cause variations in fitness.
>
>
>
> > theory of evolution?
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
>
> Traits aren't heritable.
>
> Traits are heritable, but the inheritance is always perfect.
>
> Variations in traits do not result in variations in fitness.
>
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
Penny Dean Nickels
>
> theory of evolution?
>
I'm not a scientist, but I think that several experments were
designed to falsify evolution. Examples: the fruit fly experment,
the Kettering experment with Moths, Searching the fossil record
breeding experments with pigeons, Researching the origin of
life. I'm sure there are others which I forget.
R.Schenck
> 1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
>
see any paper with a cladogram
> 2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
> theory of evolution?
> If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
>
deleterious traits becomming fixed in a population, at least that
would contradict natural selection. how about a population of animals
where the offspring generation comes to resemble the least prolific of
the parent generation?
as regards evolution itself, it would be contradicted by static
species that do not change for any reason.
>
> Regarding 2), these conceivable states of affairs would disprove the
> theory of evolution:
> biology did not exist
doesn't affect the theoretical idea of evolution. course no one would
be able to think it anyway.
> the universe did not exist
same as above, that goes for teh below.
> time did not exist
> the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist
> matter did not exist
> the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
> days old
this would fit into the static species idea. even then, if it looked
as it does now, the only logical conclusion would be that it was old
and species evolved.
George Buyanovsky
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.01.16....@mail.utexas.edu...
> >
> >
> > > news:b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > >>
> > >> theory of evolution?
> > >> If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> theory of evolution:
> > >> biology did not exist
> > >> the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist matter did
> > >> not exist
> > >> the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
> > >> days old
> > >>
> > >>
> > > a major overhaul of it.
> > >
> > > These are predictions:
> > > 1. That a human skeleton will never be found unmistakably in the same
> > > strata as a dinosaur and having lived at the same time.
> >
> > No, that is simply a fact of history, not fallout from the ToE. If we
> > discovered that some dinosaurs (excluding birds) lived until recently we
> > would be *very* surprised, but it would not reflect one way or the other
> > on the ToE.
> >
>
> No, you are wrong. It is a fact of history that such a human fossil has
> never been found as described.
> But, that does not show that one will never be found. If one was, then it
> would present
> major challenges to the TOE.
Not necessarily, if some dinosaurs species had survived KT boundary up
to 3mln BC, it does not challenge ToE at all. It is highly unlikely
but it is possible.
By the way, ToE acronym may mean Theory of Everything (generalization
of string theory) that meets a definition of theory (my opinion) and
is considered as a cosmic scale of generalization of the theory of
evolution (Smolin/Linde). The classic Darwinist ToE..tion hardly is a
theory it is more a concept/idea; also it has a difficulty to explain
some highly low probable evolution findings (ribosome is well known
example). The multiverse vastness solves this difficulty naturally and
suggests much more complicated and beautiful picture where evolution
is the ultimate source of existence of everything.
Regards,
George
JTEM
It's not widely known, but it's a fact that the very first prediction
Darwin made was that every ignorant, bible-worshipping
bone head would pee themselves over his findings. This set
back publication of his work by years, as he struggled to
contruct the tightest case in support of his theory.
Bobby D. Bryant
> 4) Time traveler who got unlucky.
Or maybe lucky, depending on what the future is like.
Dr. Desertphile
ford) wrote:
> 1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
Human fossils will never be found _in_situ_ with trilobites.
> 2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
> theory of evolution?
Yes.
> If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
Human fossils found _in_situ_ with trilobites.
> Regarding 2), these conceivable states of affairs would disprove the
> theory of evolution:
> biology did not exist
> the universe did not exist
> time did not exist
> the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist
> matter did not exist
> the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
> days old
--
"To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl
Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a fish how
it feels about not being able to ride a bicycle.
L.Roberts
Pine cones to repair his craft???!!!! That's silly, duct tape (which
is as old as coal) would have been as readily available then as it is
now, and would have worked whatever technological wonders needed back
then just as it does now. Pine cones for space craft repairs went out
at about the same time that the great genii twitch it's nose, causing
the lights to came on and the dark ages to disappear. Too bad he ran
into those critters, but then, if he hadn't, we probably never would
have been treated to your tale.
Wow, I've heard of Ed Conrad, one of the great minds of the ages is
what I hear, but, I was unaware that he is a Nobel laureate. Wow.
Thanks!
us...@example.com
mel turner
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
>
>1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
Umm, that populations of organisms evolve? That heritable genetic
changes occur? That there are groups of species related by descent
from common ancestral species? That their traits [genetic and
phenotypic] will map out in parallel, fitting the branching history
of their lineages?
>2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
>theory of evolution?
>If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
See other post, with links such as
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7eprga%24rr6%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6msvaf%24o5d%241%40news.duke.edu
to lists of such hypothetical things.
>Regarding 2), these conceivable states of affairs would disprove the
>theory of evolution:
>biology did not exist
>the universe did not exist
>time did not exist
>the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist
>matter did not exist
>the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
>days old
All the above are pretty silly, but yes, evolution requires the
existence of organisms. And yes, if the YECs were right, there
wouldn't have been enough time for most organisms to have
undergone much evolution.
cheers
mel turner
[rnew...@austin.rr.com] wrote...
>>
>> theory of evolution?
[snip]
>These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require a
>major overhaul of it.
>
>These are predictions:
>1. That a human skeleton will never be found unmistakably in the same strata
>as a dinosaur and having lived at the same time.
So, you mean "no Mesozoic human remains", not "no late-surviving dinos".
Your "lived at the same time" is important, since it's of course
possible for modern human graves to be dug into dino-containing strata.
Still, this example really isn't about a prediction from evolutionary
theory itself, but a consequence of our present understanding of
evolutionary history.
>2. That a bird fossil, for example, will never be found dating from, for
>example, 3 billions years ago.
Repeating the same point as the first one. Both this and the Mesozoic
man might call for "time-machine" explanations.
>3. That those most adapted to a particular environment will come to dominate
>that environment.
You left out a "not", I think. But of course the point of natural
selection is about adaptive changes within populations, not about
domination of environments.
>These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require a
>major overhaul of it.
>1. Finding that characteristics acquired by an individual are inherited.
Lamarckian inheritance would require changing the current theory of
evolution, but would be compatible with other evolutionary ideas.
>2. Finding a human fossil unmistakably in the same strata as a dinosaur and
>having lived at the same time.
See above.
>3. If we ever investigate enough planets with earth like environments, then
>never finding evidence of life.
Why would that say anything about evolution on earth? It might
just be evidence that the origin of life is very rare even when
conditions seem right.
>Enough?
Cheers,
Bobby D. Bryant
> In article <b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
>>Regarding 2), these conceivable states of affairs would disprove the
>>theory of evolution:
>
>>biology did not exist
>>the universe did not exist
>>time did not exist
>>the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist
>>matter did not exist
>>the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
>>days old
>
> All the above are pretty silly, but yes, evolution requires the
> existence of organisms. And yes, if the YECs were right, there
> wouldn't have been enough time for most organisms to have
> undergone much evolution.
Unless of course evolution happens as fast as some greatfloodologists
claim it does.
mel turner
non...@your.biz [Ken Shaw] wrote...
>John Harshman wrote:
>> Ken Shaw wrote:
>> The two terms can be useful even if one is only the accumulation of the
>> other over time. An ocean is just drops of water, but you probably won't
>> complain that there is no such thing as oceans or drops, just water.
>> </rant in response to rant>
>>
>
>If the terms are useful then please define them. Where does micro end
>and macro begin? is it at the species boundary? genus? higher?
Species level. Microevolution is within one species. Macroevolution
includes all evolution at the species level and above [basically, the
"and above" reduces to the cumulative results of microevolution, plus
speciations, plus extinctions, over time].
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Contrary to the impression many will get from creationists that it's
some bogus creationist term, "macroevolution" is indeed used by
biologists, but it's not defined the way creationists seem to use it.
Much of what many creationists call "just microevolution" will be
"macroevolution" to biologists.
cheers
mel turner
bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu [Bobby D. Bryant] wrote...
Good point! And that's another answer for Ford:
If explosively rapid macroevolution of the "kinds" could really
occur like some Fluddites like to claim, that too would require
replacing the current evolutionary theory with a new one that
could account for such ridiculous rates of change.
cheers
Ken Shaw
My background is in math and computers but I have taken many biology
classes due to my interest in paleontology and I have never heard any
biologist use the term except to ridicule creationists. This may be
because all my biology has been from American instructors who according
to the T.O. FAQ you reference don't use the term.
I maintain that the terms are useless and there continued use
constitutes a victory for the creationists.
Ken
rnew...@austin.rr.com
This is an online biology dictionary. Enter "micro" to see the def for
microevolution.
Bonz
ford) wrote:
>1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
That allele frequencies, inherited, genetic traits, will change from
generation to generation.
>
>2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
>theory of evolution?
Yes
>If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
If one generation was suddenly exactly like the one before, and the
one after.
>
>
>Regarding 2), these conceivable states of affairs would disprove the
>theory of evolution:
>biology did not exist
>the universe did not exist
>time did not exist
>the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist
>matter did not exist
>the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
>days old
Huh?
いBonzい a.a #1497
BAAWA knight
The word "scientist" in my Email addy has an extra N
Noelie S. Alito
> >
> >
> > rnew...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> >
> > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:pan.2004.01.16....@mail.utexas.edu...
> > >
> > >>On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:24:57 +0000, rnewland wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>news:b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>theory of evolution?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>theory of evolution:
> > >>>>biology did not exist
> > >>>>the universe did not exist
> > >>>>time did not exist the dimensions of length, width, and height did not
> > >>>>exist matter did not exist the universe was not about 15 billion years
> > >>>>old, but instead was 15 days old
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>require a major overhaul of it.
> > >>>
> > >>>These are predictions:
> > >>>1. That a human skeleton will never be found unmistakably in the same
> > >>>strata as a dinosaur and having lived at the same time.
> > >>
> > >>discovered that some dinosaurs (excluding birds) lived until recently we
> > >>would be *very* surprised, but it would not reflect one way or the other
> > >>on the ToE.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > No, you are wrong. It is a fact of history that such a human fossil has
> > > never been found as described.
> > > But, that does not show that one will never be found. If one was,
> > > then it would present major challenges to the TOE.
> > >
> >
> > 65 MYA that would require significant reexamination of the theories on
> > human and mammalian development or investigation into whether time
> > travel was possible but would not in and of itself invalidate the ToE.
> >
> > Ken
> >
>
> But the TOE is a theory of human and mammalian development! Time travel,
> let's be real here.
I thought we were being hypothetical here?
In this argument, a hypothetical modern human in Cretaceous strata in
conflict with the definitive body of cross-confirmed evidence we have
now, is tantamount to asking what if we found out that the Earth was
banana-shaped in 1925. Such a find would present major challenges
to the scientific method at its core. (Of course, the "challenge" itself
would have to have passed all of the usual tests of extraordinary
claims: hoax, delusion, incompetence.)
With time and better measurement technology, at some point we gather
enough cross-confirmed information to declare something a fact, past
the point of sane falsifiability: Positing a radical challenge to the general
shape of the earth, the existence of DNA, the gross structure of the tree
of life, atomic properties, the deadness of mummies has a name:
Speculative Fiction.
Noelie
--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 43 years."
nnooee...@mmaaiill.uutteexxaass.eedduu
Bobby D. Bryant
> <rnew...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> But the TOE is a theory of human and mammalian development! Time
>> travel, let's be real here.
>
> I thought we were being hypothetical here?
>
> In this argument, a hypothetical modern human in Cretaceous strata in
> conflict with the definitive body of cross-confirmed evidence we have
> now, is tantamount to asking what if we found out that the Earth was
> banana-shaped in 1925. Such a find would present major challenges to
> the scientific method at its core. (Of course, the "challenge" itself
> would have to have passed all of the usual tests of extraordinary
> claims: hoax, delusion, incompetence.)
>
> With time and better measurement technology, at some point we gather
> enough cross-confirmed information to declare something a fact, past the
> point of sane falsifiability: Positing a radical challenge to the
> general shape of the earth, the existence of DNA, the gross structure of
> the tree of life, atomic properties, the deadness of mummies has a name:
> Speculative Fiction.
Yes, "fact" can be taken to mean "beyond *un*reasonable doubt".
> Noelie
Hi. Where ya been (if it's any of our business)?
Bobby D. Bryant
> But the TOE is a theory of human and mammalian development! Time travel,
> let's be real here.
Human skeletons in dinosaur-era strata, let's be real here.
david ford
david ford:
> > 1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
> >
> > 2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
> > theory of evolution?
> > If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
> >
> > Regarding 2), these conceivable states of affairs would disprove the
> > theory of evolution:
> > biology did not exist
> > the universe did not exist
> > time did not exist
> > the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist
> > matter did not exist
> > the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
> > days old
>
> These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require a
> major overhaul of it.
Most would severely challenge _any_ theory.
> These are predictions:
> 1. That a human skeleton will never be found unmistakably in the same strata
> as a dinosaur and having lived at the same time.
Does the theory of evolution predict:
the appearance of humans?
the appearance of dinosaurs?
when humans will appear?
when dinosaurs will appear?
that dinosaurs will appear before humans?
that humans will appear before dinosaurs?
what will exist with humans?
what will exist with dinosaurs?
Does the theory of evolution predict that dinosaurs and humans won't
coexist?
If "yes," what are some other organisms that the theory of evolution
predicts won't coexist?
> 2. That a bird fossil, for example, will never be found dating from, for
> example, 3 billions years ago.
Does the theory of evolution predict:
the appearance of birds?
when birds first appeared?
when birds will first appear in the fossil record?
> 3. That those most adapted to a particular environment will come to dominate
> that environment.
Is [r]"those most adapted" equivalent to:
organisms that [r]"will come to dominate"?
If "yes," your statement is true by definition.
Some examples of statements that are true by definition are the
following:
X is X. Grass is grass. Triangles have three sides. All bachelors
are men.
> These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require a
> major overhaul of it.
> 1. Finding that characteristics acquired by an individual are inherited.
If I accepted the theory of evolution, I would be quite pleased to
learn that the proposed Lamarckian mechanism was demonstrated by
numerous laboratory experiments to be valid.
> 2. Finding a human fossil unmistakably in the same strata as a dinosaur and
> having lived at the same time.
See above.
> 3. If we ever investigate enough planets with earth like environments, then
> never finding evidence of life.
In [r]"enough planets with earth like environments," how many is
[r]"enough"-- 95% of all such planets in the universe? 20% of all
such planets in the universe? 100% of all such planets in the
universe? What?
> Enough?
Hardly.
I have the sense I've been through this exercise before.
Ah, yes, I have. See the threads "Evolution Hypothesis is
Unfalsifiable" and "Evolution Hypothesis is Unfalsifiable, Round 2,"
the first posts therein being:
http://tinyurl.com/336qz
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911232100270.17626-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
http://tinyurl.com/y877
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
In the first thread is
Raup's letter to _Science_
http://tinyurl.com/yj9c
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990626223450.19598328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Nathan Baum
> rnew...@austin.rr.com on 2004-01-16:
> david ford:
>
>> > 1) What are some predictions of the theory of evolution?
>> >
>> > 2) Are there any conceivable states of affairs that would disprove the
>> > theory of evolution?
>> > If "yes," what conceivable states of affairs?
>> >
>> > Regarding 2), these conceivable states of affairs would disprove the
>> > theory of evolution:
>> > biology did not exist
>> > the universe did not exist
>> > time did not exist
>> > the dimensions of length, width, and height did not exist
>> > matter did not exist
>> > the universe was not about 15 billion years old, but instead was 15
>> > days old
>>
>> These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require
>> a major overhaul of it.
>
> Most would severely challenge _any_ theory.
>
>> These are predictions:
>> 1. That a human skeleton will never be found unmistakably in the same
>> strata as a dinosaur and having lived at the same time.
>
> Does the theory of evolution predict:
> the appearance of humans?
No.
> the appearance of dinosaurs?
No.
> when humans will appear?
No.
> when dinosaurs will appear?
No.
> that dinosaurs will appear before humans?
No.
> that humans will appear before dinosaurs?
No.
> what will exist with humans?
No.
> what will exist with dinosaurs?
No.
But, so what? The theory of evolution predicts that not all species existed
at the same time. Our current understanding is that dinosaurs and the
higher mammals did not exist at the same time. If dinosaurs and the higher
mammals *did* exist at the same time, our understanding of how almost all
of the currently existing species came about would be called into question.
>
> Does the theory of evolution predict that dinosaurs and humans won't
> coexist?
No. It predicts that they *didn't*.
> If "yes," what are some other organisms that the theory of evolution
> predicts won't coexist?
It makes no predictions about specific future organisms.
>
>> 2. That a bird fossil, for example, will never be found dating from, for
>> example, 3 billions years ago.
>
> Does the theory of evolution predict:
> the appearance of birds?
No.
> when birds first appeared?
No.
> when birds will first appear in the fossil record?
No.
But, see above. The theory of evolution predicts what we will find in the
fossil record based upon what we have already found. If we find that no
fossils of two species have never been found dating from around the same
time, and instead have always been seperated by many millions of years, the
theory of evolution predicts that this is probably because the two species
did not exist at the same time, and therefore we should not expect to find
the species together in future excavations.
>
>> 3. That those most adapted to a particular environment will come to
>> dominate that environment.
>
> Is [r]"those most adapted" equivalent to:
> organisms that [r]"will come to dominate"?
> If "yes," your statement is true by definition.
> Some examples of statements that are true by definition are the
> following:
> X is X. Grass is grass. Triangles have three sides. All bachelors
> are men.
Because of natural selection, "those most adapted" "will come to dominate".
If natural selection is true, the two phrases are equivalent. Therefore, if
experimental evidence shows that the two phrases are *not* equivalent, we
will know that natural selection is not true.
>
>> These would severely challenge the theory of evolution and would require
>> a major overhaul of it.
>> 1. Finding that characteristics acquired by an individual are inherited.
>
> If I accepted the theory of evolution, I would be quite pleased to
> learn that the proposed Lamarckian mechanism was demonstrated by
> numerous laboratory experiments to be valid.
>
>> 2. Finding a human fossil unmistakably in the same strata as a dinosaur
>> and having lived at the same time.
>
> See above.
Also see above.
>
>> 3. If we ever investigate enough planets with earth like environments,
>> then never finding evidence of life.
>
> In [r]"enough planets with earth like environments," how many is
> [r]"enough"-- 95% of all such planets in the universe? 20% of all
> such planets in the universe? 100% of all such planets in the
> universe? What?
>
>> Enough?
>
> Hardly.
>
> I have the sense I've been through this exercise before.
> Ah, yes, I have. See the threads "Evolution Hypothesis is
> Unfalsifiable" and "Evolution Hypothesis is Unfalsifiable, Round 2,"
> the first posts therein being:
> http://tinyurl.com/336qz
> aka
> http://www.google.com
groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911232100270.17626-100000
40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y877
> aka
> http://www.google.com
groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
>
> In the first thread is
> Raup's letter to _Science_
> http://tinyurl.com/yj9c
> aka
> http://www.google.com
groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990626223450.19598328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
mel turner
No, the term is in very common use among American biology researchers
as well. [A quick check of the Biological Abstracts database shows that
hundreds of recent scientific papers have used "macroevolution*" in
their titles and/or their abstracts.]
>I maintain that the terms are useless
Many biologists seem to disagree. As John said, the two terms can be
useful even if "macroevolution" is accumulated "microevolution" [plus
speciations, plus extinctions, which arguably aren't
"microevolutionary" phenomena].
>and there continued use
>constitutes a victory for the creationists.
No, it isn't a victory for them at all. All we need to do is to simply
point out that creationists use the terms wrong. Further, much of what
they call "microevolution" is "macroevolution" by the scientists'
definition. It's easy to point to "observed speciations" as showing
that at least _some_ macroevolution must occur, and see if they'll
concede that much at least. We can also point out that many of them
like to argue for ridiculous amounts of recent macroevolution within
the "kinds" [to minimize crowding on Noah's Ark].
cheers
Norman Flessas
the debates are intellectually stimulating, but I think that most people
miss the point. The real debate is reality vs fantasy. If you use your
common sense, one will quickly realize why religion was created in the first
place. In my opinion, one is not a true atheist unless they understand why
religion was created. Religion was needed to provide morals for the
ignorant. Even today, religion is needed to provide morals in the backward
communities. It's only through education that will people understand the
need for social harmony. So in a sense, evolution is a very strong theme.
Athiesm is the next jump in evolution for mankind. When mankind understands
the two imperatives.....all naturally occurring basic human needs must be
met and social harmony is our only ticket to survival, the fighting and the
dishonesty will disappear. If you perceive a jump in logic....I will be
glad to elaborate.
Hiero5ant
"Norman Flessas" <fourf...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:R8fPb.4033$h77....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> I realize that many would like to debate evolution vs theists beliefs and
> the debates are intellectually stimulating, but I think that most people
> miss the point.
Like the point that not all evolution deniers are theists, and that not
all people who accept evolution are atheists, and that at any rate there is
no logical entailment within each of these pairs?
> The real debate is reality vs fantasy. If you use your
> common sense, one will quickly realize why religion was created in the
first
> place. In my opinion, one is not a true atheist unless they understand
why
> religion was created. Religion was needed to provide morals for the
> ignorant.
Please explain, in your own words, what The Genetic Fallacy is, and why
it is a fallacy.
> Even today, religion is needed to provide morals in the backward
> communities. It's only through education that will people understand the
> need for social harmony. So in a sense, evolution is a very strong theme.
How does the first sentence above connect with the second sentence, and
how does that connect with the third sentence, and what in the world does
any of this have to do with variations in allele frequencies over time?
> Athiesm is the next jump in evolution for mankind.
Beliefs are not genetic, nor is evolution progressive, so I have no
idea what you're talking about.
> When mankind understands
> the two imperatives.....all naturally occurring basic human needs must be
> met and social harmony is our only ticket to survival, the fighting and
the
> dishonesty will disappear.
What evidence do you have of the truth of these two imperatives, and
what evidence do you have that understanding them leads to the situation you
propose?
> If you perceive a jump in logic....I will be
> glad to elaborate.
I'm afraid I'm not even seeing the logic within which such an alleged
jump would take place.
<snipping; at what point in evolution did mankind learn not to top-post?>
robpar
<fourf...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I realize that many would like to debate evolution vs theists beliefs and
>the debates are intellectually stimulating, but I think that most people
>miss the point. The real debate is reality vs fantasy. If you use your
>common sense, one will quickly realize why religion was created in the first
>place. In my opinion, one is not a true atheist unless they understand why
>religion was created. Religion was needed to provide morals for the
>ignorant.
Negative religion was needed to control the ignorant, and keep them
ignorant.
> Even today, religion is needed to provide morals in the backward
>communities.
And backward communities are the strong hold of religions. And high
poverty, poor education, drug use and violent crimes are very common.
This is not a failure of religion, it`s the success of religion. Poor
ignorant, easily controlled people is the goal of religion.
> It's only through education that will people understand the
>need for social harmony. So in a sense, evolution is a very strong theme.
>Athiesm is the next jump in evolution for mankind. When mankind understands
>the two imperatives.....all naturally occurring basic human needs must be
>met and social harmony is our only ticket to survival, the fighting and the
>dishonesty will disappear. If you perceive a jump in logic....I will be
>glad to elaborate.
See above. Until religion loses it`s power there will be no harmony.
Noelie S. Alito
Nothing is beyond unreasonable doubt. ;-)
> > Noelie
>
> Hi. Where ya been (if it's any of our business)?
Essentially I've been wallowing in inter-semester decadence:
after returning from the Xmas visit, got into a reading binge,
catered to His Majesty, played house&garden, watched DVDs,
etc. Today was the first day of classes, and while the instructor
was reviewing the techniques we would use to classify 50 hand
samples for our lab assignment, the only reaction my brain had
was "ooh, look at the pretty rocks".
Noelie
--
Ooh, look at the pretty textbooks....
david ford
mel turner:
Ken Shaw:
Victory. Such a sweet-sounding word.
1996 _Developmental Biology_ paper by Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff
http://tinyurl.com/yj9b
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980602230744.671C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
John Harshman
david ford wrote:
You understand that Ken is wrong about this, don't you? It's really not
a victory for you.
david ford
david ford:
> >>>Contrary to the impression many will get from creationists that it's
> >>>some bogus creationist term, "macroevolution" is indeed used by
> >>>biologists, but it's not defined the way creationists seem to use it.
> >>>Much of what many creationists call "just microevolution" will be
> >>>"macroevolution" to biologists.
> >>
> >>My background is in math and computers but I have taken many biology
> >>classes due to my interest in paleontology and I have never heard any
> >>biologist use the term except to ridicule creationists. This may be
> >>because all my biology has been from American instructors who according
> >>to the T.O. FAQ you reference don't use the term.
> >>
> >>I maintain that the terms are useless and there continued use
> >>constitutes a victory for the creationists.
> >>
> >>Ken
> >
> > Victory. Such a sweet-sounding word.
>
> You understand that Ken is wrong about this, don't you? It's really not
> a victory for you.
I'm sorry. I forgot that the intelligent design position lost
permanently a long time ago. There is no way for the creationist
position to win any sort of victory, since it lost so decisively in
the 1800s. You, for example, are engaging in a mop-up operation
following a war your side won for all of time.
John Harshman
david ford wrote:
Removing the sarcasm, you seem to be saying "yes it was". So please
explain how the existence of the terms "macroevolution" and
"microevolution" is a victory for creationism. That's what Ken was
talking about (if you were paying attention), and I just don't see it.
R.Schenck
more like the creationists are like those japanese soldiers who fought
for years after the war was over and the emperor was allowed to remain
on his throne to keep everyone quiet.
if you guys are some sort of new breed then where are the new
arguements? 'the eye is too complicated, er i mean this protein is too
complicated, nature is harmonious thus its created by god, the bible
says so and we have faith in the bible' maybe this 'everything was
made like it says in the bible but it was also made to look liek
science says it looks' deal is new, but i suspect that its just so
stupid that no one bothered to print it as a serious challenge to
darwin.
david ford
david ford wrote:
> > I'm sorry. I forgot that the intelligent design position lost
> > permanently a long time ago. There is no way for the creationist
> > position to win any sort of victory, since it lost so decisively in
> > the 1800s. You, for example, are engaging in a mop-up operation
> > following a war your side won for all of time.
>
> Removing the sarcasm, you seem to be saying "yes it was". So please
> explain how the existence of the terms "macroevolution" and
> "microevolution" is a victory for creationism. That's what Ken was
> talking about (if you were paying attention), and I just don't see it.
>
> >>>1996 _Developmental Biology_ paper by Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/yj9b
> >>>aka
> >>>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980602230744.671C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
I don't consider the widespread use of the terms
macroevolution and microevolution by evolutionary
biologists to be a victory for the intelligent design position.
I do, though, consider Goldschmidt's position to be opposed
to the theory of natural selection, Goldschmidt maintaining
that there exists a fundamental difference in kind-of-change
between microevolution and macroevolution.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1982. "The Uses of Heresy: An
Introduction to Richard Goldschmidt's _The Material Basis
of Evolution_" in Richard Goldschmidt, _The Material Basis
of Evolution_ (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1940, 1982), at least 399pp., xiii-xlii. On xx-xxi, 4
paragraphs:
Goldschmidt had made a clean and complete break
between micro- and macroevolution, thus challenging
the most important premises of the modern synthesis--
continuity and extrapolation-- and justifiably earning the
enmity of a growing orthodoxy. _The Material Basis of
Evolution_ is the major work of his full-fledged heresy.
....
Goldschmidt did not invent the words micro- and
macroevolution, but he did popularize them. By
microevolution, he referred to changes within local
populations and geographic variation-- in short, to all
evolutionary events occurring within species.
Macroevolution designates the origin of species and
higher taxa. (Goldschmidt recognized, of course, that
higher taxa must begin as new species, but he believed
that the morphological jumps accompanying some
events of speciation are so profound that descendant
species must be designated as new higher taxa from
their inception.)
For most evolutionists, this contrast between micro- and
macroevolution can only be intergrading and indistinct
because geographic variation, by intensification, leads to
the origin of new species. But not for Goldschmidt.
Viewing the two phenomena as products of distinct
genetic mechanisms, he envisioned an absolute break
between geographic variation and speciation. If
continuity from micro- to macroevolution, with unity of
genetic mechanisms throughout, is the primary belief of
neo-Darwinism (as I believe it is; see quotes of Mayr
and Dobzhansky on p. xiv), then no claim could be more
unorthodox. Goldschmidt had rekindled an issue that
extended back to the earliest days of evolutionary
theory. After all, Lamarck had contrasted local
adaptation, induced by "1'influence des circonstances,"
with progress up life's ladder, caused by "the force that
tends, incessantly, to complicate organization." And
Chambers, author of the anonymous _Vestiges_, had
separated diversification within type from transition
between types as products of different mechanisms of
change. In an important sense, Darwin's greatest
achievement was not merely to support evolution (as
these worthy gentlemen had done before him), but to
propose continuity between local changes that could be
observed and made the object of controlled experiment
and large-scale evolutionary changes that could not be
seen directly. And now Goldschmidt, albeit in different
guise, was resuscitating the old dichotomy just when
modem Darwinians thought they had finally buried it for
good.
Mayr, Ernst. 1963. _Animal Species and Evolution_
(Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press), 797pp. On 586, the opening paragraph of the chapter
"Species and Transpecific Evolution" and a sentence:
The nature and cause of transpecific evolution has been
a highly controversial subject during the first half of this
century. The proponents the synthetic theory maintain
that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small
genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that
transpecific evolution (Rensch 1947) is nothing but an
extrapolation and magnification of the events that take
place within populations and species. A well-informed
minority, however, which includes such outstanding
authorities as the geneticist Goldschmidt (1940, 1948a,
1952a), the paleontologist Schindewolf (1950b), and the
zoologists Jeannel (1950), Cuenot (1951), and Cannon
(1958), maintain that neither evolution within species
nor geographic speciation can explain the phenomena of
"macroevolution," or, as it is better called, "transpecific
evolution." These authors maintain that the origin of
new "types" and of new organs cannot be explained by
the known facts of genetics and systematics. As
alternatives they advance two explanations which are in
conflict with the synthetic theory: saltations (the sudden
origin of new types) and intrinsic (orthogenetic) trends.
It is not the task of this volume, which centers around
the evolutionary problems of the species, to refute these
theories and to cover in detail the entire area of
transpecific evolution.
Goldschmidt, Richard. 1940. _The Material Basis of
Evolution_ (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
1982), at least 399pp. From the beginning of the
"Conclusion" chapter, on 396:
THE THESES presented in these lectures have been
derived from a large body of research in diverse fields
of biology, undertaken, at least in part, with the problem
of evolution in mind. They have developed and
changed with the progress of my own work and with
increasing acquaintance-- much of it firsthand-- with
material studied by others. The result as it stands today,
and which we have tried to base upon a large body of
diversified facts converging toward a single center, may
be expressed in a few sentences. Microevolution within
the species proceeds by accumulation of micromutations
and occupation of the available ecological niches by the
preadapted mutants. Microevolution, especially
geographic variation, adapts the species to the different
conditions existing in the available range of distribution.
Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the
species, and the typical products of microevolution, the
geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no
such category as incipient species. Species and the
higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary
steps as completely new genetic systems.
Goldschmidt, Richard. 1933. "Some Aspects of Evolution"
_Science_ 78:539-47. Goldschmidt was at the time a
professor at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology,
Berlin-Dahlem. His paper was read at a June 1933 general
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, in Chicago. A paragraph on 542:
Let us turn now to the other problem stated above and
answered in the affirmative by Osborn and probably by
most taxonomists: Is the formation of geographic
subspecies the beginning of speciation? My own work
was started with the idea of proving that it was. As I
have already stated at last year's International Congress
of Genetics, the results of the analysis led me to the
conclusion that it was not. The different subspecies in
the different regions occupied by the species are
genetically different in many characters. Most of these
are found to form quantitative gradients which run
parallel to definite features of the climatic conditions.
But the series of local changes in regard to one character
is not exactly paralleled by those of other characters, so
that in a given area one hereditary and differential
character might be found over the whole area, another
be subdivided into three types and another into more
types. But I was unable to find one or a combination of
subspecific characters which could be regarded as
leading out of the limits of the species or towards
another one.
A paragraph on 542-3:
I am perfectly aware of the dangers of generalizing from
one case, even the best known one. I know also the
objections to such conclusions, for example: There are
Rassenkreise, the most distant members of which might
be so different that in case of isolation they might
become the starting point for quite new developments
towards another species. Looking closely at the facts
concerning the typical differences within a Rassenkreis,
I can not see why the isolation of two members of a
Rassenkreis could give better chances for new
developments than the isolation of individuals within a
subspecies: The changes necessary for the formation of
a new species are so large that the relatively small
differences of the subspecies as a starting point would
hardly count. And I can not help confessing that after
trying to get acquainted with the taxonomist's material,
the skeptical standpoint derived from my own genetic
analysis could not be shaken. There is in my opinion no
reliable fact known which would force us to assume that
geographic variation or formation of subspecies has
anything to do with speciation; the results of genetical
analysis and of sober evaluation of the other facts are
positively in contradiction to such an assumption.
For further reading:
H. Graham Cannon
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911222044330.19223-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Cannon was a creationist; _Of Pandas and People_
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911082221330.16551-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Gould: Goldschmidt was one of the premier geneticists of 1900s
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970728093741.24782C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1952 Goldschmidt; analogy of earth's reversal of direction in the
unrecorded past; 1953 Martin
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970810221802.13362E-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS's "crazy-quilt" prediction
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com
Schindewolf; Simpson on bats
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001222211190.17988-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Grene on Schindewolf; Margulis; Calder; Gould on hogwash in
evolutionary theory
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970721233453.16211D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Chris N. discusses a theory of NS essay; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
John Harshman
david ford wrote:
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> david ford wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm sorry. I forgot that the intelligent design position lost
>>>permanently a long time ago. There is no way for the creationist
>>>position to win any sort of victory, since it lost so decisively in
>>>the 1800s. You, for example, are engaging in a mop-up operation
>>>following a war your side won for all of time.
>>>
>>Removing the sarcasm, you seem to be saying "yes it was". So please
>>explain how the existence of the terms "macroevolution" and
>>"microevolution" is a victory for creationism. That's what Ken was
>>talking about (if you were paying attention), and I just don't see it.
>>
>>
>>>>>1996 _Developmental Biology_ paper by Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff
>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/yj9b
>>>>>aka
>>>>>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980602230744.671C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
>>>>>
>
> Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
>
> I don't consider the widespread use of the terms
> macroevolution and microevolution by evolutionary
> biologists to be a victory for the intelligent design position.
> I do, though, consider Goldschmidt's position to be opposed
> to the theory of natural selection, Goldschmidt maintaining
> that there exists a fundamental difference in kind-of-change
> between microevolution and macroevolution.
OK. So you really meant to say "no, it isn't". Right? Otherwise I can
make no sense of this. Macroevolution is a perfectly good term that
doesn't require us to be Goldschimidtians, and Goldschmidt has nothing
to do with intelligent design. So there are at least two immense logical
gaps between "macroevolution" and "victory for ID". Right?
[snip remainder of irrelevant filler material]