Enormous Gaps Yawn Through the Fossil Record

[david ford]

The existence of enormous gaps that yawn through the fossil record does
not make sense except in the dazzling light of evolution.

[Scott McMahan]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980114...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, david
ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

:The existence of enormous gaps that yawn through the fossil record does

:not make sense except in the dazzling light of evolution.

Is anyone else put in mind of "Deep thoughts with Jack Handley?"

--
Scott McMahan
mcm...@oncology.wisc.edu

[Nick Merritt]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980114...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

> The existence of enormous gaps that yawn through the fossil record does
> not make sense except in the dazzling light of evolution.

I see that David, having had his ass whupped in rational debate, has
decided to abandon debate and make the odd bizarre statement every now and
again.

This one's for this month I suppose.

Nick

[PZ Myers]

In article <nmerrit-1401...@172.18.72.175>,
nme...@futurenet.co.uk (Nick Merritt) wrote:

Oh, I don't know...as a literary exercise, it is a rather interesting mixed
metaphor. It's one of those sentences that gets more and more disturbing as
you think about it.

--
PZ Myers
(who would rather nobody shone a bright light on one of his early morning
yawns until he'd had a chance to wash his face and brush his teeth. And
even then there are some lingering realities that the lack of orthodontia
in my youth compels me to prefer they not be too closely examined.)

[Sverker Johansson]

[posted and emailed, but please reply in t.o.]

david ford wrote:
> The existence of enormous gaps that yawn through the fossil record does
> not make sense except in the dazzling light of evolution.

Indeed. The pattern that is actually seen in the fossil record
(as opposed to the pattern that creationists _say_ is seen),

does not make sense except in the dazzling light of evolution.

BTW David:
Last time around you claimed that evolution was unscientific, because
it made no predictions. I provided a bunch of predictions.
You never responded to those. You ran away instead.

When will you admit that evolutionary theory DOES make predictions,
and IS scientific?

--
Best regards, A.afarensis
Sverker Johansson A.creationistus
HLK, Physics H.habilis
Jonkoping College H.erectus
l...@hlk.hj.delete.se H.sapiens
(with apologies to Lucy...)

[Adrian Barnett]

> david ford spake thusly :-

>The existence of enormous gaps that yawn through the fossil record does
>not make sense except in the dazzling light of evolution.

Golly you're right. How strange that every single fossil has not been dug
up yet, considering that every creature that ever dies turns into a perfectly
preserved specimen.

I bow down in the glory of your almighty understanding of paleontology.

We are not worthy...
We are not worthy...
[fade to black]

--
____________________
| __ __/__ o __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
| (_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA (a.a. #0x80); DNRC
|____________________| http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/
** Anti-spam : change "spam_be_gone" to "abarnett" in my address to reply **

SYSTEM WARNING 786: Pirated software has been detected on this machine. The CPU will be
erased in THREE minutes. Thank you.

[david ford]

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 14 Jan 1998:
david ford in "Enormous Gaps Yawn Through the Fossil Record":

df The existence of enormous gaps that yawn through the fossil record
df does not make sense except in the dazzling light of evolution.

SJ Indeed. The pattern that is actually seen in the fossil record
SJ (as opposed to the pattern that creationists _say_ is seen),
SJ does not make sense except in the dazzling light of evolution.

I, a creationist, [SJ]"_say_" that the pattern seen in the fossil record
is one of enormous gaps yawning throughout the record. At least one
prominent evolutionist, specifically Carl Sagan, agrees with me about
this; see Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, _Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors_
(1992), 132. To claim that those gaps _only_ make sense in the light of
evolutionism is absurd. One alternative possibility in accounting for
the yawning gaps is that the gap-fillers never existed, a possibility
that fits well with the idea of creation.

SJ BTW David:
SJ Last time around you claimed that evolution was unscientific,
SJ because it made no predictions.

This is an inaccurate summary of my position. E.g., a description of
the process of photosynthesis is scientific yet makes no predictions.

SJ I provided a bunch of
SJ predictions. You never responded to those. You ran away instead.

I don't recall reading [SJ]"a bunch of predictions." Please refresh
my memory by kindly listing the predictions.

SJ When will you admit that evolutionary theory DOES make predictions,
SJ and IS scientific?

Must you continually litter your posts with rhetorical questions?

[Sverker Johansson]

david ford wrote:
>
> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 14 Jan 1998:
> david ford in "Enormous Gaps Yawn Through the Fossil Record":
>
> df The existence of enormous gaps that yawn through the fossil record
> df does not make sense except in the dazzling light of evolution.
>
> SJ Indeed. The pattern that is actually seen in the fossil record
> SJ (as opposed to the pattern that creationists _say_ is seen),
> SJ does not make sense except in the dazzling light of evolution.
>
> I, a creationist, [SJ]"_say_" that the pattern seen in the fossil > record
> is one of enormous gaps yawning throughout the record. At least one
> prominent evolutionist, specifically Carl Sagan, agrees with me about
> this; see Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, _Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors_
> (1992), 132. To claim that those gaps _only_ make sense in the light > of
> evolutionism is absurd. One alternative possibility in accounting for
> the yawning gaps is that the gap-fillers never existed, a possibility
> that fits well with the idea of creation.

The Sagans agree that there are gaps; so do I, in the sense that
we do not have a fossil of every single critter that ever lived.
But that's not all there is to the fossil record. The concept of
gaps is meaningful only if we see a pattern to find gaps in.

We do see a pattern. We do see the general pattern expected
in a world where life evolved. Some pieces are missing. but
enough pieces are there to make the pattern clear. Are you
implying that Sagan said that there is _not_ a pattern?

> SJ BTW David:
> SJ Last time around you claimed that evolution was unscientific,
> SJ because it made no predictions.
>
> This is an inaccurate summary of my position. E.g., a description of
> the process of photosynthesis is scientific yet makes no predictions.

It's as accurate as a two-line summary can be. This is from the first
post of your that I responded to:
---------
> 1) As a _scientific_ theory, the theory of evolution has been falsified,
> [deletia]
> 2) As an _unscientific_ theory, the theory is unfalsifiable, that is to
> say, there is no state of affairs, that if otherwise, would show
> the (unscientific) theory of evolution to be false.
> P1: If something is to be considered scientific, then it must at a
> minimum be capable of being falsified.
> P2: The theory of evolution is not capable of being falsified.
> C: Thus, the theory cannot be called scientific.
-------------------
A discussion of falsifiability led to your demand for predictions,
reproduced below.

> SJ I provided a bunch of
> SJ predictions. You never responded to those. You ran away instead.
>
> I don't recall reading [SJ]"a bunch of predictions." Please refresh
> my memory by kindly listing the predictions.

Here is the relevant snippet again, posted for at least the fourth time,
and mailed to you at least twice:
-------------- re-posted start---------------
>df Kindly
>df present, if you would please, three (3) journal citations, each of >df which
>df discusses the theory of evolution's a) testable predictions and b) >df the results of pertinent observations.

Searching Medline with reasonable keywords concerning "evolution" and
"prediction" turns up thousands of hits. Three semi-randomly
chosen examples (no, I didn't bother going through all the 1000s.):

Reznick, D N (1997) "Life history evolution in guppies (Poecilia
reticulata): guppies as a model for studying the evolutionary biology
of aging" Exp. Gerontol 32(3)245-258

Mueller, L D (1988) "Evolution of competitive ability in Drosophila by
density-dependent natural selection" Proc Nat Acad Sci USA
85(12)4383-4386

Townsend JM, Wasserman T (1997) "The perception of sexual
attractiveness:
sex differences in variability." Arch Sex Behav 1997 Jun;26(3):243-268

The abstract of the last one starts like this:
"Results of three independent studies supported predictions derived from
evolutionary theory:"

Happy?
-------------- re-posted end---------------

Consider your memory refreshed. Now, please, give a serious
response to my meeting your prediction challenge.

> SJ When will you admit that evolutionary theory DOES make predictions,
> SJ and IS scientific?
>
> Must you continually litter your posts with rhetorical questions?

Just to remind people that you're not _really_ interested in the
evidence. Last time I asked the same question, you answered
"Never!", clearly demonstrating the dogmatism of your position.

[Sverker Johansson]

Followup to my own post:

Sverker Johansson wrote:
>
> david ford wrote:
> >
> > Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 14 Jan 1998:

[snip]

> > SJ I provided a bunch of
> > SJ predictions. You never responded to those. You ran away instead.
> >
> > I don't recall reading [SJ]"a bunch of predictions." Please refresh
> > my memory by kindly listing the predictions.

It's been a week now since I "refreshed [his] memory", by post _and_
mail,
with the snippet below. No response whatsoever.

Has David run away again?

> Here is the relevant snippet again, posted for at least the fourth time,

(this is the fifth time)

> and mailed to you at least twice:
> -------------- re-posted start---------------
>df Kindly
>df present, if you would please, three (3) journal citations, each of >df which
>df discusses the theory of evolution's a) testable predictions and b) >df the results of pertinent observations.

Searching Medline with reasonable keywords concerning "evolution" and
"prediction" turns up thousands of hits. Three semi-randomly
chosen examples (no, I didn't bother going through all the 1000s.):

Reznick, D N (1997) "Life history evolution in guppies (Poecilia
reticulata): guppies as a model for studying the evolutionary biology
of aging" Exp. Gerontol 32(3)245-258

Mueller, L D (1988) "Evolution of competitive ability in Drosophila by
density-dependent natural selection" Proc Nat Acad Sci USA
85(12)4383-4386

Townsend JM, Wasserman T (1997) "The perception of sexual
attractiveness:
sex differences in variability." Arch Sex Behav 1997 Jun;26(3):243-268

The abstract of the last one starts like this:
"Results of three independent studies supported predictions derived from
evolutionary theory:"

Happy?
-------------- re-posted end---------------

Consider your memory refreshed, again. Now, please, give a serious

response to my meeting your prediction challenge.

> > SJ When will you admit that evolutionary theory DOES make predictions,
> > SJ and IS scientific?
> >
> > Must you continually litter your posts with rhetorical questions?
>
> Just to remind people that you're not _really_ interested in the
> evidence. Last time I asked the same question, you answered
> "Never!", clearly demonstrating the dogmatism of your position.

Likewise: demanding evidence and references, and then ignoring
when the demand is met, is not the mark of someone who actually
wants to learn.

[Peter Nyikos]

Johansson is going to a side issue here: the concept of "predictions" and
the existence of confirmed ones in the area of evolutionary
theory.

First of all, Johansson claimed that Ford had said that
evolutionary theory is unscientific because it makes no predictions,
whereas all Ford did was to say that it is unscientific
because it is not falsifiable.

This may well be a problem in semantics: maybe when Ford
says "predictions" he means "before-the-fact published
predictions". "before-the-fact" here refers to what laymen
usually call predictions: a prediction that was made by
a human being before the thing being predicted was discovered
to be true (or not true).

In this ng, on the other hand, people championing predictions
generally stretch the term to include "things implicitly
predicted by evolutionary theory, but which never entered
the mind of anyone before they were discovered to be true"
or ever just "phenomena explained by evolutionary theory,
but which may have alternative explanations".

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> writes:

>Followup to my own post:

>Sverker Johansson wrote:
>>
>> david ford wrote:
>> >
>> > Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 14 Jan 1998:

>[snip]

>> > SJ I provided a bunch of
>> > SJ predictions. You never responded to those. You ran away instead.
>> >
>> > I don't recall reading [SJ]"a bunch of predictions." Please refresh
>> > my memory by kindly listing the predictions.

>It's been a week now since I "refreshed [his] memory", by post _and_
>mail,
>with the snippet below. No response whatsoever.

Will a response from me suffice? I can't speak for Mr. Ford but
I can certainly give my opinion.

>Has David run away again?

>> Here is the relevant snippet again, posted for at least the fourth time,
>(this is the fifth time)
>> and mailed to you at least twice:
>> -------------- re-posted start---------------
>>df Kindly
>>df present, if you would please, three (3) journal citations, each of >df which
>>df discusses the theory of evolution's a) testable predictions and b) >df the results of pertinent observations.
>
>Searching Medline with reasonable keywords concerning "evolution" and
>"prediction" turns up thousands of hits. Three semi-randomly
>chosen examples (no, I didn't bother going through all the 1000s.):

Did you go through ANY of them--I mean, did you read the abstracts
and see them claim the confirmation of some prediction?

By the way, why do people search MEDLINE for purely biological
data? Isn't there some more appropriate search engine for
evolutionary theory?

>Reznick, D N (1997) "Life history evolution in guppies (Poecilia
>reticulata): guppies as a model for studying the evolutionary biology
>of aging" Exp. Gerontol 32(3)245-258
>
>Mueller, L D (1988) "Evolution of competitive ability in Drosophila by
>density-dependent natural selection" Proc Nat Acad Sci USA
>85(12)4383-4386
>
>Townsend JM, Wasserman T (1997) "The perception of sexual
>attractiveness:
>sex differences in variability." Arch Sex Behav 1997 Jun;26(3):243-268

>The abstract of the last one starts like this:
>"Results of three independent studies supported predictions derived from
>evolutionary theory:"

>Happy?

I'm not. "predictions derived from evolutionary theory" could
be referring to one of the stretched versions of what
a "prediction" is.

Could you at least tell us all what the alleged predictions were,
and how the studies "supported" (how strongly?) them?

[...]

>> > SJ When will you admit that evolutionary theory DOES make predictions,
>> > SJ and IS scientific?

Putting on my layman's hat, I'd say theory does not make predictions.
People do.

For an example of what ***I*** call a prediction of evolutionary
theory, take a look at the following post, made earlier today.

_______________________begin included post_____________________
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Hemoglobin Genes and the Fossil Record
References: <6a32sg$s5m$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> <1998012400...@milo.math.sc.edu> <6abgpr$qqu$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> <hines.8...@cgl.ucsf.edu>

Thanks for setting my mind at ease about the Komodo dragon, Wade.
I think the real reason the authors used it is that it is the
first squamate in which BOTH alpha chains have been sequenced.
Since other squamates (lizards and snakes) have been found in
which both genes have been DETECTED, I'm still a bit surprised
that the KD is the first one for which both have been sequenced,
given the ease with which this is done according to you.

I'm also a bit surprised to find an unequiviocal prediction
from this one datum.

Figure 3 shows clearly that the [adult alpha] is clustered
with another adult type of alpha chain from the living
squamates and forms the SQ group, whereas [embryonic alpha]
chain of V. komodoensis is in the EM group. Therefore,
when both of the two alpha chains from other squamates
are sequenced, they will be clustered in the way that the
two alpha chains from *V. komodoensis* are grouped into
the separate groups EM and SQ. [pp. 1041-2]

This is a far more unequivocal prediction than I've EVER seen
in talk.origins as far as "evolutionary predictions" go,
and it will be interesting to see whether:

1. it is ever falsified and

2. whether Wesley Elsberry and others here will take a single successful
instance of the prediction as "confirim"ing the prediction.

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208

========================== end of included post==================

Of course, the prediction as stated will never be confirmed
beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the following can:

In the next ten published tests to appear in MEDLINE
for various species of squamates, the data from
the alpha chains will fall into the same groups
as the ones looked at in this paper.

(If someone can give me a better archive than MEDLINE, I'd
appreciate the information.)

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208

[Sverker Johansson]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Johansson is going to a side issue here: the concept of "predictions" and
> the existence of confirmed ones in the area of evolutionary
> theory.

I just reminded David that he had unfinished business with me...

> First of all, Johansson claimed that Ford had said that
> evolutionary theory is unscientific because it makes no predictions,
> whereas all Ford did was to say that it is unscientific
> because it is not falsifiable.

No, that's not _all_ Ford said. You didn't follow my debate with
him last summer, did you? _Ford_ brought up predictions, _Ford_
ended up DEMANDING predictions, as you could see in the snippet below.

> This may well be a problem in semantics: maybe when Ford
> says "predictions" he means "before-the-fact published
> predictions". "before-the-fact" here refers to what laymen
> usually call predictions: a prediction that was made by
> a human being before the thing being predicted was discovered
> to be true (or not true).

Partly a semantic problem, but my main beef with Ford is his
running away, and not even responding to the prediction refs
I brought up.

If Ford had stayed around, possibly we would have discovered
differences in our prediction concepts. But he didn't.

> In this ng, on the other hand, people championing predictions
> generally stretch the term to include "things implicitly
> predicted by evolutionary theory, but which never entered
> the mind of anyone before they were discovered to be true"

Quite so. Not just in this ng, though. I regard this as the
normal way of using "prediction" in scientific contexts.
"Things implicitly predicted by the theory" is the relevant
sense in a hypothetical-deductive Popperian context.

> or ever just "phenomena explained by evolutionary theory,
> but which may have alternative explanations".

OK, here you have a point.

But in general, "prediction" in the philosophy of science
is not identical with our everyday word "prediction";
cf the eternal discussions about "theory" in this ng.

> >It's been a week now since I "refreshed [his] memory", by post _and_
> >mail,
> >with the snippet below. No response whatsoever.
>
> Will a response from me suffice? I can't speak for Mr. Ford but
> I can certainly give my opinion.

I'll be glad to discuss it with you, but it doesn't get
David off the hook.

> >Has David run away again?

> >> Here is the relevant snippet again, posted for at least the fourth time,
> >(this is the fifth time)
> >> and mailed to you at least twice:
> >> -------------- re-posted start---------------
> >>df Kindly
> >>df present, if you would please, three (3) journal citations, each of >df which
> >>df discusses the theory of evolution's a) testable predictions and b) >df the results of pertinent observations.
> >
> >Searching Medline with reasonable keywords concerning "evolution" and
> >"prediction" turns up thousands of hits. Three semi-randomly
> >chosen examples (no, I didn't bother going through all the 1000s.):

> Did you go through ANY of them--I mean, did you read the abstracts
> and see them claim the confirmation of some prediction?

Yes, I've read the articles - I _have_ copies of the articles.
Your point?

> By the way, why do people search MEDLINE for purely biological
> data? Isn't there some more appropriate search engine for
> evolutionary theory?

Medline works. It's not dedicated to evolution, but it does contain
zillions of biology articles. As you said at the end of your post:

> (If someone can give me a better archive than MEDLINE, I'd
> appreciate the information.)

I'll second that request. Meanwhile, Medline is good enough.

> >Reznick, D N (1997) "Life history evolution in guppies (Poecilia
> >reticulata): guppies as a model for studying the evolutionary biology
> >of aging" Exp. Gerontol 32(3)245-258
> >
> >Mueller, L D (1988) "Evolution of competitive ability in Drosophila by
> >density-dependent natural selection" Proc Nat Acad Sci USA
> >85(12)4383-4386
> >
> >Townsend JM, Wasserman T (1997) "The perception of sexual
> >attractiveness:
> >sex differences in variability." Arch Sex Behav 1997 Jun;26(3):243-268
>
> >The abstract of the last one starts like this:
> >"Results of three independent studies supported predictions derived from
> >evolutionary theory:"
>
> >Happy?
>
> I'm not. "predictions derived from evolutionary theory" could
> be referring to one of the stretched versions of what
> a "prediction" is.

It refers to predictions from the theory
(IMHO, the appropriate sense here)
but explicit in previous publications, so should
satisfy even your layman's version of
prediction.

> Could you at least tell us all what the alleged predictions were,
> and how the studies "supported" (how strongly?) them?

"at least". "alleged". Quotes around "supported".
I don't like your tone here, sir.

Reznick:
Prediction from evo-theory: animals in high-predation
localities should "live faster" (reproduce younger,
age faster) than conspecifics in low-predation localities.
Results: "We have demonstrated the predicted differences
in life history patterns with experiments and observations
on guppies..." (p 256)

Mueller:
Pred: "that populations kept at extreme densities should evolve
different competitive abilities for limited resources."
Results: "The differentiation of comptetitive abilities
in these populations [...] is consistent with predictions..."

Townsend et al:
Pred: "Men's assessments of sexual attractiveness are
determined more by objectively assessable physical
attributes; women's ... by perceived ability and willingness
to invest (...)."
Result: "Results of three independent studies supported

predictions derived from evolutionary theory:"

All three papers contain refs to previous theoretical
work, containing the actual predictions.

If you want more detail, go look up the papers!

> >> > SJ When will you admit that evolutionary theory DOES make predictions,
> >> > SJ and IS scientific?
>
> Putting on my layman's hat, I'd say theory does not make predictions.
> People do.

Putting on my scientists's hat, I'd say theory DOES make predictions.
People do, too. But we're not interested in falsifying people,
we're interested in falsifying theories. So theory predictions
are the relevant ones.

> For an example of what ***I*** call a prediction of evolutionary
> theory, take a look at the following post, made earlier today.

[example snipped]

Sure, that's a good prediction. But you seem to be
implying that my examples aren't. Please elaborate!

[Sverker Johansson]

Sverker Johansson wrote:
>
Followup to my own post:
>
> Sverker Johansson wrote:
> >
> > david ford wrote:
> > >
> > > Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 14 Jan 1998:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > SJ I provided a bunch of
> > > SJ predictions. You never responded to those. You ran away instead.
> > >
> > > I don't recall reading [SJ]"a bunch of predictions." Please refresh
> > > my memory by kindly listing the predictions.
>

> It's been a week now since I "refreshed [his] memory", by post _and_
> mail,
> with the snippet below. No response whatsoever.
>

> Has David run away again?

He hasn't, not quite. He responded to me by mail, which Netiquette
prevents me from reproducing here.

His response, however, did not address the issue at hand, but instead
focused on the hairsplitting distinction between "providing a bunch
of predictions" and "providing three citations to articles with
predictions". I did the latter; he claimed this constituted a
failure to do the former.

[snip]

[Peter Nyikos]

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> writes:

>Peter Nyikos wrote:

>> First of all, Johansson claimed that Ford had said that
>> evolutionary theory is unscientific because it makes no predictions,
>> whereas all Ford did was to say that it is unscientific
>> because it is not falsifiable.

>No, that's not _all_ Ford said. You didn't follow my debate with
>him last summer, did you?

No, but then, it's pretty obvious from what you post below
that you haven't followed all the previous times I have
dealt with "predictions" on talk.origins.

_Ford_ brought up predictions, _Ford_
>ended up DEMANDING predictions, as you could see in the snippet below.

>> This may well be a problem in semantics: maybe when Ford
>> says "predictions" he means "before-the-fact published
>> predictions". "before-the-fact" here refers to what laymen
>> usually call predictions: a prediction that was made by
>> a human being before the thing being predicted was discovered
>> to be true (or not true).

>Partly a semantic problem, but my main beef with Ford is his
>running away, and not even responding to the prediction refs
>I brought up.

Running away is a way of life in talk.origins, and the
anti-creationists are almost as bad as the creationists.
In fact, were the ratios of the two reversed, I do believe
the anti-creationists would outdo the creationists on this
score.

Then again, perhaps most anti-creationists now posting wouldn't
even have the guts to show up, leaving the field for people
like me and Andrew MacRae who can best the creationists
with solid information. In that case, I do believe the
two of us would hang on just as tenaciously as I am against
dishonest, vindictive anti-creationists. I've hung on like
that in talk.origins, where I am NOT of the same opinion
as the dominant clique on the substantive issue, whereas
I am of the same opinion as the dominant clique on
the substantive issue here.

>If Ford had stayed around, possibly we would have discovered
>differences in our prediction concepts. But he didn't.

Tell me about it. Creationists run away from me all the
time too, just as most anti-creationists do.

>> In this ng, on the other hand, people championing predictions
>> generally stretch the term to include "things implicitly
>> predicted by evolutionary theory, but which never entered
>> the mind of anyone before they were discovered to be true"

>Quite so. Not just in this ng, though. I regard this as the
>normal way of using "prediction" in scientific contexts.

I disagree. Take chemistry, where the most famous prediction
was Mendeleev predicting the existence and even the properties
of a then-unknown element (Germanium? it's been decades since
I read about it) IN ADVANCE.

Or take astronomy, where the most famous prediction was Adams
and Leverrier predicting the position of Neptune with
astonishing accuracy even before Neptune was discovered.

>"Things implicitly predicted by the theory" is the relevant
>sense in a hypothetical-deductive Popperian context.

The theory commonly available to everyone, or somebody's
own pet ideas on what the theory SHOULD predict?

>> or ever just "phenomena explained by evolutionary theory,
>> but which may have alternative explanations".

>OK, here you have a point.

>But in general, "prediction" in the philosophy of science

Thanks for saying "philosophy of science" rather than "science".
I am reminded of the title of the book, "Military justice is
to justice as military music is to music".

>is not identical with our everyday word "prediction";
>cf the eternal discussions about "theory" in this ng.

...by rank amateurs when it comes to science, for the most
part, from what I have seen.

>> >> -------------- re-posted start---------------
>> >>df Kindly
>> >>df present, if you would please, three (3) journal citations, each of >df which
>> >>df discusses the theory of evolution's a) testable predictions and b) >df the results of pertinent observations.
>> >
>> >Searching Medline with reasonable keywords concerning "evolution" and
>> >"prediction" turns up thousands of hits. Three semi-randomly
>> >chosen examples (no, I didn't bother going through all the 1000s.):
>
>> Did you go through ANY of them--I mean, did you read the abstracts
>> and see them claim the confirmation of some prediction?

>Yes, I've read the articles - I _have_ copies of the articles.
>Your point?

Well done. Most people say at this point that they've just seen
the abstracts.

[...]

>> >Townsend JM, Wasserman T (1997) "The perception of sexual
>> >attractiveness:
>> >sex differences in variability." Arch Sex Behav 1997 Jun;26(3):243-268
>>
>> >The abstract of the last one starts like this:
>> >"Results of three independent studies supported predictions derived from
>> >evolutionary theory:"
>>
>> >Happy?
>>
>> I'm not. "predictions derived from evolutionary theory" could
>> be referring to one of the stretched versions of what
>> a "prediction" is.

>It refers to predictions from the theory
>(IMHO, the appropriate sense here)
>but explicit in previous publications, so should
>satisfy even your layman's version of
>prediction.

Good. Please provide the references to the relevant publications.

>> Could you at least tell us all what the alleged predictions were,
>> and how the studies "supported" (how strongly?) them?

>"at least". "alleged". Quotes around "supported".
>I don't like your tone here, sir.

The track record of previous people in response to challenges
like these has been abysmal.

>Reznick:
>Prediction from evo-theory:

The following example sounds like plain old horse sense to me.
At any rate, it's not going to convince any creationist that
there has been a change in Biblical "kinds" of guppies.

animals in high-predation
>localities should "live faster" (reproduce younger,
>age faster) than conspecifics in low-predation localities.
>Results: "We have demonstrated the predicted differences
>in life history patterns with experiments and observations
>on guppies..." (p 256)

>Mueller:
>Pred: "that populations kept at extreme densities should evolve
>different competitive abilities for limited resources."

More plain old horse sense, etc.

>Results: "The differentiation of comptetitive abilities
>in these populations [...] is consistent with predictions..."

>Townsend et al:
>Pred: "Men's assessments of sexual attractiveness are
>determined more by objectively assessable physical
>attributes; women's ... by perceived ability and willingness
>to invest (...)."

Is this evolutionary theory, or just a male chauvinist's
take on what evolutionary theory should predict? A feminist
could conceivably do studies that show that what is relevant
is not the gender, but rather which gender wields the most
economic power. The feminist might split groups accordingly,
with the gigolos in the same group as the women "golddiggers",
and come up with even stronger correlations than the
"three independent studies" did.

>Result: "Results of three independent studies supported
>predictions derived from evolutionary theory:"

Whose evolutionary theory, and whose predictions, I have
to wonder.

>All three papers contain refs to previous theoretical
>work, containing the actual predictions.

>If you want more detail, go look up the papers!

Running away, eh? ;-)

Seriously, can't you at least post the references to the
papers where the PRIOR predictions were made? I'd much
prefer to see THOSE papers for a start.

>> >> > SJ When will you admit that evolutionary theory DOES make predictions,
>> >> > SJ and IS scientific?
>>
>> Putting on my layman's hat, I'd say theory does not make predictions.
>> People do.

>Putting on my scientists's hat, I'd say theory DOES make predictions.

Correction: you are putting on your philosopher of science hat.

>People do, too. But we're not interested in falsifying people,
>we're interested in falsifying theories. So theory predictions
>are the relevant ones.

Here's a real poser: what if someone else predicted a DIFFERENT
outcome to the sexual attractiveness studies than the sources
cited by the authors, and ALSO claimed to base his prediction
on evolutionary theory? Would that not indicate that the predictions
were not from the evolutionary theory held in common, but only
on someone's private interpretation of what that theory says?

[howard hershey]

Posted from another thread.

Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>
> Running away is a way of life in talk.origins, and the
> anti-creationists are almost as bad as the creationists.
> In fact, were the ratios of the two reversed, I do believe
> the anti-creationists would outdo the creationists on this
> score.

If the ratios were reversed, 8 out of 9 planets in this solar system
would have obvious signs of life. If the colors were reversed, black
would be white. If the facts were reversed, true would be false. Or am
I missing something?

>
> Then again, perhaps most anti-creationists now posting wouldn't
> even have the guts to show up, leaving the field for people
> like me and Andrew MacRae who can best the creationists
> with solid information.

Take that, Andrew. You are now back to back with the ever modest and
humble Peter, the two of you are virtually *alone* in fighting the good
fight, surrounded by the YEC hordes. Your backside is being protected
by the ever modest and humble Peter, the source of such 'solid
information' as bat's wings by sexual selection, heme as protein,
ectoderm as endoderm, and the one in a googol probability for life in
the universe. With such a source of 'solid information' protecting your
back, what chance does your average YEC pigmy have? Run, Andrew, Run!
Before its too late! And watch your backside even if the YEC pigmies go
away.

> In that case, I do believe the
> two of us would hang on just as tenaciously as I am against
> dishonest, vindictive anti-creationists. I've hung on like
> that in talk.origins, where I am NOT of the same opinion
> as the dominant clique on the substantive issue, whereas
> I am of the same opinion as the dominant clique on
> the substantive issue here.

You were of the 'same opinion' as the 'dominant clique' wrt the idea
that bat's wings *did* evolve. That didn't make the 'clique members'
think that your particular _ad hoc_ solution to that evolution had any
real merit, did it? Your ideas were criticized because they lacked any
hint of 'solid information' or 'supporting evidence' and ignored what
evidence did exist (that pointed in a different direction). The
'dishonest, vindictive anti-creationists' are against *ideas* you have
posted that are positively silly, like positing IC-less HYPEs, calling
the human amnion endoderm on the basis of some weird self-generated
definition of 'endoderm' that no one else uses, and statements that are
positive signs of ignorance in subjects you are claiming to be
knowledgeable about but show little understanding of, like asking why
heme was not sequenced. When these gaps in your knowledge are pointed
out, you respond with personal abuse and paranoid defensiveness.
Honest, Peter, no one expects a mathematician to be an expert in biology
and biochemistry. They do expect a mathematician to *recognize* that he
is no expert in biology and biochemistry.

>
> >If Ford had stayed around, possibly we would have discovered
> >differences in our prediction concepts. But he didn't.
>
> Tell me about it. Creationists run away from me all the
> time too, just as most anti-creationists do.
>

I think that has more to do with your charming net personality than your
ideas. Very few people on *either* side of the origins issue can
stomach your abusiveness for long. Perhaps they are smarter than I have
been? Or perhaps they simply have less practice with the arrogant,
humorless pomposity of some PhDs and fail to see the humor in it.
>
> [...]

[Wade Hines]

Peter Nyikos wrote:<<<snip>>>

> Then again, perhaps most anti-creationists now posting wouldn't
> even have the guts to show up, leaving the field for people
> like me and Andrew MacRae who can best the creationists
> with solid information.

Like heme sequences and prions and random condensation ofamino acids and trans-splicing RNA and E. Coli and embryological

neogisms and clumbsy bats with fetishes.

> In that case, I do believe the
> two of us would hang on just as tenaciously as I am against
> dishonest, vindictive anti-creationists.

I still defy you to justify this with respect to me. It's a label you've
placed against me and never supported. The words tenacious,
dishonest and vindictive fit somebody posting here.

> I've hung on like
> that in talk.origins, where I am NOT of the same opinion
> as the dominant clique on the substantive issue, whereas
> I am of the same opinion as the dominant clique on
> the substantive issue here.

all one could add to that is ...

[Doug Weller]

On 6 Feb 1998 09:33:54 -0500, in talk.origins, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[SNIP]

>I've hung on like
>that in talk.origins, where I am NOT of the same opinion
>as the dominant clique on the substantive issue, whereas
>I am of the same opinion as the dominant clique on
>the substantive issue here.

Er, the only newsgroup in this thread is talk.origins!

Doug

[Sverker Johansson]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> writes:
> >Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> First of all, Johansson claimed that Ford had said that
> >> evolutionary theory is unscientific because it makes no predictions,
> >> whereas all Ford did was to say that it is unscientific
> >> because it is not falsifiable.
>
> >No, that's not _all_ Ford said. You didn't follow my debate with
> >him last summer, did you?
>
> No, but then, it's pretty obvious from what you post below
> that you haven't followed all the previous times I have
> dealt with "predictions" on talk.origins.

I've seen your claims before. I've posted my disagreement with
them before. So?

> _Ford_ brought up predictions, _Ford_
> >ended up DEMANDING predictions, as you could see in the snippet below.
>
> >> This may well be a problem in semantics: maybe when Ford
> >> says "predictions" he means "before-the-fact published
> >> predictions". "before-the-fact" here refers to what laymen
> >> usually call predictions: a prediction that was made by
> >> a human being before the thing being predicted was discovered
> >> to be true (or not true).
>
> >Partly a semantic problem, but my main beef with Ford is his
> >running away, and not even responding to the prediction refs
> >I brought up.
>
> Running away is a way of life in talk.origins,

It is. Doesn't make it less objectionable, though.

> and the
> anti-creationists are almost as bad as the creationists.

NOT obvious.

[SNIP Peter's self-congratulations and slurs on the
character of other t.o. denizens]

> >> In this ng, on the other hand, people championing predictions
> >> generally stretch the term to include "things implicitly
> >> predicted by evolutionary theory, but which never entered
> >> the mind of anyone before they were discovered to be true"
>
> >Quite so. Not just in this ng, though. I regard this as the
> >normal way of using "prediction" in scientific contexts.
>
> I disagree. Take chemistry, where the most famous prediction
> was Mendeleev predicting the existence and even the properties
> of a then-unknown element (Germanium? it's been decades since
> I read about it) IN ADVANCE.

Quite so. Mendeleev predicted it FROM HIS THEORY. The prediction
was of scientific interest only because it came out of a theory.

Amend the definition above to "things implicitly
predicted by a theory, but which never NEED HAVE

entered the mind of anyone before they were discovered

to be true", and I'll stand by it firmly.

> Or take astronomy, where the most famous prediction was Adams
> and Leverrier predicting the position of Neptune with
> astonishing accuracy even before Neptune was discovered.

Likewise. It's nice that it _did_ enter someone's mind beforehand,
making the prediction more impressive, more "gut-feeling" convincing,
but it's not a logical requirement. The nice thing about Neptune
isn't that Leverrier guessed that it would be there, but that its
predicted position could be deduced from Newtonian gravity. That
the deduction was actually performed by Leverrier (among others) is
quite incidental. [I'll get back to this example below]

> >"Things implicitly predicted by the theory" is the relevant
> >sense in a hypothetical-deductive Popperian context.
>
> The theory commonly available to everyone, or somebody's
> own pet ideas on what the theory SHOULD predict?

The specific theory from which the predictions in question
can be deduced. Predictions from somebody's pet notions
can of course be used to test those pet notions only.

> >But in general, "prediction" in the philosophy of science

[snip]

> >is not identical with our everyday word "prediction";
> >cf the eternal discussions about "theory" in this ng.
>
> ...by rank amateurs when it comes to science, for the most
> part, from what I have seen.

A fact of life on newsgroups :>

And of course you, the professor of mathematics, is
an experienced professional, with abundant experience of
hands-on _empirical_ science.

[snip]

>>> Did you go through ANY of them--I mean, did you read the abstracts
>>> and see them claim the confirmation of some prediction?
>>Yes, I've read the articles - I _have_ copies of the articles.
>>Your point?
>Well done. Most people say at this point that they've just seen
>the abstracts.

[snip]

> >> I'm not. "predictions derived from evolutionary theory" could
> >> be referring to one of the stretched versions of what
> >> a "prediction" is.
>
> >It refers to predictions from the theory
> >(IMHO, the appropriate sense here)
> >but explicit in previous publications, so should
> >satisfy even your layman's version of
> >prediction.
>
> Good. Please provide the references to the relevant publications.

They're cited in the articles we're discussing.
See their reference lists!

You implicictly accused me before of peddling articles
I hadn't read. Of course YOU wouldn't discuss and question
an article you hadn't read more than the abstract of, so
of course YOU have obtained and read
the articles we're discussing, so it's no trouble
for you to look up references in them.

> >> Could you at least tell us all what the alleged predictions were,
> >> and how the studies "supported" (how strongly?) them?
>
> >"at least". "alleged". Quotes around "supported".
> >I don't like your tone here, sir.
>
> The track record of previous people in response to challenges
> like these has been abysmal.

Am I one of those "previous people"? If so, substantiate!
If not, don't draw conclusions from them to me.

> >Reznick:
> >Prediction from evo-theory:
>
> The following example sounds like plain old horse sense to me.

So you have an intuitive feel for evolution? Fine. Be happy.

> At any rate, it's not going to convince any creationist that
> there has been a change in Biblical "kinds" of guppies.

Nothing short of divine intervention will achieve that :<

[snip]

> >Townsend et al:
> >Pred: "Men's assessments of sexual attractiveness are
> >determined more by objectively assessable physical
> >attributes; women's ... by perceived ability and willingness
> >to invest (...)."
>
> Is this evolutionary theory, or just a male chauvinist's
> take on what evolutionary theory should predict?

Let's state it like this: "IF there are gender diffs in such
assessments that have evolved through natural selection, then,
within the social contexts commonly found in human populations,
the differences should be that: Men's assessments... etc."

That's a bona fide prediction. Of course, the assumptions under
the IF above are quite controversial.

> >All three papers contain refs to previous theoretical
> >work, containing the actual predictions.
>
> >If you want more detail, go look up the papers!
>
> Running away, eh? ;-)

No, but telling you to do you own homework.
I'm not going to type in the whole papers,
just to save you a trip to the library.

> Seriously, can't you at least post the references to the
> papers where the PRIOR predictions were made? I'd much
> prefer to see THOSE papers for a start.

If you're seriously interested in discussing the results
of Mueller and the others, then you'll need _those_
papers, and have to look them up anyway. If you're _not_
seriously interested, why should I waste my time?

There's a whole bunch of theory refs in each of these.
I suppose I can type in _one_ of them, to get you started,
and show some good will, but not all.

Here's a seminal book behind the stuff that Mueller tests:
MacArthur & Wilson (1967) The theory of Island Biogeography
Princeton Univ Press. (Ref 1 in Mueller)

> >Putting on my scientists's hat, I'd say theory DOES make predictions.
>
> Correction: you are putting on your philosopher of science hat.

I'm a scientist, not a philosopher. Among physicists, the
verb "predicts" is commonly used with a theory as grammatical
subject.

> >People do, too. But we're not interested in falsifying people,
> >we're interested in falsifying theories. So theory predictions
> >are the relevant ones.
>
> Here's a real poser: what if someone else predicted a DIFFERENT
> outcome to the sexual attractiveness studies than the sources
> cited by the authors, and ALSO claimed to base his prediction
> on evolutionary theory? Would that not indicate that the predictions
> were not from the evolutionary theory held in common, but only
> on someone's private interpretation of what that theory says?

This happens occasionally in science. What's the big deal?

Either
a) one of them is plain wrong, made a mistake in his
deductions, which can be checked.
Or
b) one or both are making additional assumptions
(like the ones I gave for Townsend above), outside
the main theory. A test may then
falsify the side assumptions of one or both, rather than
the main theory.

To get back to your Neptune example: there were two
predictions from gravitational theory floating around:
1) the "pure" Newtonian one, assuming no additional planets
outside Uranus.
2) the "Neptunian" one, assuming one unknown planet.
Both came from Newtonian theory, but with different side
assumptions. One side assumption turned out to be wrong.
Interesting, but nothing of a "real poser".

(Compare this with the search for Vulcanus, with a
different outcome.)

[Peter Nyikos]

dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) writes:

>On 6 Feb 1998 09:33:54 -0500, in talk.origins, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>[SNIP]

>>I've hung on like

>>that in talk.origins, where I am NOT of the same opinion
>>as the dominant clique on the substantive issue, whereas
>>I am of the same opinion as the dominant clique on
>>the substantive issue here.

>Er, the only newsgroup in this thread is talk.origins!

OUCH!! I meant to write "talk.abortion" up there. Thanks
for catching this, Doug.

[david ford]

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 9 Feb 1998
in "Re: Enormous Gaps Yawn Through David's
understanding of Carl Sagan":
david ford:
Sverker Johansson on 5 Feb 1998:
david ford:

[snip]
df> I don't see any predictions of the theory of
df> evolution in it, "theory of evolution" being defined as "the
df> claim that all manner of lifeforms arose via non-intelligence-
df> directed processes from an unspecified from number of primordial
df> populations that came into existence through spontaneous
df> generation."

SJ> This is your private definition.

df This is the definition I use in saying "the theory of evolution
df is unfalsifiable."

SJ If you enjoy playing games, sure, you can redefine the word
SJ "evolution" so that it refers to something unfalsifiable.

The matter under discussion is not the definition of the word "evolution,"
but instead the definition of the phrase "the theory of evolution."

SJ Then you can claim that evolution _sensu_David_ is
SJ unfalsifiable, and your claim is trivially true.
SJ
SJ But it's not a very interesting game, and doesn't say
SJ anything about the real world.

df If you don't like the definition, explain
df what's wrong with it, propose an alternative, and relate why your
df alternative is better.

SJ I went over this in detail last summer, and won't repeat it here.

I don't recall your discussion of the definition of "the theory of
evolution." Please refresh my memory of how you defined the phrase.

SJ In brief: my alternative
SJ is better because it better corresponds to the way the word
SJ "evolution" is actually used in the biological literature.

A definition used by biologists is not necessarily the one most suitable
for a creation vs. evolutionism discussion.

SJ If you want the discussion to actually have any bearing on
SJ reality, rather than being your private way of jerking off,
SJ it would be more fruitful to adhere to the actual usage
SJ of key words.

I submit that my understanding of "the theory of evolution" is in keeping
with the actual usage of the phrase in creation vs. evolutionism debates.

SJ> We've been through this before.

[snip]

SJ> Even so, I _do_ see a chain of predictions linking what
SJ> _you_ call "evolution" to the predictions in Mueller.
SJ> The statement
SJ> "all manner of lifeforms arose via non-intelligence-
SJ> directed processes from..." implicitly predicts that
SJ> at least one such process exists, and is functional.

df Not so: the process could have operated in the past but not be
df currently operating/ functional/ existing.

SJ Technically true,

I'm glad to hear you concede the criticism's validity.

SJ but nit-picking.

Call it what you will, but careful defining is very important if arguing
is to get anywhere. Much time is often wasted in discussions because of
differing conceptions of important terms, with the unexplicated
differences leading to misunderstanding and confusion.

SJ An ad-hoc attempt
SJ to protect evolution sensu David from falsifiability.

SJ> "Evolution" in a more normal sense is such a process.
SJ> Thus evolution _sensu_David_ predicts that evolution
SJ> _sensu_everybody_else_ (or something very much like it)
SJ> is up and running.
SJ> The various theories mentioned below are sub-theories within
SJ> evolutionary theory.

df "Evolutionary theory" sounds like a very broad heading

SJ It is a very broad heading. Common enough in science.
SJ E.g. "quantum theory" is just as broad, with many
SJ subtheories.

[snip]
You have here the beginning of an argument by analogy, but it needs some
development.

df which
df would even include the latest just-so stories for why ape-men
df started walking upright.

SJ Only if they had a solid theoretical basis, which is not
SJ always the case.

Try "which is never the case."

df Define your use of "evolutionary
df theory";

SJ Broad important concepts like this aren't amenable to
SJ one-line definitions.

Then use as many lines as you think are necessary.

SJ The world isn't that neat.
SJ The way I use "evolutionary theory" corresponds to my
SJ best understanding of actual usage in the scientific
SJ literature, among biologists.
SJ
SJ Are there any biologists following this thread, who wish
SJ to comment?

df also, do you equate "evolutionary theory" with "the
df theory of evolution"?

SJ Certainly not with _your_ definition of "theory of
SJ evolution" :>. Seriously: not quite; I regard
SJ "evolutionary theory" as a somewhat broader concept,
SJ and more clearly expressing the non-monolithic
SJ character of evolution.

SJ> Which you would have known if you
SJ> had actually studied the theory in any depth.

Since you have studied the theory in depth, you should have no problem
presenting a decent definition of "the theory of evolution."

df> For example, in the abstract there is "predictions from the
df> theory of evolutionary ecology" and "the theory of
df> density-dependent natural selection," and in the "Discussion,"
df> "the theory of _r_ and _K_ selection."[_Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
df> USA_ 85:4383, 4386 (1988).] If you find any predictions of
df> the theory of evolution in Mueller, say so.

SJ> I do. I stated them in my response to Peter Nyikos from which
SJ> you copied a phrase above.

SJ ...which you reproduce below, without comment.

[snip]

I'll comment now. There's little sense in introducing more articles
allegedly containing predictions of "the theory of evolution" when we
haven't even hammered out a definition of "the theory of evolution" and
used that definition to grapple with the first article.

[Sverker Johansson]

david ford wrote:
> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 9 Feb 1998

> david ford:
> Sverker Johansson on 5 Feb 1998:
> david ford:

[snip definition stuff]

> SJ I went over this in detail last summer, and won't repeat it here.
>
> I don't recall your discussion of the definition of "the theory of
> evolution." Please refresh my memory of how you defined the phrase.

We discussed it in lots of posts. Go check DejaNews!
In one post, reproduced below, I tried to define it:

---------- re-post start ------------------------------------
In the various discussions here on t.o., notably in the one

I'm having with David Ford, the word "Evolution" is used

with many different meanings. This confusion sometimes

leads to arguing at cross-purposes, and a general failure

to communicate. In this post, I shall to attempt

to disentangle the various meanings of the word.

The FAQ does cover much of this issue, notably in

Larry Moran's nice essay "What is Evolution?",

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

but I nevertheless wish to add my 2 cents here.

First some definitions:

1) Theory of Evolution, _sensu_stricto_ (TESS) corresponds

to Larry Moran's definition, briefly put as :

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a

population spread over many generations."

This follows from the following premises:

a) All organisms carry instructions for their own reproduction.

b) Their progeny receives copies of these instructions.

c) These copies are occasionally not exact.

d) Not all organisms produce the same number of progeny.

Conclusion: the set of instructions in a population will change with

time.

[this could be made more stringent, but the essence is there]

2) Natural Selection (NS):

TESS, plus the proposition that:

The differential reproductive success that premise 1d) above refers to,

is at least partly due to some instruction sets having properties that

affect the likelihood of their actually being copied into the next

generation. Instruction sets that _increase_ their own chances of

being copied, (or rather,

increase the likely number of copies surviving), will tend to increase

in frequency over time. (random fluctuations not excluded)

3) Common descent (CD):

All organisms today are descended from a small number of common

ancestors

in the distant past. (process unspecified!)

4) Common descent through evolution by natural selection (CDNS):

NS is the process behind CD.

-------------

These four different theories are commonly called evolution.

This may be unfortunate, but we need to be aware of it.

When a creationist comes here and shouts "I don't believe

in evolution", it is not terribly fruitful to tell him

that the stuff he doesn't believe in isn't properly called

evolution, but something else. It's even less fruitful

to tell him "Oh yeah? But TESS is a fact!", when it isn't TESS

what he objects to. What he does object to, often enough, is

what he erroneously _believes_ that evolution says:

5) Life got here without the benefit of a creator (what David

Ford likes to call "Blind Watchmaker Thesis", thus I'll use

the acronym BW).

BW isn't really science, except insofar as science necessarily

adopts methodological naturalism - to be carefully distinguished

from the ontological naturalism implied in BW.

Reformulating it in a slightly more palatable form:

5') Naturalistic processes _can_ account for the present

diversity of life.

This still doesn't say anything about evolution. Nor does it

_exclude_ divine activity. Border-line case as science;

it _might_ conceivably be falsified by Behe's approach

(showing that it's logically impossible) even though Behe

comes nowhere close.

Next step would be CDNS, one _specific_ naturalistic process

that can account for the present diversity of life.

This one is perfectly good falsifiable science. I have given

David Ford numerous examples of how it could be falsified,

as have others here. But he's still not happy, since

_he_ thinks we're arguing about BW. And there he has a point;

BW isn't scientific.

If CDNS is falsified the possibility would still

be open that some _other_ naturalistic process is responsible.

In any case, that is where science would have to look,

instead of just giving up and saying "We can't explain this,

so God must have done it."

---------- re-post end ------------------------------------

> SJ In brief: my alternative
> SJ is better because it better corresponds to the way the word
> SJ "evolution" is actually used in the biological literature.
>
> A definition used by biologists is not necessarily the one most suitable
> for a creation vs. evolutionism discussion.

Lots of creationists misuse the word "evolution" in ways
similar to yours. So?

When you ask for citations from the biological literature,
those cites will use the biologists' definition, not
your definition. Then you complain that the aren't using
your definition. Again you are playing games.

> SJ If you want the discussion to actually have any bearing on
> SJ reality, rather than being your private way of jerking off,
> SJ it would be more fruitful to adhere to the actual usage
> SJ of key words.
>
> I submit that my understanding of "the theory of evolution" is in keeping
> with the actual usage of the phrase in creation vs. evolutionism debates.

The actual usage _by_creationists_.

[snip]

> Call it what you will, but careful defining is very important if arguing
> is to get anywhere. Much time is often wasted in discussions because of
> differing conceptions of important terms, with the unexplicated
> differences leading to misunderstanding and confusion.

Yes, that's what happens when you jump into a debate
about science with private definitions contrary to
well-established usage of key words.

[snip]

> SJ It is a very broad heading. Common enough in science.
> SJ E.g. "quantum theory" is just as broad, with many
> SJ subtheories.
>
> [snip]
> You have here the beginning of an argument by analogy, but it needs some
> development.

Left as an exercise for the reader :>

[snip]

> df Define your use of "evolutionary
> df theory";
>
> SJ Broad important concepts like this aren't amenable to
> SJ one-line definitions.
>
> Then use as many lines as you think are necessary.

I gave it a shot above, but I repeat:

Broad important concepts like this aren't amenable to

one-line definitions... or even 1000-line definitions.
Formal definitions isn't the way to go; you have to absorb
and internalize actual usage of the word among those who
work with the theory.

[snip]

> SJ> Which you would have known if you
> SJ> had actually studied the theory in any depth.
>
> Since you have studied the theory in depth, you should have no problem
> presenting a decent definition of "the theory of evolution."

See above.

Nice BTW that you recognize that I _have_ studied it in depth
(and implicitly admit that you haven't.)

[snip]

> I'll comment now. There's little sense in introducing more articles
> allegedly containing predictions of "the theory of evolution" when we
> haven't even hammered out a definition of "the theory of evolution" and
> used that definition to grapple with the first article.

When analyzing examples from the biological literature, we had better
adhere to the meaning of words as used in the biological literature.
Otherwise it's pointless to ask for citations. Or was your asking
disingenious in the first place?

[howard hershey]

david ford wrote:
>

>
> [snip]

[re: definition of 'evolution, biological theory of']

>
> A definition used by biologists is not necessarily the one most suitable
> for a creation vs. evolutionism discussion.
>

[snip]

I think that says all one needs to say.

[david ford]

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 10 Feb 1998 in
"Re: Enormous Gaps Claims make me Yawn":
david ford:

df I don't recall your discussion of the definition of "the
df theory of evolution." Please refresh my memory of how you
df defined the phrase.

SJ We discussed it in lots of posts. Go check DejaNews!
SJ In one post, reproduced below, I tried to define it:
SJ
SJ ---------- re-post start ------------------------------------
SJ In the various discussions here on t.o., notably in the one I'm
SJ having with David Ford, the word "Evolution" is used with many
SJ different meanings. This confusion sometimes leads to arguing
SJ at cross-purposes, and a general failure to communicate. In
SJ this post, I shall to attempt to disentangle the various
SJ meanings of the word.
SJ
SJ The FAQ does cover much of this issue, notably in Larry Moran's
SJ nice essay "What is Evolution?",
SJ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html but I
SJ nevertheless wish to add my 2 cents here.
SJ
SJ First some definitions:
SJ
SJ 1) Theory of Evolution, _sensu_stricto_ (TESS) corresponds to
SJ Larry Moran's definition, briefly put as : "Evolution is a
SJ process that results in heritable changes in a population
SJ spread over many generations."
SJ
SJ This follows from the following premises: a) All organisms carry
SJ instructions for their own reproduction. b) Their progeny
SJ receives copies of these instructions. c) These copies are
SJ occasionally not exact. d) Not all organisms produce the same
SJ number of progeny. Conclusion: the set of instructions in a
SJ population will change with time. [this could be made more
SJ stringent, but the essence is there] 2) Natural Selection (NS):
SJ
SJ TESS, plus the proposition that:
SJ
SJ The differential reproductive success that premise 1d) above
SJ refers to, is at least partly due to some instruction sets
SJ having properties that affect the likelihood of their
SJ actually being copied into the next generation. Instruction
SJ sets that _increase_ their own chances of being copied, (or
SJ rather, increase the likely number of copies surviving), will
SJ tend to increase in frequency over time. (random fluctuations
SJ not excluded)
SJ
SJ 3) Common descent (CD):
SJ
SJ All organisms today are descended from a small number of common
SJ ancestors in the distant past. (process unspecified!)
SJ
SJ 4) Common descent through evolution by natural selection (CDNS):
SJ
SJ NS is the process behind CD.
SJ
SJ -------------
SJ
SJ These four different theories are commonly called evolution.
SJ This may be unfortunate, but we need to be aware of it.
SJ
SJ When a creationist comes here and shouts "I don't believe in
SJ evolution", it is not terribly fruitful to tell him that the
SJ stuff he doesn't believe in isn't properly called evolution, but
SJ something else. It's even less fruitful to tell him "Oh yeah?
SJ But TESS is a fact!", when it isn't TESS what he objects to.
SJ What he does object to, often enough, is what he erroneously
SJ_believes_ that evolution says:
SJ
SJ 5) Life got here without the benefit of a creator (what David
SJ Ford likes to call "Blind Watchmaker Thesis", thus I'll use the
SJ acronym BW).
SJ
SJ BW isn't really science, except insofar as science necessarily
SJ adopts methodological naturalism - to be carefully distinguished
SJ from the ontological naturalism implied in BW.
SJ
SJ Reformulating it in a slightly more palatable form:
SJ
SJ 5') Naturalistic processes _can_ account for the present
SJ diversity of life.
SJ
SJ This still doesn't say anything about evolution. Nor does it
SJ _exclude_ divine activity. Border-line case as science; it
SJ _might_ conceivably be falsified by Behe's approach (showing that
SJ it's logically impossible) even though Behe comes nowhere close.
SJ
SJ Next step would be CDNS, one _specific_ naturalistic process that
SJ can account for the present diversity of life. This one is
SJ perfectly good falsifiable science. I have given David Ford
SJ numerous examples of how it could be falsified, as have others
SJ here. But he's still not happy, since _he_ thinks we're arguing
SJ about BW. And there he has a point; BW isn't scientific.
SJ
SJ If CDNS is falsified the possibility would still be open that
SJ some _other_ naturalistic process is responsible. In any case,
SJ that is where science would have to look, instead of just giving
SJ up and saying "We can't explain this, so God must have done it."
SJ ---------- re-post end ------------------------------------

df A definition used by biologists is not necessarily the one
df most suitable for a creation vs. evolutionism discussion.

SJ Lots of creationists misuse the word "evolution" in ways
SJ similar to yours. So?
SJ
SJ When you ask for citations from the biological literature,
SJ those cites will use the biologists' definition, not
SJ your definition. Then you complain that the aren't using
SJ your definition. Again you are playing games.

[snip]

df Call it what you will, but careful defining is very important
df if arguing is to get anywhere. Much time is often wasted in
df discussions because of differing conceptions of important
df terms, with the unexplicated differences leading to
df misunderstanding and confusion.

SJ Yes, that's what happens when you jump into a debate
SJ about science with private definitions contrary to
SJ well-established usage of key words.

[snip]

df Then use as many lines as you think are necessary.

SJ I gave it a shot above, but I repeat:

SJ Broad important concepts like this aren't amenable to

SJ one-line definitions... or even 1000-line definitions.
SJ Formal definitions isn't the way to go; you have to absorb
SJ and internalize actual usage of the word among those who
SJ work with the theory.

[snip]

df I'll comment now. There's little sense in introducing more
df articles allegedly containing predictions of "the theory of
df evolution" when we haven't even hammered out a definition of
df "the theory of evolution" and used that definition to grapple
df with the first article.

SJ When analyzing examples from the biological literature, we
SJ had better adhere to the meaning of words as used in the
SJ biological literature. Otherwise it's pointless to ask for
SJ citations.

[snip]

For discussing the correctness of my contention that "the theory of
evolution is unfalsifiable," what do you say to defining "the theory of
evolution" using your third definition: [SJ]"3) Common descent (CD): All

organisms today are descended from a small number of common ancestors in

the distant past. (process unspecified!)"? From the above selection of
definitions, this one is closest in meaning to what I intend in saying
"the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable."

BTW, I consider the idea of natural selection-- one mechanism proposed to
be behind descent from an unspecified number of common ancestors-- capable
of making predictions and of being falsified. (It has, moreover, _been_
falsified.)

[Sverker Johansson]

david ford wrote:
>
> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 10 Feb 1998 in
> "Re: Enormous Gaps Claims make me Yawn":
> david ford:

[bulk of definition stuff snipped, without further marking, ]
[leaving some key parts]

> SJ 1) Theory of Evolution, _sensu_stricto_ (TESS) corresponds to
> SJ Larry Moran's definition, briefly put as : "Evolution is a
> SJ process that results in heritable changes in a population
> SJ spread over many generations."
> SJ
> SJ This follows from the following premises: a) All organisms carry
> SJ instructions for their own reproduction. b) Their progeny
> SJ receives copies of these instructions. c) These copies are
> SJ occasionally not exact. d) Not all organisms produce the same
> SJ number of progeny. Conclusion: the set of instructions in a
> SJ population will change with time. [this could be made more
> SJ stringent, but the essence is there]

> SJ 2) Natural Selection (NS):

> SJ TESS, plus the proposition that:
> SJ
> SJ The differential reproductive success that premise 1d) above
> SJ refers to, is at least partly due to some instruction sets
> SJ having properties that affect the likelihood of their
> SJ actually being copied into the next generation.

> SJ
> SJ 3) Common descent (CD):
> SJ
> SJ All organisms today are descended from a small number of common
> SJ ancestors in the distant past. (process unspecified!)

> SJ 5) Life got here without the benefit of a creator (what David

> SJ Ford likes to call "Blind Watchmaker Thesis", thus I'll use the
> SJ acronym BW).
> SJ
> SJ BW isn't really science, except insofar as science necessarily
> SJ adopts methodological naturalism - to be carefully distinguished
> SJ from the ontological naturalism implied in BW.

> For discussing the correctness of my contention that "the theory of
> evolution is unfalsifiable," what do you say to defining "the theory of
> evolution" using your third definition: [SJ]"3) Common descent (CD): All
> organisms today are descended from a small number of common ancestors in
> the distant past. (process unspecified!)"? From the above selection of
> definitions, this one is closest in meaning to what I intend in saying
> "the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable."

If that's what you intend to say, then it would be clearer if you
changed your contention to "CD is unfalsifiable".

CD, however, as I define it, is quite distinct from the
definition you gave in your previous post:
df> "the

df> claim that all manner of lifeforms arose via non-intelligence-
df> directed processes from an unspecified from number of primordial
df> populations that came into existence through spontaneous
df> generation."

Have you now restricted your contention to just CD?
The above definition is much closer to my BW.

(Note that my definition of CD, which you say you accept,
does not contain anything about "spontaneous generation", nor
does it specify "non-intelligence-directed processes".)

But OK, if you wish to debate the contention that
"CD _sensu_Sverker_ is unfalsifiable", fine.

> BTW, I consider the idea of natural selection-- one mechanism proposed to
> be behind descent from an unspecified number of common ancestors-- capable
> of making predictions and of being falsified.

Nice that we agree on _some_thing. :>

>(It has, moreover, _been_ falsified.)

Could you please elaborate on the alleged falsification
of NS, with refs to the peer-reviewed literature.

Also, since you like definitions:
Which of the premises I gave above in my definition of NS
is incorrect (apart from not being stringently phrased
in all cases, so never mind your usual nit-picking) ?

[Sverker Johansson]

david ford wrote:
>
> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 10 Feb 1998 in
> "Re: Enormous Gaps Claims make me Yawn":
> david ford:

David: I tried to mail you a copy, but the server told
me "relaying mail to gl.umbc.edu is not allowed".
Do you have any clue why?

[bulk of definition stuff snipped, without further marking, ]
[leaving some key parts]

> SJ 1) Theory of Evolution, _sensu_stricto_ (TESS) corresponds to

> SJ Larry Moran's definition, briefly put as : "Evolution is a
> SJ process that results in heritable changes in a population
> SJ spread over many generations."
> SJ
> SJ This follows from the following premises: a) All organisms carry
> SJ instructions for their own reproduction. b) Their progeny
> SJ receives copies of these instructions. c) These copies are
> SJ occasionally not exact. d) Not all organisms produce the same
> SJ number of progeny. Conclusion: the set of instructions in a
> SJ population will change with time. [this could be made more
> SJ stringent, but the essence is there]

> SJ 2) Natural Selection (NS):

> SJ TESS, plus the proposition that:
> SJ
> SJ The differential reproductive success that premise 1d) above
> SJ refers to, is at least partly due to some instruction sets
> SJ having properties that affect the likelihood of their
> SJ actually being copied into the next generation.

> SJ
> SJ 3) Common descent (CD):
> SJ
> SJ All organisms today are descended from a small number of common
> SJ ancestors in the distant past. (process unspecified!)

> SJ 5) Life got here without the benefit of a creator (what David

> SJ Ford likes to call "Blind Watchmaker Thesis", thus I'll use the
> SJ acronym BW).
> SJ
> SJ BW isn't really science, except insofar as science necessarily
> SJ adopts methodological naturalism - to be carefully distinguished
> SJ from the ontological naturalism implied in BW.

> For discussing the correctness of my contention that "the theory of
> evolution is unfalsifiable," what do you say to defining "the theory of
> evolution" using your third definition: [SJ]"3) Common descent (CD): All
> organisms today are descended from a small number of common ancestors in
> the distant past. (process unspecified!)"? From the above selection of
> definitions, this one is closest in meaning to what I intend in saying
> "the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable."

If that's what you intend to say, then it would be clearer if you

changed your contention to "CD is unfalsifiable".

CD, however, as I define it, is quite distinct from the
definition you gave in your previous post:

df> "the

df> claim that all manner of lifeforms arose via non-intelligence-
df> directed processes from an unspecified from number of primordial
df> populations that came into existence through spontaneous
df> generation."

Have you now restricted your contention to just CD?

The above definition is much closer to my BW.

(Note that my definition of CD, which you say you accept,
does not contain anything about "spontaneous generation", nor
does it specify "non-intelligence-directed processes".)

But OK, if you wish to debate the contention that
"CD _sensu_Sverker_ is unfalsifiable", fine.

> BTW, I consider the idea of natural selection-- one mechanism proposed to

> be behind descent from an unspecified number of common ancestors-- capable
> of making predictions and of being falsified.

Nice that we agree on _some_thing. :>

>(It has, moreover, _been_ falsified.)

Could you please elaborate on the alleged falsification

[david ford]

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 9 Feb 1998
in "Re: Enormous Gaps Yawn Through David's
Understanding of Carl Sagan":
david ford:
Sverker Johansson in "Re: Enormous Gaps Yawn Through David's
presence in this ng" on 7 Feb 1998:

>SJ David started with an intentionally offensive title.

df [Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, _Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors_
df (1992), 132.]"Enormous gaps yawn through the fossil record,
df although less so now than in Darwin's time. (If there were
df more paleontologists in the world, we'd doubtless be a little
df further along.) From the comparatively low rate of discovery
df of new fossils, we know that huge numbers of ancient organisms
df have not been preserved."

SJ Sagan's full text about the fossil record isn't offensive.

Yes, the [Sagan]"doubtless [we'd] be a little further along" if
only there existed [Sagan]"more paleontologists" should reassure
at least some evolutionism believers. Sagan's last sentence,
From the comparatively low rate of discovery of new fossils,
we know that huge numbers of ancient organisms have not been
preserved,

reminds me of another evolutionist's comment. Writes Francis
Hitching, "Clearly, Earth has seen a lot of life forms we don't
know about, and some of them may have been transitional." He
continues,
But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about
the fossil gaps: _the fossils go missing in all the
important places_. When you look for links between major
groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not
in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either
they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless
argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or
isn't, or might be, transitional between this group and
that. Yet there are lengthy periods of history when there
is every reason to expect plenty of intermediates.[Francis
Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe_ (1982), 9-10.]

Neither Sagan nor Hitching have discarded their adherence to
evolutionism in the face of the [Sagan]"enormous gaps [that] yawn
through the fossil record." It sounds like you aren't about to
either.

For some outlandish beliefs Hitching holds besides evolutionism,
see the talk.origins FAQ about him.

SJ Your mining a quote and using it to imply, contrary to
SJ Sagan's explicitly stated position, that there's
SJ a problem with evolution is highly offensive.

So the following is [SJ]"highly offensive"; interesting.
[df]"The existence of enormous gaps that yawn through the fossil
record does not make sense except in the dazzling light of
evolution."

SJ In your
SJ first post in this thread, you didn't even mark it
SJ as a quote.

'Twas a tad tawdry, I'll agree. You swallowed the bait hook,
line, and sinker, and called [df]"Enormous Gaps Yawn Through the
Fossil Record" [SJ]"an intentionally offensive title."

SJ But we've discussed quoting ethics before...
SJ You didn't get it then, you likely won't get it now.
SJ
SJ [snip more intentionally offensive text]

----begin reinsertion of [SJ]"intentionally offensive text"----
df Yes, I suppose for a fervent evolutionism believer, the
df statement "enormous gaps yawn through the fossil record" would
df be, as you put it, "offensive." Don't let this offensive
df remark knock your faith.
------------end reinsertion-------------

Hope you're ready for another "offensive" remark. Regarding
Darwin's proposal that "natural selection" is the mechanism
responsible for the appearance of life's diversity, that proposal
has enjoyed the status of revealed truth for most of the educated
public, but there are cracks in the facade.

If that didn't raise your hackles, this one should. The idea of
descent from an unspecified number of common ancestors is
universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically
coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative,
special creation, is too incredible for many.

>SJ I made a minor
>SJ change, intentionally offensive to the other side.

I then changed [SJ]"Enormous Gaps Yawn Through the Creationist
Understanding of the Fossil Record" into "Enormous Gaps Yawn
Through the Creationist and Carl Sagan's Understanding of the
Fossil Record," and subsequently changed that into "Enormous Gaps
Yawn Through Carl Sagan's Understanding of the Fossil Record."

>SJ David
>SJ made another change... etc. A side game between David and
>SJ me.

[david ford]

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 11 Feb 1998:
david ford:

df For discussing the correctness of my contention that "the theory
df of evolution is unfalsifiable," what do you say to defining "the
df theory of evolution" using your third definition: [SJ]"3) Common
df descent (CD): All organisms today are descended from a small
df number of common ancestors in the distant past. (process
df unspecified!)"? From the above selection of definitions, this
df one is closest in meaning to what I intend in saying "the theory
df of evolution is unfalsifiable."

SJ If that's what you intend to say, then it would be clearer if
SJ you changed your contention to "CD is unfalsifiable". CD,
SJ however, as I define it, is quite distinct from the
SJ definition you gave in your previous post:

df> "the

df> claim that all manner of lifeforms arose via non-intelligence-

df> directed processes from an unspecified number of primordial

df> populations that came into existence through spontaneous
df> generation."

Your definition of CD: [SJ]"All organisms today are descended
from a small number of common ancestors in the distant past.
(process unspecified!)" Side-by-side comparison:

[df]"all manner of lifeforms arose" vs [SJ]"all organisms today
are" Looks the same to me.

[df]"arose... from an unspecified number of primordial
populations" vs. [SJ]"from a small number of common ancestors in
the distant past" Looks the same to me.

[df]"from... primordial populations that came into existence
through spontaneous generation" vs. nothing. I'll give on this
one and change it to "from... primordial populations that came
into existence through unspecified means," with possibilities
including spontaneous generation, God (as Darwin wrote in
_Origin_), and highly advanced extraterrestrial biologists.

[df]"arose via non-intelligence-directed processes" vs.
[SJ]"process unspecified!" Explication of [SJ]"process
unspecified": the process could be described as Neo-Darwinian or
Lamarckian or Goldschmidtian or as some other mechanism or as
some mechanism yet to be discovered. Question: Are any of these
mechanisms directed by an intelligent entity in any way? Answer:
No: Neo-Darwinian, Lamarckian, Goldschmidtian, etc. mechanisms
are not directed by intelligence. Just as a leaf's fall from a
tree is not directed by an intelligence, similarly is the

process(es) that resulted in "all organisms today" not directed
by an intelligence. Observes Richard Dawkins in _The Blind
Watchmaker_ (1987), 249, "the whole _point_ of the theory of
evolution by natural selection [is] that it provide[s] a _non_-
miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations." In
short, my [df]"arose via non-intelligence-directed processes" and
your [SJ]"process unspecified!" are equivalent.

SJ Have you now restricted your contention to just CD?
SJ The above definition is much closer to my BW.
SJ
SJ (Note that my definition of CD, which you say you accept,
SJ does not contain anything about "spontaneous generation", nor
SJ does it specify "non-intelligence-directed processes".)
SJ
SJ But OK, if you wish to debate the contention that
SJ "CD _sensu_Sverker_ is unfalsifiable", fine.

df BTW, I consider the idea of natural selection-- one mechanism
df proposed to be behind descent from an unspecified number of
df common ancestors-- capable of making predictions and of being
df falsified.

SJ Nice that we agree on _some_thing. :>

df (It has, moreover, _been_ falsified.)

SJ Could you please elaborate on the alleged falsification
SJ of NS, with refs to the peer-reviewed literature.

Before discussing whether it's been falsified or not, I propose
we discuss its predictions, and before that, discuss common
descent's falsifiable-or-not status.

SJ Also, since you like definitions:
SJ Which of the premises I gave above in my definition of NS
SJ is incorrect (apart from not being stringently phrased
SJ in all cases, so never mind your usual nit-picking) ?

Those premisses are [SJ]"a) All organisms carry instructions for
their own reproduction. b) Their progeny receives copies of these
instructions. c) These copies are occasionally not exact. d) Not
all organisms produce the same number of progeny," and [SJ]"The
differential reproductive success that premise 1d) above refers
to, is at least partly due to some instruction sets having
properties that affect the likelihood of their actually being

copied into the next generation."

In looking over your premises, I'm reminded of the peppered moth/
industrial melanism case, and have no problem with any of your
premises. Your concept of NS needs to be more in line with say
Dawkins's depiction of NS if you and I are to start disagreeing
about its powers.

[Richard Keatinge]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.98021...@umbc10.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes

>Neither Sagan nor Hitching have discarded their adherence to
>evolutionism

Sagan has discarded all mental adherences, AFAIK. A pity for a number
of excellent reasons.

Would you care to demonstrate that Hitching ever adhered to
"evolutionism" (whatever you or indeed Hitching ever thought that was)
and that he now still holds that adherence? Preferably demonstrating
some good reason he had for doing so?

If you can't do all of those things, as I strongly suspect, then any
quotes from Hitching are merely rehashing the maunderings of a
documented loony. Regardless of who he may happen to agree with at the
current point in his mental cycle.

>in the face of the [Sagan]"enormous gaps [that] yawn
>through the fossil record." It sounds like you aren't about to
>either.
>
>For some outlandish beliefs Hitching holds besides evolutionism,
>see the talk.origins FAQ about him.

Now there's a more constructive idea. If david comes up with some
slightly coherent ideas and a bit of original verbiage, we could have a
FAQ on him as well. However, I doubt that it will be required.

--
Richard Keatinge

The talk.origins FAQs are at http://www.talkorigins.org

[Peter Nyikos]

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> writes:

>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> writes:
>> >Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> First of all, Johansson claimed that Ford had said that
>> >> evolutionary theory is unscientific because it makes no predictions,
>> >> whereas all Ford did was to say that it is unscientific
>> >> because it is not falsifiable.
>>
>> >No, that's not _all_ Ford said. You didn't follow my debate with
>> >him last summer, did you?
>>
>> No, but then, it's pretty obvious from what you post below
>> that you haven't followed all the previous times I have
>> dealt with "predictions" on talk.origins.

>I've seen your claims before. I've posted my disagreement with
>them before. So?

Mere disagreement counts for nothing.

>> _Ford_ brought up predictions, _Ford_
>> >ended up DEMANDING predictions, as you could see in the snippet below.
>>
>> >> This may well be a problem in semantics: maybe when Ford
>> >> says "predictions" he means "before-the-fact published
>> >> predictions". "before-the-fact" here refers to what laymen
>> >> usually call predictions: a prediction that was made by
>> >> a human being before the thing being predicted was discovered
>> >> to be true (or not true).
>>
>> >Partly a semantic problem, but my main beef with Ford is his
>> >running away, and not even responding to the prediction refs
>> >I brought up.
>>
>> Running away is a way of life in talk.origins,

>It is. Doesn't make it less objectionable, though.

>> and the
>> anti-creationists are almost as bad as the creationists.

>NOT obvious.

>[SNIP Peter's self-congratulations and slurs on the
>character of other t.o. denizens]

To even out the slur you made on the character of Ford, if
you want to stretch the meaning of "slur" to near the breaking
point as your little "description" implies. Ditto
the "self-congratulation" bit.

>> >> In this ng, on the other hand, people championing predictions
>> >> generally stretch the term to include "things implicitly
>> >> predicted by evolutionary theory, but which never entered
>> >> the mind of anyone before they were discovered to be true"
>>
>> >Quite so. Not just in this ng, though. I regard this as the
>> >normal way of using "prediction" in scientific contexts.
>>
>> I disagree. Take chemistry, where the most famous prediction
>> was Mendeleev predicting the existence and even the properties
>> of a then-unknown element (Germanium? it's been decades since
>> I read about it) IN ADVANCE.

>Quite so. Mendeleev predicted it FROM HIS THEORY.

Which happened to be false, but not so far off as to
affect this example. Yet, it "confirmed" the theory
at least as much as the three examples you gave "confirmed"
the theories they were supposed to confirm, by the looks of it.

The prediction
>was of scientific interest only because it came out of a theory.

No, it was of scientific interest *also* because Mendeleev
actually stuck his neck out. Science is done by scientists,
as are predictions. It's just too easy to claim in hindsight
that something was "predicted" by a theory when it is
only one man's interpretation of that theory.

>Amend the definition above to "things implicitly
>predicted by a theory, but which never NEED HAVE
>entered the mind of anyone before they were discovered
>to be true", and I'll stand by it firmly.

"implicitly predicted" is a tall, tall order that I've never
seen satisfied in talk.origins.

>> Or take astronomy, where the most famous prediction was Adams
>> and Leverrier predicting the position of Neptune with
>> astonishing accuracy even before Neptune was discovered.

>Likewise. It's nice that it _did_ enter someone's mind beforehand,
>making the prediction more impressive, more "gut-feeling" convincing,
>but it's not a logical requirement. The nice thing about Neptune
>isn't that Leverrier guessed that it would be there, but that its
>predicted position could be deduced from Newtonian gravity.

Unlike the purported examples I've seen, which could not
have been infallibly predicted by evolutionary theory.
[More about this in a future post if you continue
to respond to me.]

>> >"Things implicitly predicted by the theory" is the relevant
>> >sense in a hypothetical-deductive Popperian context.
>>
>> The theory commonly available to everyone, or somebody's
>> own pet ideas on what the theory SHOULD predict?

>The specific theory from which the predictions in question
>can be deduced.

Biology is not, on the whole, a deductive science, especially
not evolutionary biology. Do not confuse induction with
deduction.

>> >But in general, "prediction" in the philosophy of science
>[snip]
>> >is not identical with our everyday word "prediction";
>> >cf the eternal discussions about "theory" in this ng.
>>
>> ...by rank amateurs when it comes to science, for the most
>> part, from what I have seen.

>A fact of life on newsgroups :>

Not on the sci* newsgroups in my experience.

>And of course you, the professor of mathematics, is
>an experienced professional, with abundant experience of
>hands-on _empirical_ science.

Do you know the meaning of the term "*rank* amateur"? I am an
amateur in biology, but not a rank one.

>[snip]
>>>> Did you go through ANY of them--I mean, did you read the abstracts
>>>> and see them claim the confirmation of some prediction?
>>>Yes, I've read the articles - I _have_ copies of the articles.
>>>Your point?
>>Well done. Most people say at this point that they've just seen
>>the abstracts.
>[snip]
>> >> I'm not. "predictions derived from evolutionary theory" could
>> >> be referring to one of the stretched versions of what
>> >> a "prediction" is.
>>
>> >It refers to predictions from the theory
>> >(IMHO, the appropriate sense here)
>> >but explicit in previous publications, so should
>> >satisfy even your layman's version of
>> >prediction.
>>
>> Good. Please provide the references to the relevant publications.

>They're cited in the articles we're discussing.
>See their reference lists!

>You implicictly accused me before of peddling articles
>I hadn't read.

Your "implicitly accused" is a deceitful formula. Please
don't use it again in this way.

Of course YOU wouldn't discuss and question
>an article you hadn't read more than the abstract of, so
>of course YOU have obtained and read
>the articles we're discussing, so it's no trouble
>for you to look up references in them.

You are playing games. It is up to you to support the claims
you made about the articles.

>> >> Could you at least tell us all what the alleged predictions were,
>> >> and how the studies "supported" (how strongly?) them?
>>
>> >"at least". "alleged". Quotes around "supported".
>> >I don't like your tone here, sir.
>>
>> The track record of previous people in response to challenges
>> like these has been abysmal.

>Am I one of those "previous people"? If so, substantiate!
>If not, don't draw conclusions from them to me.

Your behavior is highly typical of them. I am not
drawing any conclusions but neither am I willing to leave
out the word "alleged" until you do better than you've
done until now.

>> >Reznick:
>> >Prediction from evo-theory:
>>
>> The following example sounds like plain old horse sense to me.

>So you have an intuitive feel for evolution? Fine. Be happy.

Evolution? Any horse breeder could tell you the same, and
will be flattered to hear that he is an evolutionary biologist
by your undemanding standards.

>> At any rate, it's not going to convince any creationist that
>> there has been a change in Biblical "kinds" of guppies.

>Nothing short of divine intervention will achieve that :<

Reason could convince some. You aren't reasoning.

>[snip]

>> >Townsend et al:
>> >Pred: "Men's assessments of sexual attractiveness are
>> >determined more by objectively assessable physical
>> >attributes; women's ... by perceived ability and willingness
>> >to invest (...)."
>>
>> Is this evolutionary theory, or just a male chauvinist's
>> take on what evolutionary theory should predict?

>Let's state it like this: "IF there are gender diffs in such
>assessments that have evolved through natural selection, then,
>within the social contexts commonly found in human populations,
>the differences should be that: Men's assessments... etc."

>That's a bona fide prediction. Of course, the assumptions under
>the IF above are quite controversial.

Agreed, and so we cannot take the example as confirming
the theory of natural selection.

>> >All three papers contain refs to previous theoretical
>> >work, containing the actual predictions.
>>
>> >If you want more detail, go look up the papers!
>>
>> Running away, eh? ;-)

>No, but telling you to do you own homework.
>I'm not going to type in the whole papers,
>just to save you a trip to the library.

You don't have to do that if the papers do what you claim.

>> Seriously, can't you at least post the references to the
>> papers where the PRIOR predictions were made? I'd much
>> prefer to see THOSE papers for a start.

>If you're seriously interested in discussing the results
>of Mueller and the others, then you'll need _those_
>papers, and have to look them up anyway.

Only if the predictions are as advertised.

>There's a whole bunch of theory refs in each of these.
>I suppose I can type in _one_ of them, to get you started,
>and show some good will, but not all.

Very interesting. If you read the papers, and none of
them clearly indicates which of the references actually
had the alleged predictions in them, then the authors
were *at best* guilty of slipshod scholarship in the
writing of the papers.

["seminal" book title deleted. Seems irrelevant, in the
light of what you've just written]

>> >Putting on my scientists's hat, I'd say theory DOES make predictions.
>>
>> Correction: you are putting on your philosopher of science hat.

>I'm a scientist, not a philosopher. Among physicists, the
>verb "predicts" is commonly used with a theory as grammatical
>subject.

Physics is largely deductive, biology largely inductive in
the area under discussion.

[Sverker Johansson]

david ford wrote:
[snip]

> df [Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, _Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors_
> df (1992), 132.]"Enormous gaps yawn through the fossil record,
> df although less so now than in Darwin's time. (If there were
> df more paleontologists in the world, we'd doubtless be a little
> df further along.) From the comparatively low rate of discovery
> df of new fossils, we know that huge numbers of ancient organisms
> df have not been preserved."
>
> SJ Sagan's full text about the fossil record isn't offensive.
>
> Yes, the [Sagan]"doubtless [we'd] be a little further along" if
> only there existed [Sagan]"more paleontologists" should reassure
> at least some evolutionism believers.

Happens also to be correct. We get further along all the time,
as more paleontologists' time is spent on gathering fossils.
We've filled in a few gaps even in the short time that
has passed since Sagan wrote that quote.

In any case, Sagan clearly is _not_ implying that the
incompleteness of the fossil record is a problem for evolution.
Elsewhere in the book, where he talks about how evidence of
evolution has accumulated since Darwin's day, he states:
"The fossil evidence remain sparse, [...] But the most powerful
evidence for evolution comes from [...] molecular biology." (p59)
So the fossil record isn't perfect. No big deal; there's ample
evidence of evolution elsewhere.

Concerning creationism, he states (p 424):
"Both special creation and the flat Earth hypothesis were
reasonable scientific guesses in the sixth century BC, when
Genesis was compiled. They are no longer."

As I said (copied from further down):

> SJ But we've discussed quoting ethics before...
> SJ You didn't get it then, you likely won't get it now.

> Sagan's last sentence,

> From the comparatively low rate of discovery of new fossils,
> we know that huge numbers of ancient organisms have not been
> preserved,
>
> reminds me of another evolutionist's comment. Writes Francis
> Hitching,

Calling Hitching an evolutionist is really stretching the term.
The FAQ you mention below describe him as anti-Darwinist and
generally kooky, as well as a popular quote-mine for creationists,
which you kindly illustrated below.

> "Clearly, Earth has seen a lot of life forms we don't
> know about, and some of them may have been transitional." He
> continues,

[quote snipped]

> Neither Sagan nor Hitching have discarded their adherence to

> evolutionism in the face of the [Sagan]"enormous gaps [that] yawn

> through the fossil record." It sounds like you aren't about to
> either.
>
> For some outlandish beliefs Hitching holds besides evolutionism,

> see the talk.origins FAQ about him.

Quoting him as an authority on evolution does wonders for your
credibility...

When will you understand that you're just shooting yourself
in the foot with your quotes?

> SJ In your
> SJ first post in this thread, you didn't even mark it
> SJ as a quote.
>
> 'Twas a tad tawdry, I'll agree. You swallowed the bait hook,
> line, and sinker, and called [df]"Enormous Gaps Yawn Through the
> Fossil Record" [SJ]"an intentionally offensive title."

So you _admit_ it was pure flamebait? If your only intention
was to annoy people, you succeded. Hope it makes you
happy. However, if you actually intended to say something
substantial against evolution, you failed as usual.

> ----begin reinsertion of [SJ]"intentionally offensive text"----
> df Yes, I suppose for a fervent evolutionism believer, the
> df statement "enormous gaps yawn through the fossil record" would
> df be, as you put it, "offensive." Don't let this offensive
> df remark knock your faith.
> ------------end reinsertion-------------

One day, I hope you'll understand that there can be reasons
_other_ than "faith" for giving provisional acceptance to a
theory... Don't judge others by yourself.

> Hope you're ready for another "offensive" remark. Regarding
> Darwin's proposal that "natural selection" is the mechanism
> responsible for the appearance of life's diversity, that proposal
> has enjoyed the status of revealed truth for most of the educated
> public, but there are cracks in the facade.

Apart from the fake ones that creationists try to paint there?

> If that didn't raise your hackles, this one should. The idea of
> descent from an unspecified number of common ancestors is
> universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically
> coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative,
> special creation, is too incredible for many.

Four comments:
a) Things don't get "proved" [sic] in science.
b) Creation is not the only alternative. The are a few others,
almost as silly, like genetic engineering by aliens.
c) The total available evidence overwhelmingly favour
common descent. The alternatives are indeed "too incredible",
not because of any anti-alien-engineering bias, but because
the evidence is what it is.
d) Your comment is just silly when applied to Christian (or for
that matter Jewish or Muslim) scientists. Why do _they_ so
universally accept common descent?

[david ford]

[Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4. Caps in original.]
"THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."

[Mark A. Ludwig, _Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and
Evolution_ (1993), 303.]"The scientist who buys into
materialistic naturalism has decided that there are no
supernatural phenomena. He has closed a door that science by
itself cannot close. Then he usually turns around and calls that
decision 'scientific' as if to give it respectability. This is
the height of arrogance."

[David Vorous]

Actualy Ludwig is the arrogant one. He is presupposing that there is
something other than "The Cosmos" and presenting nothing other than his
assertion as evidence.
--
David J. Vorous
da...@snakebite.com
http://users.aimnet.com/~dvorous/home.html

[Matthew J Wilson]

David Vorous <da...@snakebite.com> writes:

>david ford wrote:
>>
>> [Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4. Caps in original.]
>> "THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."
>>
>> [Mark A. Ludwig, _Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and
>> Evolution_ (1993), 303.]"The scientist who buys into
>> materialistic naturalism has decided that there are no
>> supernatural phenomena. He has closed a door that science by
>> itself cannot close. Then he usually turns around and calls that
>> decision 'scientific' as if to give it respectability. This is
>> the height of arrogance."

>Actualy Ludwig is the arrogant one. He is presupposing that there is
>something other than "The Cosmos" and presenting nothing other than his
>assertion as evidence.

No. His assertion is that there *may* be something more, and his evidence
is the lack of evidecne against. Assuming that something exists simply
becasue you can't prove that it does exist is the height of arrogance,
mainly because it's usually people who claim to be "open-minded" who do
this. Only slightly better, of course, is assuming that something does
exist, despite a complete lack of evidence.

--
Matt.

[Adam Levenstein]

On 25 Feb 1998 18:15:38 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>[Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4. Caps in original.]
>"THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."
>
>[Mark A. Ludwig, _Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and
>Evolution_ (1993), 303.]"The scientist who buys into
>materialistic naturalism has decided that there are no
>supernatural phenomena. He has closed a door that science by
>itself cannot close. Then he usually turns around and calls that
>decision 'scientific' as if to give it respectability. This is
>the height of arrogance."
>

I think Sagan is perfectly correct on this one. Anything
"supernatural," when evidence is recieved, would immediately go into
the "natural" category.

The problem is a lack of evidence. What Sagan is saying is that what
is is, and what isn't isn't. Seems to be common sense to me.

------------------------------------------------
Adam Levenstein Young Socialists
http://pages.prodigy.com/AHSG60C/

"The ends justify the means only if the ends are
justified."
-- Leon Trotsky
------------------------------------------------

[g&g #750]

> No. His assertion is that there *may* be something more, and his
evidence
> is the lack of evidecne against. Assuming that something exists simply
> becasue you can't prove that it does exist is the height of arrogance,
> mainly because it's usually people who claim to be "open-minded" who do
> this. Only slightly better, of course, is assuming that something does
> exist, despite a complete lack of evidence.
>

No, that is not arrogance, that is ignorance bordering on stupidity.

[Matthew J Wilson]

"g&g #750" <gri...@gte.net> writes:

Well, yeah. I tend to think of it as arrogance because it tends to come
from an "I am right" style atitude.

--
Matt.

[Sverker Johansson]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> writes:
> >Peter Nyikos wrote:

[snip]

> >> No, but then, it's pretty obvious from what you post below
> >> that you haven't followed all the previous times I have
> >> dealt with "predictions" on talk.origins.
>
> >I've seen your claims before. I've posted my disagreement with
> >them before. So?
>
> Mere disagreement counts for nothing.

Mere assertion of having "dealt with" it
counts for about as much.

[snip]

> >Quite so. Mendeleev predicted it FROM HIS THEORY.
>
> Which happened to be false, but not so far off as to
> affect this example. Yet, it "confirmed" the theory
> at least as much as the three examples you gave "confirmed"
> the theories they were supposed to confirm, by the looks of it.

Just like Neptune "confirmed" ( or rather corroborated) Newtonian
gravity, which also turned out to be false in the end.
Science doesn't provide final answers. We have to make do
with provisional ones. If you have a problem with that,
you should stick to mathematics.

> The prediction
> >was of scientific interest only because it came out of a theory.
>
> No, it was of scientific interest *also* because Mendeleev
> actually stuck his neck out.

If it _hadn't_ come out of a theory, it would have been
scientifically uninteresting no matter how far his neck
stuck out. Nothing but a lucky guess, with no substance.

> Science is done by scientists,
> as are predictions. It's just too easy to claim in hindsight
> that something was "predicted" by a theory when it is
> only one man's interpretation of that theory.

That's why it's called hypothetico-DEDUCTIVE method.
Predictions must be _deduced_ from a theory.
A deduction can't just be claimed in hindsight - the
validity can be checked. As a mathematician, you ought
to understand that.

[snip]

> >> Or take astronomy, where the most famous prediction was Adams
> >> and Leverrier predicting the position of Neptune with
> >> astonishing accuracy even before Neptune was discovered.
>
> >Likewise. It's nice that it _did_ enter someone's mind beforehand,
> >making the prediction more impressive, more "gut-feeling" convincing,
> >but it's not a logical requirement. The nice thing about Neptune
> >isn't that Leverrier guessed that it would be there, but that its
> >predicted position could be deduced from Newtonian gravity.
>
> Unlike the purported examples I've seen, which could not
> have been infallibly predicted by evolutionary theory.

"Infallibly"? No such thing outside theology
(and possibly mathematics).

Two comments:
a) Evolutionary theory is largely stochastic,
predicting probabilities rather than certainties.
But so does quantum theory, which nevertheless
makes eminent predictions.
b) _Nothing_ can be predicted infallibly, as soon as we
have any interaction with the complexities of the
real world. _All_ predictions contain two premisses:
IF the theory is true
AND the state of the real world is such-and-such
THEN [prediction:] this-or-that will happen.

If this-or-that doesn't happen, then EITHER the theory
is wrong OR the second premiss is wrong. This is true
for Neptune as much as for Townsend, which you dismiss
out of hand for this reason. Predicting, testing,
and falsifying isn't such a neat clear-cut business
in the real world. If you have a problem with that,
you should stick to mathematics.

> [More about this in a future post if you continue
> to respond to me.]

This discussion does seem rather pointless...

But I'll keep going for a little while; I'm curious
what game you are really playing.

> >> >"Things implicitly predicted by the theory" is the relevant
> >> >sense in a hypothetical-deductive Popperian context.
> >>
> >> The theory commonly available to everyone, or somebody's
> >> own pet ideas on what the theory SHOULD predict?
>
> >The specific theory from which the predictions in question
> >can be deduced.
>
> Biology is not, on the whole, a deductive science, especially
> not evolutionary biology.

Substantial parts of biology are largely descriptive in nature:
much of taxonomy, anatomy, physiology... or for that matter
things like the Human Genome project. Their main method isn't
deductive. This doesn't prevent a taxonomist from occasional
deductive hpothesis-testing: "I propose the hypothesis that
taxon so-and-so is monophyletic. From this hypothesis it can be
predicted (_deduced_!) that all species in the taxon should share
the following derived characters: ... (even the ones we haven't
checked yet)" The hypothesis may be arrived at through induction,
but the testing uses deduction.

As for evolutionary biology, it also contains similar parts.
But large chunks are predominantly deductive, such as
population biology.

> Do not confuse induction with
> deduction.

I don't. Do you? Do you actually believe that sciences can be
neatly divided into deductive and inductive? Actual practice
is almost invariably mixed. If you have a problem with that,
you should stick to mathematics.

> >> ...by rank amateurs when it comes to science, for the most
> >> part, from what I have seen.
>
> >A fact of life on newsgroups :>
>
> Not on the sci* newsgroups in my experience.

Which t.o. isn't...

> >And of course you, the professor of mathematics, is
> >an experienced professional, with abundant experience of
> >hands-on _empirical_ science.
>
> Do you know the meaning of the term "*rank* amateur"? I am an
> amateur in biology, but not a rank one.

I know what "rank" means. If you hadn't used that condescending
word, my comment would have been less snide.

As for your own understanding of science: you claim here it is
above that of the alleged majority of "rank amateurs" - I have
seen precious little evidence of above-average understanding of
how science works in your posts.

Concerning us "rank amateurs": there are several professional
biologists posting to this group, and a large number of
professional scientists from other disciplines, people who are
actually _doing_ science, and getting paid for it.

[snip]

> >You implicictly accused me before of peddling articles
> >I hadn't read.
>
> Your "implicitly accused" is a deceitful formula. Please
> don't use it again in this way.

[Text moved to here:]
> PN: Did you go through ANY of them--I mean, did you read the abstracts

> PN: Could you at least tell us all what the alleged predictions were,
> PN: and how the studies "supported" (how strongly?) them?

Your choice of words and emphasis in the two questions above
carry strong implications of what you believe the answer to be.

If you won't ask such questions again, I won't call them
"implicit accusations" again. Which is more deceitful:
phrasing an accusation as a question with an implied
answer, or calling such a "question" by its proper name?

[snip]

> You are playing games. It is up to you to support the claims
> you made about the articles.

Normal practice in science is to support a claim by giving
an appropriate reference. I've done that. If you look up the
refs, and disagree with my claims about them, you can
state your objections and we'll take it from there.

If you want to play a different game, you're on your own.
I'm not playing.

[large SNIP]

> >There's a whole bunch of theory refs in each of these.
> >I suppose I can type in _one_ of them, to get you started,
> >and show some good will, but not all.
>
> Very interesting. If you read the papers, and none of
> them clearly indicates which of the references actually
> had the alleged predictions in them, then the authors
> were *at best* guilty of slipshod scholarship in the
> writing of the papers.

Again you demonstrate your level of understanding of
how science actually works - strictly amateur level,
not obviously above rank...

You are again misapplying your layman's definition
of "prediction". The theory refs contain the relevant parts
of evolutionary _theory_, from which the predictions are
deduced. Reznick e.g. doesn't claim that any of his refs
actually explicitly states that
"Guppies are predicted to breed at a younger age when
raised together with pike cichlids." If that's what you
expect, too bad. (Newton's Principia doesn't say anything
explicit about the orbit of Uranus either...)

What Reznick _does_ claim (as do Mueller amd the others)
is that certain refs contain _general_ principles,
which can be used to predict outcomes in the _specific_
cases being studied. But when I gave you such a ref,
you dismissed it out of hand:

> ["seminal" book title deleted. Seems irrelevant, in the
> light of what you've just written]

So much for good will...

[Matt Silberstein]

Sverker,

IIANM, you must, like me, have no aptitude for science. The point you
are arguing with Peter on, whether or not theory produce predictions,
is one of the points that Peter has used to "show" I have no aptitude
for science. I must say that I am glad for the company, though I
suspect our lack of aptitudes are not equal.

Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
They say that money can't buy you love.
But it can buy you a 14 year old girl and a pound of cocaine
and a long black limousine on a hot summer's night.
And if that ain't love, it sure ain't bad.

R.N.

[Jeff Wilson]

On 25 Feb 1998 18:15:38 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>[Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4. Caps in original.]
>"THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."
>
>[Mark A. Ludwig, _Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and
>Evolution_ (1993), 303.]"The scientist who buys into
>materialistic naturalism has decided that there are no
>supernatural phenomena. He has closed a door that science by
>itself cannot close. Then he usually turns around and calls that
>decision 'scientific' as if to give it respectability. This is
>the height of arrogance."
>

I'm sure that if any field of investigation ever reveals something
that shows a strong indication that supernatural forces might
need to be invoked to explain it, scientists will dive at it with
a speed that will take your breath away. You wouldn't be able
to keep them away with pitchforks.

--
Please remove the two capital X's from my e-mail address before replying via e-mail.
(They are an attempt to thwart unsolicited commercial mail.)

[Louann Miller]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980225...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu says...

>
>[Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4. Caps in original.]
>"THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."
>
>[Mark A. Ludwig, _Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and
>Evolution_ (1993), 303.]"The scientist who buys into
>materialistic naturalism has decided that there are no
>supernatural phenomena. He has closed a door that science by
>itself cannot close. Then he usually turns around and calls that
>decision 'scientific' as if to give it respectability. This is
>the height of arrogance."

On the other hand, the medical scientist who decides that epilepsy is caused
by evil spirits cures no epileptics. The engineer who decides that a curse
(the ship was never christened!) wrecked the 'Titanic' doesn't improve ship
design. The software designer who decides that his program crashed because
the moon was in Virgo never fixes his bugs.

Materialism is tedious, takes years of education to learn properly, and often
flies in the face of our most cherished hopes. But unlike mystical systems,
it does work.

[Todd S. Greene]

Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> > [Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4. Caps in original.]
> > "THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."
>
> > [Mark A. Ludwig, _Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and
> > Evolution_ (1993), 303.] "The scientist who buys into
> > materialistic naturalism has decided that there are no
> > supernatural phenomena. He has closed a door that science by
> > itself cannot close. Then he usually turns around and calls that
> > decision 'scientific' as if to give it respectability. This is
> > the height of arrogance."
>

> There is no such thing a supernatural phenomena. Once a thing has been proven to
> exist, it is natural. If it has not been proven to exist, then it is simply
> either unknown or nonexistent.

This is a good point, Michelle.

We should always ask, "What do you mean by 'supernatural
phenomena'?"

Then, "No. I mean what do you *really* mean by 'supernatural
phenomena'?"

Todd S. Greene
<gre...@NOSPAM.mindspring.com>

..................................
: Reality is what it is -- :
: not what you wish it would be. :
..................................

[Sverker Johansson]

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> IIANM, you must, like me, have no aptitude for science.

For science as defined by The Great Professor Nyikos,
I have precious little aptitude... Now why doesn't
that bother me? :->

> The point you
> are arguing with Peter on, whether or not theory produce predictions,
> is one of the points that Peter has used to "show" I have no aptitude
> for science. I must say that I am glad for the company, though I
> suspect our lack of aptitudes are not equal.

In the eyes of The Nyikos, we are all equally rank amateurs.

But it _is_ nice to have company here at the bottom of
the heap. Thanks, Matt.

[Dave Haas]

Todd S. Greene wrote:
>
> Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > [Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4. Caps in original.]
> > > "THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."
> >
> > > [Mark A. Ludwig, _Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and
> > > Evolution_ (1993), 303.] "The scientist who buys into
> > > materialistic naturalism has decided that there are no
> > > supernatural phenomena. He has closed a door that science by
> > > itself cannot close. Then he usually turns around and calls that
> > > decision 'scientific' as if to give it respectability. This is
> > > the height of arrogance."
> >
> > There is no such thing a supernatural phenomena. Once a thing has been proven to
> > exist, it is natural. If it has not been proven to exist, then it is simply
> > either unknown or nonexistent.
>
> This is a good point, Michelle.
>
> We should always ask, "What do you mean by 'supernatural
> phenomena'?"
>
> Then, "No. I mean what do you *really* mean by 'supernatural
> phenomena'?"

What about superdupernatural phenomena?

D. Haas

[Marcelo de Castro Greco Rodrigue]

On 25 Feb 1998 18:15:38 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>[Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4. Caps in original.]
>"THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."
>
>[Mark A. Ludwig, _Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and
>Evolution_ (1993), 303.]"The scientist who buys into
>materialistic naturalism has decided that there are no
>supernatural phenomena.

Wrong. He has decided, as I have, that so-called "supernatural
phenomena", if they really exist, are simply matter and energy
interacting at hitherto unknown ways. And, as science is an
ever-developing process, there are many unknowns today that will be
known tomorrow.

> He has closed a door that science by
>itself cannot close.

What can close it? A religion, maybe?

>Then he usually turns around and calls that
>decision 'scientific' as if to give it respectability. This is
>the height of arrogance."

I thought the height of arrogance was an institution say that it is
never wrong, that it was chosen by an all-powerfull being
to guide the stupid herds, and kiling thousands, millions, based on
that arrogance, as a respectable Church is known to have not so long
ago

"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be"
Alfred Lord Tennyson, in "Locksley Hall"

[Mercutio]

Ooops. I thought this had to be about Bill Gates. Sorry.

[david ford]

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 9 Feb 1998
in "Re: Enormous Gaps Yawn Through David's

understanding of Carl Sagan":
david ford:

df "Evolutionary theory" sounds like a very broad heading which
df would even include the latest just-so stories for why ape-men
df started walking upright.

SJ Only if they had a solid theoretical basis, which is not
SJ always the case.

Try "which is never the case." I await your counterexamples. Being a
field that is often short on data and long on opinion, paleoanthropology,
or the study of alleged human evolution, reveals more about how humans
view themselves than it does about how humans came about. I'd even go so
far as to say that perhaps generations of students of human evolution have
been flailing about in the dark, using a database that is too sparse, too
slippery, for it to be able to mold their speculations. The theories are
more statements about the students and ideology than about what "really"
happened in the past. "Theory" almost always dominates "data," with ideas
that are totally unrelated to actual fossils dominating theory building.

[wf...@enter.netxx]

On 8 Mar 1998 17:44:19 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

The theories are
>more statements about the students and ideology than about what "really"
>happened in the past. "Theory" almost always dominates "data," with ideas
>that are totally unrelated to actual fossils dominating theory building.
>

as opposed to creationists who, of course, have SO much evidence on
their side

:-)

[Michae...@news.binc.net]

On 8 Mar 1998 17:44:19 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 9 Feb 1998
> in "Re: Enormous Gaps Yawn Through David's
> understanding of Carl Sagan":
>david ford:
>
>df "Evolutionary theory" sounds like a very broad heading which
>df would even include the latest just-so stories for why ape-men
>df started walking upright.
>
>SJ Only if they had a solid theoretical basis, which is not
>SJ always the case.
>
>Try "which is never the case." I await your counterexamples. Being a
>field that is often short on data and long on opinion, paleoanthropology,
>or the study of alleged human evolution, reveals more about how humans
>view themselves than it does about how humans came about. I'd even go so
>far as to say that perhaps generations of students of human evolution have
>been flailing about in the dark, using a database that is too sparse, too

>slippery, for it to be able to mold their speculations. The theories are

>more statements about the students and ideology than about what "really"
>happened in the past. "Theory" almost always dominates "data," with ideas
>that are totally unrelated to actual fossils dominating theory building.

So tell me, David, where is your theory of human origins?
What observations does it explain? What predictions does it make?
How is your theory actually related to the data?

Michael Grice gr...@mailbag.com

[kas...@exo.com]

Being a field that is often short on data and long on opinion...

I think you have it backwards - the physical data that is
overwhelmingly evident proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that
evolution is the only way we came about. Because the process is so
involved and complex, there is most reasonably some question as to the
specific order and sequence that events took place to arrive a
specific mutations. There is no doubt whatsoever that it took place.

[geo...@usa.net]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.98030...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,

david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 9 Feb 1998
> in "Re: Enormous Gaps Yawn Through David's
> understanding of Carl Sagan":
> david ford:
>
> df "Evolutionary theory" sounds like a very broad heading which
> df would even include the latest just-so stories for why ape-men
> df started walking upright.
>
> SJ Only if they had a solid theoretical basis, which is not
> SJ always the case.
>
> Try "which is never the case." I await your counterexamples.

Speaking as an observer, I believe that Sverker has given you
many examples (on a different topic) which you haven't addressed.
Perhaps you did so in private email. Would you mind if he
posted it?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Richard Keatinge]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.98030...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes

>Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 9 Feb 1998
> in "Re: Enormous Gaps Yawn Through David's
> understanding of Carl Sagan":
>david ford:
>
>df "Evolutionary theory" sounds like a very broad heading which
>df would even include the latest just-so stories for why ape-men
>df started walking upright.
>
>SJ Only if they had a solid theoretical basis, which is not
>SJ always the case.
>

>Try "which is never the case." I await your counterexamples. Being a
>field that is often short on data and long on opinion, paleoanthropology,
>or the study of alleged human evolution, reveals more about how humans
>view themselves than it does about how humans came about. I'd even go so
>far as to say that perhaps generations of students of human evolution have
>been flailing about in the dark, using a database that is too sparse, too
>slippery, for it to be able to mold their speculations. The theories are
>more statements about the students and ideology than about what "really"
>happened in the past. "Theory" almost always dominates "data," with ideas
>that are totally unrelated to actual fossils dominating theory building.
>

For a counter-example, try the arguments over brains-first or limbs-
first. Settled, by lots of evidence, in favour of limbs.

--
Richard Keatinge

[Sverker Johansson]

david ford wrote:

[After a month's delay, David snips out one sentence
from an old post of mine, the bulk of which he
responded to long ago...]

> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 9 Feb 1998
> in "Re: Enormous Gaps Yawn Through David's
> understanding of Carl Sagan":
> david ford:
>
> df "Evolutionary theory" sounds like a very broad heading which
> df would even include the latest just-so stories for why ape-men
> df started walking upright.
>
> SJ Only if they had a solid theoretical basis, which is not
> SJ always the case.
>
> Try "which is never the case." I await your counterexamples.

Above, the issue is whether ideas on bipedalism are informed
by evolutionary _theory_. Below, you instaed go on a diatribe
claiming that they are not constrained by _data_. Not the
same thing.

> Being a
> field that is often short on data and long on opinion, paleoanthropology,
> or the study of alleged human evolution, reveals more about how humans
> view themselves than it does about how humans came about. I'd even go so
> far as to say that perhaps generations of students of human evolution have
> been flailing about in the dark, using a database that is too sparse, too
> slippery, for it to be able to mold their speculations. The theories are
> more statements about the students and ideology than about what "really"
> happened in the past. "Theory" almost always dominates "data," with ideas
> that are totally unrelated to actual fossils dominating theory building.

I see that about five other people have already picked
up the ball on this one. Thanks especially to Richard
Keatinge, who has provided a good counter-example to your
allegations.

Concerning hypotheses about bipedalism being constrained
by evolutionary theory, I'd say the demise of the ancient
notion that we evolved bipedalism for the purpose of freeing
our hands for tool use a million years later is a good
example. Evolutionary theory doesn't say on its own why
we became bipedal - but it does say that it was because of
_current_ selective advantage at the time, not because of
distant future prospects.

[david ford]

Richard Keatinge <ric...@keatinge.demon.co.uk> on 9 Mar 1998:
david ford:
Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 9 Feb 1998:
david ford:

>df "Evolutionary theory" sounds like a very broad heading which
>df would even include the latest just-so stories for why ape-men
>df started walking upright.

SJ Only if they had a solid theoretical basis, which is not
SJ always the case.

df Try "which is never the case." I await your counterexamples.
[snip]

RK For a counter-example, try the arguments over brains-first or
RK limbs-first. Settled, by lots of evidence, in favour of limbs.

This is new to me. Where did you hear that in the fabrication
of stories about how bipedalism arose, there were arguments over
whether brains or limbs came first? Who were the main contenders
in these arguments?

[david ford]

geo...@usa.net on 9 Mar 1998:
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu:

>: Try "which is never the case." I await your
>: counterexamples.
>

> Speaking as an observer, I believe that Sverker has given
> you many examples (on a different topic)

-------begin insertion-------
Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 16 Jan 1998:

SJ Here is the relevant snippet again, posted for at least the fourth time,
SJ and mailed to you at least twice:
SJ -------------- re-posted start---------------
SJ df Kindly
SJ df present, if you would please, three (3) journal citations, each of
SJ df which discusses the theory of evolution's a) testable predictions
SJ df and b) the results of pertinent observations.
SJ
SJ Searching Medline with reasonable keywords concerning "evolution" and
SJ "prediction" turns up thousands of hits. Three semi-randomly
SJ chosen examples (no, I didn't bother going through all the 1000s.):
SJ
SJ Reznick, D N (1997) "Life history evolution in guppies (Poecilia
SJ reticulata): guppies as a model for studying the evolutionary biology
SJ of aging" Exp. Gerontol 32(3)245-258
SJ
SJ Mueller, L D (1988) "Evolution of competitive ability in Drosophila by
SJ density-dependent natural selection" Proc Nat Acad Sci USA
SJ 85(12)4383-4386
SJ
SJ Townsend JM, Wasserman T (1997) "The perception of sexual
SJ attractiveness:
SJ sex differences in variability." Arch Sex Behav 1997 Jun;26(3):243-268
SJ
SJ The abstract of the last one starts like this:
SJ "Results of three independent studies supported predictions derived from
SJ evolutionary theory:"
SJ
SJ Happy?
SJ -------------- re-posted end---------------
---------end insertion---------

> which you haven't
> addressed.

We have been discussing the matter of falsifiability
and predictions. See the various "Enormous Gaps..."
threads.

[Sverker Johansson]

david ford wrote:
> Richard Keatinge <ric...@keatinge.demon.co.uk> on 9 Mar 1998:
> david ford:
> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> on 9 Feb 1998:
> david ford:
> >df "Evolutionary theory" sounds like a very broad heading which
> >df would even include the latest just-so stories for why ape-men
> >df started walking upright.
>
> SJ Only if they had a solid theoretical basis, which is not
> SJ always the case.
>

> df Try "which is never the case." I await your counterexamples.

> [snip]
>
> RK For a counter-example, try the arguments over brains-first or
> RK limbs-first. Settled, by lots of evidence, in favour of limbs.
>
> This is new to me.

First you make a sweeping claim: "which is never the case.",
a claim which you can't legitimately make without an
intimate knowledge of the historical development
of the field. Then you say that you have never
even heard of one of the _major_ issues.

> Where did you hear that in the fabrication
> of stories about how bipedalism arose, there were arguments over
> whether brains or limbs came first?

I don't know where Richard heard of it, but it can
be found in most books on the subject. I grabbed the
first one I had handy: Lewin (1993) "Human evolution, an
illustrated introduction, 3rd ed", and found it right away.
Chapter 3 "Historical views" has a diagram of it as its first
figure.

> Who were the main contenders
> in these arguments?

Brains-first: Piltdown man
Legs-first: Lucy :->

Seriously, lots of people involved on both sides. Read
the full story in some popular book.

[david ford]

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> in
"Re: Enormous Gaps... Yawn!" on 23 Feb 1998:
david ford:

df Yes, the [Sagan]"doubtless [we'd] be a little further along" if
df only there existed [Sagan]"more paleontologists" should reassure
df at least some evolutionism believers.

SJ Happens also to be correct. We get further along all the time,
SJ as more paleontologists' time is spent on gathering fossils.
SJ We've filled in a few gaps even in the short time that
SJ has passed since Sagan wrote that quote.

The more time paleontologists spend gathering fossils, the more
abrupt the punctuations are seen to be.

SJ In any case, Sagan clearly is _not_ implying that the
SJ incompleteness of the fossil record is a problem for
SJ evolution.

There cannot exist, even in theory, a problem for the blind
watchmaker thesis. I fully agree that Sagan isn't implying that
the gaps yawning through the fossil record constitute a problem
for evolutionism.

SJ Elsewhere in the book, where he talks about how evidence of
SJ evolution has accumulated since Darwin's day, he states:
SJ "The fossil evidence remain sparse, [...] But the most powerful
SJ evidence for evolution comes from [...] molecular biology." (p59)
SJ So the fossil record isn't perfect. No big deal; there's ample
SJ evidence of evolution elsewhere.
SJ
SJ Concerning creationism, he states (p 424):
SJ "Both special creation and the flat Earth hypothesis were
SJ reasonable scientific guesses in the sixth century BC, when
SJ Genesis was compiled. They are no longer."

Continuing, [CS&AD]"standard works defending creationism include"
a book by Gish and a book by Morris; a few of the [CS&AD]"many
refutations by scientists" are then listed. Defeating
young-earth creationism is easy; simply present 20 different
areas of evidence demonstrating that the earth and universe are
many millions of years old and whammo, young-earth creationism is
refuted. Somewhat more difficult is refuting old-earth
creationism via successive creations, as Agassiz believed. I
invite you to take a stab at it.

SJ As I said (copied from further down):
SJ
SJ But we've discussed quoting ethics before...
SJ You didn't get it then, you likely won't get it now.

df Sagan's last sentence,
df From the comparatively low rate of discovery of new fossils,
df we know that huge numbers of ancient organisms have not been
df preserved,
df
df reminds me of another evolutionist's comment. Writes Francis
df Hitching,

SJ Calling Hitching an evolutionist is really stretching the term.

[Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe_ (1982),
4.]"Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact,
if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two
centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils),
molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines."
[Hitching, 4.]"On the other hand Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, its
modern version) is the theory that seeks to explain evolution.
It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great
efforts, been proved." Hitching surely is (better: surely was at
the time he wrote this book) an evolutionism believer/ an
adherent of blindwatchmaking, though not a neo-Darwinist.

SJ The FAQ you mention below describe him as anti-Darwinist and
SJ generally kooky, as well as a popular quote-mine for
SJ creationists, which you kindly illustrated below.

df "Clearly, Earth has seen a lot of life forms we don't
df know about, and some of them may have been transitional." He
df continues,
df But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about
df the fossil gaps: _the fossils go missing in all the
df important places_. When you look for links between major
df groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not
df in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either
df they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless
df argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or
df isn't, or might be, transitional between this group and
df that. Yet there are lengthy periods of history when there
df is every reason to expect plenty of intermediates.[Francis
df Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe_ (1982), 9-10.]
df
df Neither Sagan nor Hitching have discarded their adherence to
df evolutionism in the face of the [Sagan]"enormous gaps [that] yawn
df through the fossil record." It sounds like you aren't about to
df either.
df
df For some outlandish beliefs Hitching holds besides evolutionism,
df see the talk.origins FAQ about him.

SJ Quoting him as an authority on evolution does wonders for your
SJ credibility...
SJ
SJ When will you understand that you're just shooting yourself
SJ in the foot with your quotes?

Since I'm hurting myself with my quotes, leaving them alone
instead of immediately snipping them would be a good strategy on
your part. When presented again, the quotes will further
undermine my arguments.

df 'Twas a tad tawdry, I'll agree. You swallowed the bait hook,
df line, and sinker, and called [df]"Enormous Gaps Yawn Through
df the Fossil Record" [SJ]"an intentionally offensive title."

[snip]

SJ If your only intention
SJ was to annoy people, you succeeded. Hope it makes you
SJ happy. However, if you actually intended to say something
SJ substantial against evolution, you failed as usual.
SJ
SJ One day, I hope you'll understand that there can be reasons
SJ _other_ than "faith" for giving provisional acceptance to a
SJ theory... Don't judge others by yourself.

df Hope you're ready for another "offensive" remark. Regarding
df Darwin's proposal that "natural selection" is the mechanism
df responsible for the appearance of life's diversity, that proposal
df has enjoyed the status of revealed truth for most of the educated
df public, but there are cracks in the facade.

SJ Apart from the fake ones that creationists try to paint there?

I had no idea that Begley and the book editors mentioned below
were creationists, and that as creationists, were trying to paint
fake cracks in the facade of natural selection. One learns
something new every day. You will, I trust, leave this damaging
remark alone when you reply.

[Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin" _Newsweek _ (8 April
1985), 80, entire first paragraph.]"Ever since the famous Scopes
'monkey' trial of 1925, at which Clarence Darrow and H.L. Mencken
rained ridicule on biblical accounts of creation, the theory of
evolution has enjoyed the status of revealed truth for most of
the educated public. But there are cracks in the facade. The
great body of work deriving from Charles Darwin's revolutionary
1859 book, 'On the Origin of Species,' is under increasing

attack--and not just from the creationists. Richard Lewontin of
Harvard, a biologist of impeccably secular views, accuses
Darwinists of telling 'Just So' stories when they try to show how
natural selection explains such novelties as long-necked
giraffes. The editors of a new book assert that when it comes to
accounting for life on earth, natural selection should be
'relegated here to the [explanation of] [sic] last resort.' "

df If that didn't raise your hackles, this one should. The idea
df of descent from an unspecified number of common ancestors is
df universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically
df coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative,
df special creation, is too incredible for many.

SJ Four comments:
SJ a) Things don't get "proved" [sic] in science.

[Professor D. M. S. Watson, "Adaptation" _Nature_ 124:233
(1929).]"The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data
for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural
selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be
re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative
explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and
experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of
evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it
can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but
because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly
incredible." Instead of "proved," what word(s) should Watson
have used?

SJ b) Creation is not the only alternative. The are a few others,
SJ almost as silly, like genetic engineering by aliens.

If you would kindly list the other alternatives, no matter how
silly, I will demonstrate that they boil down to creation vs.
evolutionism.

SJ c) The total available evidence overwhelmingly favour
SJ common descent. The alternatives are indeed "too incredible",
SJ not because of any anti-alien-engineering bias, but because
SJ the evidence is what it is.

If you would briefly describe the lines of evidence that
[SJ]"overwhelmingly favour common descent," I will present an
alternative, creationist interpretation of that evidence.

SJ d) Your comment is just silly when applied to Christian (or for
SJ that matter Jewish or Muslim) scientists. Why do _they_ so
SJ universally accept common descent?

In 1982, only 9% of the American general public embraced the
blindwatchmaking thesis. What is the source for saying that
practicing Christians, Jews, and Muslims who are scientists
overwhelmingly accept blindwatchmaking?

[david ford]

Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> in
"Enourmous gaps, 2nd try" on 26 Feb 1998:
david ford:

df Your definition of CD: [SJ]"All organisms today are descended
df from a small number of common ancestors in the distant past.
df (process unspecified!)" Side-by-side comparison:
df
df [df]"all manner of lifeforms arose" vs [SJ]"all organisms today
df are" Looks the same to me.

SJ Fine.

df [df]"arose... from an unspecified number of primordial
df populations" vs. [SJ]"from a small number of common ancestors in
df the distant past" Looks the same to me.

SJ Fine.

df [df]"from... primordial populations that came into existence
df through spontaneous generation" vs. nothing. I'll give on this
df one and change it to "from... primordial populations that came
df into existence through unspecified means," with possibilities
df including spontaneous generation, God (as Darwin wrote in
df _Origin_), and highly advanced extraterrestrial biologists.

SJ Fine.

df [df]"arose via non-intelligence-directed processes" vs.
df [SJ]"process unspecified!" Explication of [SJ]"process
df unspecified": the process could be described as Neo-Darwinian or
df Lamarckian or Goldschmidtian or as some other mechanism or as
df some mechanism yet to be discovered. Question: Are any of these
df mechanisms directed by an intelligent entity in any way? Answer:

SJ Yes. "other mechanism" may well include divine intervention.

Drawing on your singularly large amount of reading about
evolutionary theory, please support [SJ]"'other mechanism' may
well include divine intervention" with ample references to
prominent evolutionists' statements. To buttress my position, I
offer the following statements as supplementary to Dawkins's
remark.

[Julian Huxley, _Knowledge, Morality, and Destiny_ (1957),
chapter "Evolutionary Humanism," 258-9; original title _ New
Bottles For New Wine_.]"I submit that the discoveries of
physiology, general biology, and psychology not only make
possible, but necessitate, a naturalistic hypothesis, in which
there is no room for the supernatural...."

This introduces the next two quotes. Premise 1: If God created
all lifeforms, whether indirectly (for example, by designing the
genetic systems of organisms and designing organisms'
environments so that over the course of the earth's existence,
eyes could appear multitudinous times, reptiles could become
mammals, etc.), or directly (for example, by saying "Let cows,
horses, and bluebirds appear," whereupon as a consequence they
do), then the appearance of those lifeforms involved a purposeful
process, that purpose being to create life. Premise 2:
Lifeforms' appearance was devoid of purpose. Conclusion: God did
not create all lifeforms.

To summarize this modus tollens syllogism: P1 if created, then
purpose; P2 no purpose; C no created. Statement of a prominent
evolutionist in support of P2, which leads to [df]"Conclusion:
God did not create all lifeforms." [G. Ledyard Stebbins, _Darwin
to DNA, Molecules to Humanity_ (1982), 4.]"The evolutionist's
answer is that all these millions of different kinds of organisms
evolved from common ancestors during the thousands of millions of
years since the first appearance of life. Their evolution was
opportunistic and devoid of purpose."

Statement of another celebrated evolutionist in support of P2:
[George Gaylord Simpson, _The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of
the History of Life and of its Significance for Man_ (1949),
chapter "Epilogue and Summary," 344.]"Man is the result of a
purposeless materialistic process that did not have him in mind.
He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a
sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly
or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material."

Additional Simpson statement contravening [SJ]"'other mechanism'
may well include divine intervention." [Simpson, 343.]"Although
many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that
all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be
explained by purely materialistic factors."

[Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, _Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors_
(1992), 424.]"In a 1982 Gallup poll.... Only 9% supported the
statement 'Man has developed over millions of years from less
advanced forms of life. God had no part in this
process.'(_Creation/Evolution _, No. 10 [fall 1982] [sic], p.
38.)"

df No: Neo-Darwinian, Lamarckian, Goldschmidtian, etc. mechanisms
df are not directed by intelligence.

SJ That's _your_ list, not mine.
SJ
SJ "Process unspecified" means precisely that. I intentionally
SJ wrote my definition of CD so that it does NOT exclude
SJ intelligent direction as part of the process.
SJ
SJ That's the principal difference between my CD and my BW:
SJ BW explicitly excludes intelligent direction.
SJ I have already admitted that BW is unscientific; a
SJ sufficiently discreet deity is impossible to rule out.

Statement 1 (your characterization of BW): Lifeforms appeared via
the means of A or B or C or something else, or a combination of
some or all of the above. Statement 2 (your characterization of
CD): Lifeforms appeared via the means of A or B or C or
[SJ]"intelligent direction" or something else, or a combination
of some or all of the above. If statement 1 is unfalsifiable,
then a fortiori statement 2 is unfalsifiable. If statement 1 it
is unscientific, then a fortiori statement 2 is unscientific.
Since you [SJ]"have already admitted that BW is unscientific,"
you are also admitting that [SJ]"my CD" is unscientific, whether
you realize it or not.

df Just as a leaf's fall from a
df tree is not directed by an intelligence, similarly is the
df process(es) that resulted in "all organisms today" not directed
df by an intelligence. Observes Richard Dawkins in _The Blind
df Watchmaker_ (1987), 249, "the whole _point_ of the theory of
df evolution by natural selection [is] that it provide[s] a _non_-
df miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations." In
df short, my [df]"arose via non-intelligence-directed processes" and
df your [SJ]"process unspecified!" are equivalent.

SJ No they're not. Your "arose via non-intelligence-directed
SJ processes" _specifies_ one aspect of the process.

I agree that my [df]"arose via non-intelligence-directed
processes" [SJ]"_specifies_ one aspect of the process," just as
your [SJ]"process unspecified!" _specifies_ one aspect of the
process, namely, specifies that the process is unspecified. And
you slam _me_ for supposedly nitpicking.

SJ I'll re-ask this question:
SJ
SJ Have you now restricted your contention to just CD?
SJ The above definition is much closer to my BW.
SJ
SJ [snip]

df Before discussing whether it's been falsified or not, I propose
df we discuss its predictions, and before that, discuss common
df descent's falsifiable-or-not status.

[snip]

df Those premisses are [SJ]"a) All organisms carry instructions for
df their own reproduction. b) Their progeny receives copies of these
df instructions. c) These copies are occasionally not exact. d) Not
df all organisms produce the same number of progeny," and [SJ]"The
df differential reproductive success that premise 1d) above refers
df to, is at least partly due to some instruction sets having
df properties that affect the likelihood of their actually being
df copied into the next generation."
df
df In looking over your premises, I'm reminded of the peppered moth/
df industrial melanism case, and have no problem with any of your
df premises.

SJ Fine. So you do not claim that NS in this sense is falsified?

As they are stated, I have no problem with any of your premisses
taken singly and have no problem with your premisses taken
collectively.

df Your concept of NS needs to be more in line with say
df Dawkins's depiction of NS if you and I are to start
df disagreeing about its powers.

SJ Dawkins talks about "the theory of evolution by natural selection",
SJ apparently referring to something like my CDNS. NS _per_se_
SJ is more restricted. I don't really care how Dawkins defines
SJ things in a pop-level book, but I do claim that my concept of NS
SJ is pretty much in line with Darwin:
SJ
SJ "If during the long course of ages and under varying
SJ conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts
SJ of their organisation, and I think this cannot be disputed; if
SJ there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of
SJ increase of each species, at some age, season, or year,
SJ a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be
SJ disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of
SJ the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their
SJ conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in
SJ structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to
SJ
SJ them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no
SJ variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own
SJ welfare, in the same way as so many variations have
SJ occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic
SJ being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will
SJ have the best chance of being preserved in the
SJ struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance
SJ they will tend to produce offspring similarly
SJ characterised. This principle of preservation, I have
SJ called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection."
SJ [Origin of Species, p 127]

I could dispute some of the things that Darwin says are
indisputable, but when it comes to [Darwin]"But if variations
useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus
characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the
struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance
they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised," I
again think of the peppered moths and say in reply, "So what?"
If this is all you think natural selection is, you and I have no
real disagreement here. With Dawkins, Stebbins, J. Huxley,
Sagan, and Simpson, however, I continue to disagree.

[Kalandros M]

david ford wrote:

> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> in
> "Re: Enormous Gaps... Yawn!" on 23 Feb 1998:
> david ford:
>
> df Yes, the [Sagan]"doubtless [we'd] be a little further along" if
> df only there existed [Sagan]"more paleontologists" should reassure
> df at least some evolutionism believers.
>
> SJ Happens also to be correct. We get further along all the time,
> SJ as more paleontologists' time is spent on gathering fossils.
> SJ We've filled in a few gaps even in the short time that
> SJ has passed since Sagan wrote that quote.
>
> The more time paleontologists spend gathering fossils, the more
> abrupt the punctuations are seen to be.
>

Really? To which punctuations in particular are you referring?

Mike

[James G. Acker]

david ford wrote:

* Why exclamation points and question marks, of course!

Actually, one of the best examples of a transitional sequence,
discovered by Gould and collaborators, is actually a punctuation.
The transition between two snail species, in fine gradations, occurs
in a sedimentary layer that covers only about 1,000 years. Because
this is so rapid, in geological terms, the transition is what Gould
refers to as a punctuation. I.e., it is extremely fortuitous that
the transition was captured in such a fleeting time period. Most
times such rapid transitions are lost in the sedimentary record.

Gould discussed this in a recent "This
View of Life" with the basic theme that rapid speciation does not
really "prove" evolution, which occurs over much longer time spans.
(Sorry I can't recall the exact issue, as I've been plowing through
about a year's backlog of Natural History in the past two months.)
In essence, Gould says that the demonstration of rapid speciation
events demonstrates natural selection.

Jim Acker

===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.

[david ford]

Mike Kalandros <kala...@hubble.colorado.edu> on 17 Mar 1998:
david ford:

df The more time paleontologists spend gathering fossils,
df the more abrupt the punctuations are seen to be.

MK Really? To which punctuations in particular are you
MK referring?

I was thinking of those punctuations described in the article
from which this snippet originated. [Gould & Eldredge, review
article "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age," _Nature_ 366:225,
226 (1993).]".... there are a growing number of reports
documenting an overwhelming relative frequency (often an
exclusivity) for punctuated equilibrium in entire groups or
faunas. Consider the lifetime testimonies of taxonomic experts
on microfossils^69, on brachiopods^70,71, and on beetles^72.
Fortey^73 has concluded for trilobites and graptolites.... Other
studies access all available lineages in entire faunas and assert
the dominance of punctuated equilibrium. Stanley and Yang^76....
Hallam^23.... Kelley^24,25... Vrba^74.... Barnovsky's^75
compendium for Quaternary mammals.... Prothero^76...."

[Kalandros M]

david ford wrote:

This doesn't support your claim at all. The above qoute merely
says that more and more animals are being found that exhibit
the periods of relatively rapid change (punctuations). It does
NOT say that the punctuations are getting shorter.

Mike

[Sverker Johansson]

david ford wrote:
>
> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> in
> "Re: Enormous Gaps... Yawn!" on 23 Feb 1998:

[snip]

> The more time paleontologists spend gathering fossils, the more
> abrupt the punctuations are seen to be.

Once upon a time the fossil record contained a lot of
Mesozoic reptiles, and a lot of Tertiary mammals,
with an abrupt punctuation between them.
Could you please elaborate on how the discovery of the
following fossils has made that punctuation _more_ abrupt:

Paleothyris
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Varanops
Haptodus
Dimetrodon
Biarmosuchia
Procynosuchus
Dvinia [also "Permocynodon"]
Thrinaxodon
Cynognathus
Diademodon
Probelesodon
Probainognathus
Exaeretodon
Oligokyphus
Kayentatherium
Pachygenelus
Diarthrognathus
Adelobasileus cromptoni
Sinoconodon
Kuehneotherium
Eozostrodon
Morganucodon
Haldanodon
Peramus
Endotherium
Kielantherium
Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani
Vincelestes neuquenianus
Pariadens kirklandi
Kennalestes
Asioryctes
Cimolestes
Procerberus
Gypsonictops

[details and refs in the t.o. faq]

[snip]

> refuted. Somewhat more difficult is refuting old-earth
> creationism via successive creations, as Agassiz believed. I
> invite you to take a stab at it.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, a sufficiently
discreet deity cannot be ruled out. The God of the Gaps
need only retreat into smaller and smaller gaps, to
avoid refutation. Of course, the God of the Gaps is
both scientifically unsound and theologically silly.
But he's not refutable.

[snip Hitching stuff]

So the occasional kook accepts evolution.
Most kooks accept gravitation too. Doesn't stop
things from falling down...

> df Hope you're ready for another "offensive" remark. Regarding
> df Darwin's proposal that "natural selection" is the mechanism
> df responsible for the appearance of life's diversity, that proposal

Begley quote, NOT marked as such:
------------------------------------

> df has enjoyed the status of revealed truth for most of the educated
> df public, but there are cracks in the facade.

------------------------------------

> SJ Apart from the fake ones that creationists try to paint there?
>
> I had no idea that Begley and the book editors mentioned below
> were creationists, and that as creationists, were trying to paint
> fake cracks in the facade of natural selection. One learns
> something new every day. You will, I trust, leave this damaging
> remark alone when you reply.

Yes, I will leave alone the damaging evidence that you quoted
Begley above without marking it as a quote and giving the source.
Highly unethical quoting practices, as usual.

>
> [Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin" _Newsweek _ (8 April
> 1985), 80, entire first paragraph.]"Ever since the famous Scopes
> 'monkey' trial of 1925, at which Clarence Darrow and H.L. Mencken
> rained ridicule on biblical accounts of creation, the theory of

Same Begley quote, take II:
----------------------------

> evolution has enjoyed the status of revealed truth for most of
> the educated public. But there are cracks in the facade. The

----------------------------

> great body of work deriving from Charles Darwin's revolutionary
> 1859 book, 'On the Origin of Species,' is under increasing
>
> attack--and not just from the creationists. Richard Lewontin of
> Harvard, a biologist of impeccably secular views, accuses
> Darwinists of telling 'Just So' stories when they try to show how
> natural selection explains such novelties as long-necked
> giraffes. The editors of a new book assert that when it comes to
> accounting for life on earth, natural selection should be
> 'relegated here to the [explanation of] [sic] last resort.' "

Yet another non-scientist has fallen for the overblown rhetoric
surrounding Gould and his friends versus what they call
"ultra-Darwinians". Big deal. Everybody involved agrees
on the basics of Darwinism, they're just bickering about the
details.

> df If that didn't raise your hackles, this one should. The idea
> df of descent from an unspecified number of common ancestors is
> df universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically
> df coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative,
> df special creation, is too incredible for many.

That was yet another unmarked quote, slighlty doctored to boot.

> SJ Four comments:
> SJ a) Things don't get "proved" [sic] in science.
>
> [Professor D. M. S. Watson, "Adaptation" _Nature_ 124:233
> (1929).]"The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data
> for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural
> selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be
> re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative
> explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and
> experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of
> evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it
> can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but
> because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly
> incredible."

Are you getting so desperate in your quote-mining, that you need to
go to 70-year-old sources?

>Instead of "proved," what word(s) should Watson
> have used?

His entire comment is out of date. No point
in changing single words.

> SJ b) Creation is not the only alternative. The are a few others,
> SJ almost as silly, like genetic engineering by aliens.
>
> If you would kindly list the other alternatives, no matter how
> silly, I will demonstrate that they boil down to creation vs.
> evolutionism.

Start with the one above.

> SJ c) The total available evidence overwhelmingly favour
> SJ common descent. The alternatives are indeed "too incredible",
> SJ not because of any anti-alien-engineering bias, but because
> SJ the evidence is what it is.
>
> If you would briefly describe the lines of evidence that
> [SJ]"overwhelmingly favour common descent," I will present an
> alternative, creationist interpretation of that evidence.

Whatever evidence I list, you can always give an
"alternative, creationist interpretation of that evidence",
simply by saying, "Hey, there's a tiny God hiding in this
Gap!" Pointless exercise.

> SJ d) Your comment is just silly when applied to Christian (or for
> SJ that matter Jewish or Muslim) scientists. Why do _they_ so
> SJ universally accept common descent?
>
> In 1982, only 9% of the American general public embraced the
> blindwatchmaking thesis. What is the source for saying that
> practicing Christians, Jews, and Muslims who are scientists
> overwhelmingly accept blindwatchmaking?

_I_ wasn't talking about blindwatchmaking, I was talking about
the theory of evolution. But you appear constitutionally unable
to appreciate the difference. I also wasn't talking
about the general public.

According to a survey published in Nature (vol 386, p 435),
about 40% of American scientists believe in a personal
God.

As for the "overwhelming":
Of the peer-reviewed papers published on relevant topics,
what fraction accepts evolution, and what fraction rejects it?
Even a quick informal glance through a few volumes of,
say, Nature, will amply demonstrate that the former fraction
is orders of magnitude larger. I've seen a formal survey,
with the same result, but I don't have the source handy.
(Does anyone out there know the source; I think it was
in connection with one of the monkey trials (Arkansas?))

[david ford]

James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 18 Mar 1998:
david ford:

df The more time paleontologists spend gathering fossils, the more
df abrupt the punctuations are seen to be.

JA Really? To which punctuations in particular are you referring?
JA
JA * Why exclamation points and question marks, of course!
JA
JA Actually, one of the best examples of a transitional sequence,
JA discovered by Gould and collaborators, is actually a punctuation.
JA The transition between two snail species, in fine gradations, occurs
JA in a sedimentary layer that covers only about 1,000 years. Because
JA this is so rapid, in geological terms, the transition is what Gould
JA refers to as a punctuation. I.e., it is extremely fortuitous that
JA the transition was captured in such a fleeting time period.

You state that this is [JA]"one of the best examples of a
transitional sequence." What did the two snails turn into--
horseflies, worms, clams, lobsters, what?

JA Most times such rapid
JA transitions are lost in the sedimentary record.

Ah, yes. The old "the transitions occurred so quickly, that's
the reason we can't find fossils documenting those transitions,
even after 130+ years searching" excuse.

While I have you, do you support the proposition that mankind has
developed from less advanced forms of life, with God having no
part in this process? Also, do you believe that in the distant
past, life came from not-life without the input of any
intelligence?

JA Gould discussed this in a recent "This
JA View of Life" with the basic theme that rapid speciation does not
JA really "prove" evolution, which occurs over much longer time spans.
JA (Sorry I can't recall the exact issue, as I've been plowing through
JA about a year's backlog of Natural History in the past two months.)
JA In essence, Gould says that the demonstration of rapid speciation
JA events demonstrates natural selection.

[david ford]

Michael Grice <Michae...@news.binc.net> on 8 March 1998:

MG So tell me, David, where is your theory of human origins?

Hugh Ross states in his _Creation and Time_ (1994) that, if I
recall correctly, Jewish scholars say a maximum of 60,000 years
can be inserted into the genealogies because of the practice of
telescoping (leaving out people, e.g., by going from grandfather
to grandson with no mention of the father). More conservatively,
the maximum is 30,000 years. Thus, I'd say that humans, or
spirit creatures/ creatures possessing a soul, were created at
most 60,000 years ago. The prevalence of religion is indicative
of possessing souls.

Before humans were created, various homonids, or creatures
physically somewhat similar to humans but lacking a soul, were
created. Judging by the way the rest of the fossil record
appears (speedy appearance of large numbers of organisms is
followed by gradual and sudden extinctions of those organisms),
I'll speculate that such was also the case with the creation of
the homonids. Large numbers of homonids were created in one or
more creation events, after which some survived longer than
others.

If the "days" in Genesis are interpreted as blocks of time during
which creations occurred, since Genesis states that humans were
God's last creation, it could be inferred that no more homonids
were created after humans' creation. However, alternatively, if
the "days" in Genesis are interpreted as [Allen Hayward,
_Creation and Evolution_ (1985), 167.]"the days in which God
issued his creative commands, or 'fiats,'" it is entirely
possible that additional homonids appeared after humans'
creation:

[Hayward, 176-7.]"[The 'days of fiat' approach] explains why the
order of events in Genesis 1 is similar to, but not identical
with, the order in which fossils appear in the geological record.
The broad similarity is because the creative processes were
presumably _started_ in much the same order as the daily fiats.
The discrepancies are because those creative processes took
varying length of time to complete, so that there would be a
great deal of overlapping in the periods of active creation."

MG What observations does it explain?

Not having read much about pre-human history, I don't know.

MG What predictions does it make?

Artifacts indicating possession of religion will not be found in
strata more than 60,000 years old.

MG How is your theory actually related to the data?

I don't know.

[Matthew J Wilson]

david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:

>Michael Grice <Michae...@news.binc.net> on 8 March 1998:
>
>MG So tell me, David, where is your theory of human origins?
>
>Hugh Ross states in his _Creation and Time_ (1994) that, if I
>recall correctly, Jewish scholars say a maximum of 60,000 years
>can be inserted into the genealogies because of the practice of
>telescoping (leaving out people, e.g., by going from grandfather
>to grandson with no mention of the father). More conservatively,
>the maximum is 30,000 years. Thus, I'd say that humans, or
>spirit creatures/ creatures possessing a soul, were created at
>most 60,000 years ago. The prevalence of religion is indicative
>of possessing souls.
>

There's a flaw in your logic already. The prevalence of religion is no
more indicative of having souls than it is of having innate insecurities
and being generally unable to handle what a big, nasty universe it is. A
need to not be alone, to know that it's all going to be allright, and a
need to have a purpose. All of these give rise to religion. Souls need
have nothing to do with it.

>Before humans were created, various homonids, or creatures
>physically somewhat similar to humans but lacking a soul, were
>created. Judging by the way the rest of the fossil record
>appears (speedy appearance of large numbers of organisms is
>followed by gradual and sudden extinctions of those organisms),
>I'll speculate that such was also the case with the creation of
>the homonids. Large numbers of homonids were created in one or
>more creation events, after which some survived longer than
>others.
>

How do you know they didn't have souls? Even by your own logic, I
belive it's fairly well established that a lot of them had basic religion
- nature worship and the like. You can't know whether or not they had
souls unless you had one in front of you, and even then it'd be
interesting to see a "soul test" mechanism.

--
Matt.

[maff91]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/thisweek.html

Hopeful Monsters
Thursday, 19th March 1998 at 9.30pm on BBC2

A striking illustration in a
textbook sparked a profound obsession for Mike Levine, Professor of
Molecular Biology at University of California, Berkeley. It was of a
monster - tiny but garish - a close-up of a fly's head, perfectly
formed with normal eyes and mouth parts, but sprouting
from where its antennae should have been were two
perfectly sculpted legs. "I knew this was it," Levine says,
"Such a dramatic mutation just had to hold the key to
understanding, certainly how to build a fly, but even other animals as
well."

He travelled to the world renowned Biozentrum
Laboratories in Basel in the summer of 1982 to meet fellow American
Bill McGinnis. Between them, in a matter of weeks, they performed a
series of experiments that was to blow apart the world of genetics,
and crack open the mysteries of the developing embryo and the secrets
of how we and all other animals came to be the way we are.

Through their work it is now known that humans share
the same gene inventory as the goldfish, the dinosaur, the sparrow and
the beetle. Instead of millions of genes doing different things in
different animals, there is a basic toolkit of genes used over and
over again throughout the animal kingdom. The human baby in the womb
is being sculpted by exactly the same genes that shape the developing
fly.

This toolkit, known as the homeobox genes, is the key
to how nature has produced the staggering diversity within the 4
billion species that have existed on Earth since life began, and it is
leading to a new understanding of the mechanism of evolution
itself. The tiniest mutation in the toolkit genes can result in rapid
and dramatic changes in the animal, as it triggers a cascade of
inevitable consequences.

Bryn Higgins and Peter Goodchild's film reveals the
mechanism of how dinosaurs became large, how insect flight evolved in
just a few stages, and how humans emerged as a result of a genetic
throw-back from a family of apes. Today, rare and disturbing medical
conditions such as "werewolf syndrome" are explained in terms of
just a simple mutation in nature's toolkit. And from just such an
genetic throw-back - a gene nick-named "Sonic Hedgehog" - treatments
are now developing for some of humanity's most pressing sicknesses,
such as skin cancer and Parkinson's disease.

This film is about an obsession that has led to a
revolution. Levine and McGinnis look back with both pride and
amazement at how, in only 15 years, things have moved from fuzzy ideas
about mutations in fruit-flies to a precise knowledge of how genes
communicate with one another.

Programme transcript
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/script.html

External Links

http://www.cob.org.uk/ - The Company of Biologists
home page - a non-profit organisation which seeks the general
advancement of biology.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of
external internet sites.

Home
This Week
Script
Coming Soon
Archive

[mel turner]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.98032...@umbc10.umbc.edu>,
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote..

>James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 18 Mar 1998:
>david ford:
>
>df The more time paleontologists spend gathering fossils, the more
>df abrupt the punctuations are seen to be.
>
>JA Really? To which punctuations in particular are you referring?
>JA
>JA * Why exclamation points and question marks, of course!
>JA
>JA Actually, one of the best examples of a transitional
sequence,
>JA discovered by Gould and collaborators, is actually a punctuation.
>JA The transition between two snail species, in fine gradations,
occurs
>JA in a sedimentary layer that covers only about 1,000 years.
Because
>JA this is so rapid, in geological terms, the transition is what
Gould
>JA refers to as a punctuation. I.e., it is extremely fortuitous
that
>JA the transition was captured in such a fleeting time period.
>
>You state that this is [JA]"one of the best examples of a
>transitional sequence." What did the two snails turn into--

Different species of snails, of course. The whole business of
puncutated equilibira is the small-scale, species-to-species
transitions that are poorly documented in the fossil record [but good
examples do exist].

>horseflies, worms, clams, lobsters, what?

Silly, that would be creationism. Sheesh.

>JA Most times such rapid
>JA transitions are lost in the sedimentary record.
>
>Ah, yes. The old "the transitions occurred so quickly, that's
>the reason we can't find fossils documenting those transitions,
>even after 130+ years searching" excuse.

Hardly an excuse, since it really only applies at the boring
species-to-species transition level that creationists commonly
accept. Intermediates are well-known at higher levels.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html

>While I have you, do you support the proposition that mankind has
>developed from less advanced forms of life, with God having no
>part in this process? Also, do you believe that in the distant
>past, life came from not-life without the input of any
>intelligence?

Such positions are not necessarily implied by evolutionary biology.

Try:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html

[David Johnston]

david ford wrote:
>
> James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 18 Mar 1998:
> david ford:
>
> df The more time paleontologists spend gathering fossils, the more
> df abrupt the punctuations are seen to be.
>
> JA Really? To which punctuations in particular are you referring?
> JA
> JA * Why exclamation points and question marks, of course!
> JA
> JA Actually, one of the best examples of a transitional sequence,
> JA discovered by Gould and collaborators, is actually a punctuation.
> JA The transition between two snail species, in fine gradations, occurs
> JA in a sedimentary layer that covers only about 1,000 years. Because
> JA this is so rapid, in geological terms, the transition is what Gould
> JA refers to as a punctuation. I.e., it is extremely fortuitous that
> JA the transition was captured in such a fleeting time period.
>
> You state that this is [JA]"one of the best examples of a
> transitional sequence." What did the two snails turn into--

> horseflies, worms, clams, lobsters, what?
>

> JA Most times such rapid
> JA transitions are lost in the sedimentary record.
>
> Ah, yes. The old "the transitions occurred so quickly, that's
> the reason we can't find fossils documenting those transitions,
> even after 130+ years searching" excuse.

<shrug> We did find transitional fossils. Then you demanded
transitional fossils between the transitional fossils. You can keep it
up forever.

>
> While I have you, do you support the proposition that mankind has
> developed from less advanced forms of life, with God having no
> part in this process? Also, do you believe that in the distant
> past, life came from not-life without the input of any
> intelligence?

Belief is irrelevant to scientific inquiry.

[Sverker Johansson]

david ford wrote:
>
> Sverker Johansson <l...@anti-spam.hlk.hj.se> in
> "Enourmous gaps, 2nd try" on 26 Feb 1998:
> david ford:

[points of agreement snipped]

> df [df]"arose via non-intelligence-directed processes" vs.
> df [SJ]"process unspecified!" Explication of [SJ]"process
> df unspecified": the process could be described as Neo-Darwinian or
> df Lamarckian or Goldschmidtian or as some other mechanism or as
> df some mechanism yet to be discovered. Question: Are any of these
> df mechanisms directed by an intelligent entity in any way? Answer:
>
> SJ Yes. "other mechanism" may well include divine intervention.
>
> Drawing on your singularly large amount of reading about
> evolutionary theory, please support [SJ]"'other mechanism' may
> well include divine intervention" with ample references to
> prominent evolutionists' statements.

I'll get back to that point below.

> To buttress my position, I
> offer the following statements as supplementary to Dawkins's
> remark.
>
> [Julian Huxley, _Knowledge, Morality, and Destiny_ (1957),

[snip]

> there is no room for the supernatural...."

[snip the stuff that's summarized below]

> To summarize this modus tollens syllogism: P1 if created, then
> purpose; P2 no purpose; C no created.

> Statement of a prominent
> evolutionist in support of P2, which leads to [df]"Conclusion:
> God did not create all lifeforms."

Well, ok, since you apparently think your syllogism is valid I
suppose you have to become an atheist... :->

But since neither premise is firmly established, I shall
have to disagree.

P1: Assuming that we were created: do we really know
_why_ God created the universe? No, we don't. For all _we_
know, creation may have been wholly accidental and unintended,
or a byproduct of some more important project of His, without
purpose of its own. "If created, then purpose" is thus not
necessarily true.

P2: No purpose in the world? Many of us can't _see_ any purpose.
But God is supposed to be inscrutable - why do you assume
that we would recognize purpose even if it's there? His purpose
might even be to see what we would make of a universe with no
internal trace of purpose :-> "No purpose" thus does not
follow from the observed "No _obvious_ purpose."

> [G. Ledyard Stebbins, _Darwin
> to DNA, Molecules to Humanity_ (1982), 4.]"The evolutionist's

[snip]

> [George Gaylord Simpson, _The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of

[snip]

> [Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, _Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors_

[snip]

None of the quotes are from scientific treatises on evolution,
but from popular and/or metaphysical works, where the authors
are free to express their opinions on issues outside science.

I can supply corresponding quotes from scientists who accept
evolution _and_ believe in a guiding intelligence. But their
opinion about God is likewise outside science.

A large collection can be found in Margenau & Varghese (1992)
"Cosmos, Bios, Theos" La Salle: Open Court, in which 60 famous
scientists state their opinion on God, Creation, and science.

One example: sir John Eccles (Nobel Prize 1963):
"The evolutionary process gives rise to my body and brain,..."
and "This is a loving Creator giving us all these wonderful
gifts." (p 163 & 164)

But it is pretty pointless to fight with such quotes.
The authors are outside science when they express
religious (or anti-religious) opinions.

[tail of Sagan quote:]

> process.'(_Creation/Evolution _, No. 10 [fall 1982] [sic], p.
> 38.)"

So you're quoting from a secondary source? Haven't you read
Sagan in the original? How about all your other quotes?
How many of the books that you quote have you actually read??

[snip]

> SJ That's the principal difference between my CD and my BW:
> SJ BW explicitly excludes intelligent direction.
> SJ I have already admitted that BW is unscientific; a
> SJ sufficiently discreet deity is impossible to rule out.
>
> Statement 1 (your characterization of BW): Lifeforms appeared via
> the means of A or B or C or something else, or a combination of
> some or all of the above. Statement 2 (your characterization of
> CD): Lifeforms appeared via the means of A or B or C or
> [SJ]"intelligent direction" or something else, or a combination
> of some or all of the above. If statement 1 is unfalsifiable,
> then a fortiori statement 2 is unfalsifiable. If statement 1 it
> is unscientific, then a fortiori statement 2 is unscientific.

You are using "unfalsifiable" and "unscientific" as synonyms,
which isn't quite correct. The difference becomes
significant in the vicinity of religious issues.

Science doesn't deal with the supernatural at all. Any
statements about the existence of the supernatural are
therefore _a_priori_ unscientific, even though they may
be technically falsifiable:

The statement "There is no God" could be falsified
by God making a personal appearance, and is thus
falsifiable. But it's still not scientific.

The most science can say about the supernatural is
that there is no _need_ for supernatural explanations
for this or that phenomenon. Newton's theory of gravity
gave an adequate non-supernatural explanation for
things falling; there is thus no _need_ to invoke
elves pulling things down to explain falling. But we
still can't positively _exclude_ that the elves are still
there, helping things along. "There is no apparent _need_
for elves." is scientific, but "There are no elves." isn't.

> Since you [SJ]"have already admitted that BW is unscientific,"
> you are also admitting that [SJ]"my CD" is unscientific, whether
> you realize it or not.

Wrong. See above.

[snip]

> SJ Fine. So you do not claim that NS in this sense is falsified?
>
> As they are stated, I have no problem with any of your premisses
> taken singly and have no problem with your premisses taken
> collectively.

Fine.

[snip Darwin's formulation of NS]

> I could dispute some of the things that Darwin says are
> indisputable, but when it comes to [Darwin]"But if variations
> useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus
> characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the
> struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance
> they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised," I
> again think of the peppered moths and say in reply, "So what?"
> If this is all you think natural selection is, you and I have no
> real disagreement here.

So you accept small-scale evolutionary changes. But, if I read
you correctly, you deny the possibility of large-scale
changes without intelligent direction? Where do you draw the
line, and why?

> With Dawkins, Stebbins, J. Huxley,
> Sagan, and Simpson, however, I continue to disagree.

Do you disagree with their science, or their metaphysics?
If the latter, we can all just agree to disagree.
If the former, could you please specify your objections,
with refs to their _scientific_ publications.

[James G. Acker]

New text begins with *

James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 18 Mar 1998:
david ford:

df The more time paleontologists spend gathering fossils, the more
df abrupt the punctuations are seen to be.

JA Really? To which punctuations in particular are you referring?
JA
JA * Why exclamation points and question marks, of course!
JA
JA Actually, one of the best examples of a transitional sequence,
JA discovered by Gould and collaborators, is actually a punctuation.
JA The transition between two snail species, in fine gradations, occurs
JA in a sedimentary layer that covers only about 1,000 years. Because
JA this is so rapid, in geological terms, the transition is what Gould
JA refers to as a punctuation. I.e., it is extremely fortuitous that
JA the transition was captured in such a fleeting time period.

*Greetings, David!

Actually, the post wasn't really intended for you, but I'm glad
you replied. Just so I can clarify your misunderstandings.

df You state that this is [JA]"one of the best examples of a
df transitional sequence." What did the two snails turn into--
df horseflies, worms, clams, lobsters, what?

*They turned into snails, you intentional obscurantist!
In little tiny eensy meensy steps at a time over about 1000 years. The
way that speciation occurs.

JA Most times such rapid
JA transitions are lost in the sedimentary record.

df Ah, yes. The old "the transitions occurred so quickly, that's
df the reason we can't find fossils documenting those transitions,
df even after 130+ years searching" excuse.

*You totally missed the point, you belittling misreader!

This is a perfect example of what Gould contends is *rarely*
found in the fossil record because it occurs so quickly, and because
the paleontologists were so amazingly lucky to find the transition in
a sedimentary layer from exactly the right period of time. The
vast majority of the time such transitions are missed in the
GAPPY, IMPERFECT, MINIMALLY SAMPLED, ERODED, SUBDUCTED, METAMORPHOSED
(insert your favorite earth shaping process here) geological record.
I.e., it's deucedly difficult to find such a finely graded sequence,
and Gould's point was that such examples of "fast" evolution say
very little about "REAL" evolutionary change, which occurs over time
scales at least 10^2 times larger.

df While I have you, do you support the proposition that mankind has
df developed from less advanced forms of life, with God having no
df part in this process? Also, do you believe that in the distant
df past, life came from not-life without the input of any
df intelligence?

*As you may already know, I believe that evolution is a
God-guided process, the results of which cannot be distinguished
from natural processes when using the investigative methods of
science. So the answer to your questions is no in both cases.

JA Gould discussed this in a recent "This
JA View of Life" with the basic theme that rapid speciation does not
JA really "prove" evolution, which occurs over much longer time spans.
JA (Sorry I can't recall the exact issue, as I've been plowing through
JA about a year's backlog of Natural History in the past two months.)
JA In essence, Gould says that the demonstration of rapid speciation
JA events demonstrates natural selection.

*You might as well read that paragraph again.

Always good to spar with you,

Jim Acker

===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.

--QAA20475.890774863/wheelo.gsfc.nasa.gov--

[J.J. Gauch]

david ford wrote:

> James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 18 Mar 1998:
> david ford:
>
> df The more time paleontologists spend gathering fossils, the more
> df abrupt the punctuations are seen to be.
>
> JA Really? To which punctuations in particular are you referring?
> JA
> JA * Why exclamation points and question marks, of course!
> JA
> JA Actually, one of the best examples of a transitional sequence,
> JA discovered by Gould and collaborators, is actually a punctuation.
> JA The transition between two snail species, in fine gradations, occurs
> JA in a sedimentary layer that covers only about 1,000 years. Because
> JA this is so rapid, in geological terms, the transition is what Gould
> JA refers to as a punctuation. I.e., it is extremely fortuitous that
> JA the transition was captured in such a fleeting time period.
>

> You state that this is [JA]"one of the best examples of a

> transitional sequence." What did the two snails turn into--

> horseflies, worms, clams, lobsters, what?
>

> JA Most times such rapid
> JA transitions are lost in the sedimentary record.
>

> Ah, yes. The old "the transitions occurred so quickly, that's

> the reason we can't find fossils documenting those transitions,

> even after 130+ years searching" excuse.
>

> While I have you, do you support the proposition that mankind has

> developed from less advanced forms of life, with God having no

> part in this process? Also, do you believe that in the distant

> past, life came from not-life without the input of any

> intelligence?
>
>

How does that go? Something like "Are you now or have you ever been a
member of the Communist Party?" I thought that sounded familiar.

[James G. Acker]

david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:

>Michael Grice <Michae...@news.binc.net> on 8 March 1998:
>
>MG So tell me, David, where is your theory of human origins?
>
>Hugh Ross states in his _Creation and Time_ (1994) that, if I
>recall correctly, Jewish scholars say a maximum of 60,000 years
>can be inserted into the genealogies because of the practice of
>telescoping (leaving out people, e.g., by going from grandfather
>to grandson with no mention of the father). More conservatively,
>the maximum is 30,000 years. Thus, I'd say that humans, or
>spirit creatures/ creatures possessing a soul, were created at
>most 60,000 years ago. The prevalence of religion is indicative
>of possessing souls.
>
There's a flaw in your logic already. The prevalence of religion is no
more indicative of having souls than it is of having innate insecurities
and being generally unable to handle what a big, nasty universe it is. A
need to not be alone, to know that it's all going to be allright, and a
need to have a purpose. All of these give rise to religion. Souls need
have nothing to do with it.

*I agree that the logic is flawed (i.e., evidence of religious
observance equates with possession of soul, partly because there is no
objective way of determining that any creature has a soul): but what
is interesting and intriguing is the evidence that our ancestors,
clearly capable of complex thought processes, were attempting to
address their place in nature. They were thinking enough to realize
they were thinking individuals capable of contemplating their own
existence. To me, that's quite a profound step. At its core, it's
the basis of both scientific inquiry and religious observance.

>Before humans were created, various homonids, or creatures
>physically somewhat similar to humans but lacking a soul, were
>created. Judging by the way the rest of the fossil record
>appears (speedy appearance of large numbers of organisms is
>followed by gradual and sudden extinctions of those organisms),
>I'll speculate that such was also the case with the creation of
>the homonids. Large numbers of homonids were created in one or
>more creation events, after which some survived longer than
>others.
>
How do you know they didn't have souls? Even by your own logic, I
belive it's fairly well established that a lot of them had basic religion
- nature worship and the like. You can't know whether or not they had
souls unless you had one in front of you, and even then it'd be
interesting to see a "soul test" mechanism.

*That is an interesting question. And it gets into the field of
Biblical hermeunetics, to whit, what exactly is meant by "made in the
image of God" and God giving "life/spirit/breath" to man.

Jim Acker

P.S. I predict somebody is going to quote Desmond Howard in response
to this.

[david ford]

James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 24 Mar 1998:
david ford:
James G. Acker on 18 Mar 1998:

>JA Really? To which punctuations in particular are you referring?
>JA
>JA * Why exclamation points and question marks, of course!
>JA
>JA Actually, one of the best examples of a transitional sequence,
>JA discovered by Gould and collaborators, is actually a punctuation.
>JA The transition between two snail species, in fine gradations, occurs
>JA in a sedimentary layer that covers only about 1,000 years. Because
>JA this is so rapid, in geological terms, the transition is what Gould
>JA refers to as a punctuation. I.e., it is extremely fortuitous that
>JA the transition was captured in such a fleeting time period.

JA *Greetings, David!
JA
JA Actually, the post wasn't really intended for you, but I'm glad
JA you replied. Just so I can clarify your misunderstandings.

df You state that this is [JA]"one of the best examples of a
df transitional sequence." What did the two snails turn into--
df horseflies, worms, clams, lobsters, what?

JA *They turned into snails, you intentional obscurantist!
JA In little tiny eensy meensy steps at a time over about 1000 years.
JA The way that speciation occurs.

Snails turned into snails. Just saying that phrase makes me wish
to become an evolutionary biologist or evolutionary
paleontologist and study, among other things, snails turning into
snails. Engrossing. Positively engrossing.

>JA Most times such rapid
>JA transitions are lost in the sedimentary record.

df Ah, yes. The old "the transitions occurred so quickly, that's
df the reason we can't find fossils documenting those transitions,
df even after 130+ years searching" excuse.

JA *You totally missed the point, you belittling misreader!
JA
JA This is a perfect example of what Gould contends is *rarely*
JA found in the fossil record because it occurs so quickly, and because
JA the paleontologists were so amazingly lucky to find the transition in
JA a sedimentary layer from exactly the right period of time. The
JA vast majority of the time such transitions are missed in the
JA GAPPY, IMPERFECT, MINIMALLY SAMPLED, ERODED, SUBDUCTED, METAMORPHOSED
JA (insert your favorite earth shaping process here) geological record.
JA I.e., it's deucedly difficult to find such a finely graded sequence,
JA and Gould's point was that such examples of "fast" evolution say
JA very little about "REAL" evolutionary change, which occurs over time
JA scales at least 10^2 times larger.

df While I have you, do you support the proposition that mankind has
df developed from less advanced forms of life, with God having no
df part in this process? Also, do you believe that in the distant
df past, life came from not-life without the input of any
df intelligence?

JA *As you may already know, I believe that evolution is a
JA God-guided process, the results of which cannot be distinguished
JA from natural processes when using the investigative methods of
JA science. So the answer to your questions is no in both cases.

You spoke of a [JA]"transition between two snail species... in a
sedimentary layer"; what does "species" mean in this sentence?

In _your_ opinion, for what claim(s) does this instance of a
snail species turning into another snail species provide
evidence?

[JA]"I believe that evolution is a God-guided process." Do you
believe God was responsible in any way for the snail species
becoming another snail species over the period of 1000 years?;
what are the reasons justifying that belief?

At one time snails of any sort did not exist; do you believe God
was responsible in any way for snails' coming into existence?;
what are the reasons justifying that belief?

[JA]"Evolution is a God-guided process, the results of which

cannot be distinguished from natural processes when using the

investigative methods of science." Rephrased: Using the
investigative methods of science, the results of that God-guided
process called evolution cannot be distinguished from the results
of natural processes. Is this an acceptable rephrasing?
Suppose I present you with an organism; how would _you_ go about
determining whether God-guided processes were responsible in any
way for the appearance of that organism? In your opinion, is it
possible that a combination of natural processes and God-guided
processes operated to produce that organism?

>JA Gould discussed this in a recent "This
>JA View of Life" with the basic theme that rapid speciation does not
>JA really "prove" evolution, which occurs over much longer time spans.
>JA (Sorry I can't recall the exact issue, as I've been plowing through
>JA about a year's backlog of Natural History in the past two months.)
>JA In essence, Gould says that the demonstration of rapid speciation
>JA events demonstrates natural selection.

JA *You might as well read that paragraph again.

I've reread it. You might want to look up "obscurantist" before
slinging it as a pie. At someone. Again. _Mag_pie, that is.

[mel turner]

In article
<Pine.SGI.3.96.980326...@umbc10.umbc.edu>,

>James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 24 Mar 1998:
>david ford:
>James G. Acker on 18 Mar 1998:
>

[snip]

>
>JA *They turned into snails, you intentional obscurantist!
>JA In little tiny eensy meensy steps at a time over about 1000
years.
>JA The way that speciation occurs.
>
>Snails turned into snails. Just saying that phrase makes me wish
>to become an evolutionary biologist or evolutionary
>paleontologist and study, among other things, snails turning into
>snails. Engrossing. Positively engrossing.

Sheesh, what'd you expect? Feathers? Your complaint's about as
silly as any of Karl's or Jabriol's or JM's tiresome creationist
drivel.

Yes, _of course_ the snails changed into [different] snails. No
matter how much they may change, the snails' descendants will always
be "still gastropods" _by definition_, just as humans are still
hominids, still primates, still placentals, still therian mammals,
still mammals, still synapsids, still amniotes, still tetrapods,
still sarcopterygians, still osteicthyans, still gnathostomes, still
vertebrates, still chordates, still metazoa, still eukaryotes &
still life. In modern phylogenetic [cladistic] systematics, things
never "leave" their ancestral groups no matter how much they may
change. Birds are "still theropod dinosaurs", so Archaeopteryx is
just a transitional form of a "dinosaur turning into a dinosaur".
Tsk. How trivial, how boring.

[snip]

[David Ragland]

"Free thinking" refers to a mental/emotional orientation that
isn't bogged down in dogma or preconceptions. Dig?

-- Robert Davis

Can it not be argued that free-thinking, as you define it,
has a somewhat limited life-span and then good ol' dogma runs
up to you and sticks its cold, wet nose to your crotch? Point
being, dogma and preconception, or postconception for that
matter, are hard cognitive predators to avoid as they are the
progenitors of conclusion in scenarios where the available evidence
leaves one lacking the `proof' they may want. And we `all' crave
conclusions as they give closure to what can `betimes' be
discomfiting states of contemplation. That is to say, solace
(not just information) is obtained from answers; pure and simple.

Now, let's see if we can't get the cry for evidence issue
placed in its proper perspective, even if only for a while. By
that I mean, I anticipate losing hold of the reins on this
recalcitrant beast at the first sign of a strong, dogma-based
assertion from either camp. <G>

Let's see . . . hmmm . . . okay, here goes:

There is a great big pile of `common' evidence out there.
The evidence that I am referring to is what you and I perceive to
be concrete, observable, and testable components of reality in a
naturalistic setting. At least, as you and I perceive reality
anyway. I hope our perception is mutual. If not, the task at
hand will most likely cost me a brain hemorrhage. <G>

In this collection of data, as defined, are various toe
holds (some of them are, admittedly, perilously narrow) upon
which we climb in an effort to find a basis for our personal
belief structure. I define belief structure in this case as a
selected throng of concepts, with which we are comfortable,
providing we can find corroborating toe holds in the aforesaid
pile. Now, I am not overlooking the fact that some people don't
bother to look at the pile `critically' before latching hold of
what sounds good. I am also not overlooking the fact that some
people use the wiles of rationale to construct a philosophical
life support system for their belief structure, that is more or
less a spin doctored perspective of the data pile as a whole or
in part.

In fact, that is the point that I have been working toward.
I suppose you are probably thinking, "It's about time!" at this
point, but please just bear with me; we are getting along
famously this trip around. <G!> My ultimate point is that the
crux of the debate issue, at times, seems to center around the
notion held in all camps that those of opposing view are lying to
themselves on many if not all facets of their belief structure.
I have answered this claim before in my debates/discussions with
others.

Observe:

"Isn't it strange how cultists must _always_
lie to themselves?"
-- Fred Rice

Well, is it strange? First, Fred must establish that
Christians lie to themselves before he or anyone else can provide
a rejoinder as to how eccentric the alleged propensity to do so
is or is `not'. How does he propose to demonstrate an innate
penchant for self-delusion on our part? Will he and his
malignant progeny read this and say, "You demonstrate this for us
all the time, fundy"? (or some profane variant) It is likely
they will, but that doesn't cut the philosophical mustard, does
it?

I mean, experience `has' shown his kind will read this post
and look for nothing but an avenue through which to reach the
corner of "Malevolent" and "Antagonist"!

They refuse to bear in mind that one cannot base these inane
assertions only upon the fact that we believe in things that they
cannot or will not. There are many `facts' upon which we base
our beliefs, whether they reach the same conclusions or not. For
example, the historicity of the Bible is evident and germane to
this issue. Nevertheless, they incessantly refuse to give credit
where it is due. They only mewl about all the ills that
Christians have wreaked upon the planet and summarily throw out
the baby with the bath water.

Christians are, after all, just people and prone to making
the mistakes that `people' make regardless of race, color, or
creed. Yet, in the spirit of utter hypocrisy, atheists argue
that Christianity is the progenitor of weak, sniveling, inferior,
hypocritical, and generally disgusting personalities. This claim
is so bizarre and far from the mark that it remains forever
without merit or deserving of a response. The refutation that
casts this argument in the light it deserves it as follows:

A weak, sniveling, inferior, hypocritical, and generally
disgusting sort of person exists in `all' camps. If they want to
be taken to task in proving that the Christian camp holds a
monopoly on this characterization, they can consider the
challenge made by me here and now. I then would ask them to show
me a list of charity organizations under the agnostic, atheist,
and pagan flags.

They assert that the beliefs Christians typically hold are
false; these arguments have typically proceeded by way of arguing
that theism is false. For example, there are arguments for the
conclusion that Christian theism or theism in general is
incoherent. Yet, you rarely ever see the atheists pounce
upon the pagans. The net of prejudice seems to let those who are
against Christ slip right through, doesn't it?

They claim that there couldn't be a person without a body;
if this were so, the theistic idea of God as a person without a
body would be incoherent or unnatural. Immortality is simply a
natural property of souls; if we survive death it is because God
miraculously saves us; apart from God's intervention death would
mean annihilation for us. Thus Irenaeus says: "Our survival
forever comes from His greatness, not from our nature." That is
our belief on the subject. Their response to this would seem to
be, "You `hope' you will live forever and have constructed a
belief system which will allow you to `think' you will".

Consider this:

===================================
"Entombed in a secure prison, thinking our
situation quite hopeless, we may find
unutterable joy in the information that there
is, after all, the slimmest possibility of
escape. Hope provides comfort, and hope does
not always require probability. But we must
believe that what we hope for is at least
possible"
===================================
-- Gretchen Weirob in
John Perry's imaginative
A Dialogue on Personal
Identity and Immortality

The evidence, whether they agree with the terminology
`evidence' being used here or not, we provide for God's existence
does not work as undisputed certification. At best, we can
simply point to the probability of an intelligent force that
influences the universe and then take a step beyond the
limitations of `human' reason to faith. They chide believers in
vain about the lack of evidence for God's existence. Their
invidious chant is: "If God exists, show me better evidence."

They seem to be unable to believe either because of the
`alleged' lack of evidence or because of meritless misgivings
against acquiring beliefs through volitional means. They think
acquired beliefs should be incrementally issued to humans who
stand and wait for science, which is simply a tool, to tell them
what to believe and think. And that is kind of like religion
isn't it? I mean, the scientists become a priesthood in this
scenario which interprets all the findings for their followers.
They have a right to this belief system and this is respected by
most Christians, but their regard for us is not always so
even-handed is it?

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways"

James 1:6,8

A guerrilla fighter does not doubt his cause, a successful
businessman does not doubt the free enterprise system. Doubt is
the hobgoblin against every successful venture. Christians know
this and act accordingly; they act in the peace of faith, not
delusional soliloquy.

I think it is our peace they hate us for. (rant over) :-)

Until next time . . .
God Bless,
David Ragland
Infinitum Opus Dei

[Richard Keatinge]

In article <01bd5947$d30f7e80$062c3ed1@preinstalledcom>, David Ragland
<devi...@eatel.net> writes

>Christians are, after all, just people and prone to making
>the mistakes that `people' make regardless of race, color, or
>creed. Yet, in the spirit of utter hypocrisy, atheists argue
>that Christianity is the progenitor of weak, sniveling, inferior,
>hypocritical, and generally disgusting personalities.

Which atheist has done that? Or is this a figment of your imagination?

>This claim
>is so bizarre and far from the mark that it remains forever
>without merit or deserving of a response. The refutation that
>casts this argument in the light it deserves it as follows:
>
> A weak, sniveling, inferior, hypocritical, and generally
>disgusting sort of person exists in `all' camps.

You got me...

>If they want to
>be taken to task in proving that the Christian camp holds a
>monopoly on this characterization, they can consider the
>challenge made by me here and now. I then would ask them to show
>me a list of charity organizations under the agnostic, atheist,
>and pagan flags.

The trouble with atheism and agnosticism is that they describe a lack of
belief. As such they tend not to inspire great flights of good, evil,
or indeed anything. I can imagine both good and wicked things being
inspired by a belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but those, such as
you and me, who don't so believe very seldom band together under the
anti-IPU flag to do anything. Partly because there is no such flag.

And, historically, paganism in the West was more or less dead before
modern-style charity organizations were invented. Paganism has
nevertheless inspired many socially useful customs.

>
> They assert that the beliefs Christians typically hold are
>false; these arguments have typically proceeded by way of arguing
>that theism is false. For example, there are arguments for the
>conclusion that Christian theism or theism in general is
>incoherent. Yet, you rarely ever see the atheists pounce
>upon the pagans. The net of prejudice seems to let those who are
>against Christ slip right through, doesn't it?

Try producing some Velikovskian ideas in this forum - as near to
paganism as seems likely to produce anti-science in big fat gobs. You
will find that anti-science is attacked regardless of whether it's
Christian or not. The trouble is that there seem to be so many
Christian antiscience nutcases around. Get rid of them and you'll get
rid of your problem.

--
Richard Keatinge

The talk.origins FAQs are at http://www.talkorigins.org

[david ford]

James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 27 Mar 1998:
david ford:
James G. Acker on 24 Mar 1998:

>JA *They turned into snails, you intentional obscurantist!
>JA In little tiny eensy meensy steps at a time over about 1000 years.
>JA The way that speciation occurs.

df Snails turned into snails. Just saying that phrase makes me wish
df to become an evolutionary biologist or evolutionary
df paleontologist and study, among other things, snails turning into
df snails. Engrossing. Positively engrossing.

JA Ah, I guess you want to answer the bigger questions.
JA Yet when someone shows you a fossil of a primitive whale,
JA you don't get very engrossed. So now we try to show you an
JA example of punctuated equilibrium, cited by one of the
JA authors of the concept, and you don't get excited by that
JA either. Why should we cater to your tastes in science?

df Ah, yes. The old "the transitions occurred so quickly, that's
df the reason we can't find fossils documenting those transitions,
df even after 130+ years searching" excuse.

>JA *You totally missed the point, you belittling misreader!
>JA This is a perfect example of what Gould contends is *rarely*
>JA found in the fossil record because it occurs so quickly, and because
>JA the paleontologists were so amazingly lucky to find the transition in
>JA a sedimentary layer from exactly the right period of time. The
>JA vast majority of the time such transitions are missed in the
>JA GAPPY, IMPERFECT, MINIMALLY SAMPLED, ERODED, SUBDUCTED, METAMORPHOSED
>JA (insert your favorite earth shaping process here) geological record.
>JA I.e., it's deucedly difficult to find such a finely graded sequence,
>JA and Gould's point was that such examples of "fast" evolution say
>JA very little about "REAL" evolutionary change, which occurs over time
>JA scales at least 10^2 times larger.

df While I have you, do you support the proposition that mankind has
df developed from less advanced forms of life, with God having no
df part in this process? Also, do you believe that in the distant
df past, life came from not-life without the input of any
df intelligence?

>JA *As you may already know, I believe that evolution is a
>JA God-guided process, the results of which cannot be distinguished
>JA from natural processes when using the investigative methods of
>JA science. So the answer to your questions is no in both cases.

df You spoke of a [JA]"transition between two snail species... in a
df sedimentary layer"; what does "species" mean in this sentence?

JA A type of snail that can be classified as distinct
JA from other type of snails. I assume on the basis of
JA shell morphology, but that's basically a hunch. You would
JA have to ask the authors to be sure.

df In _your_ opinion, for what claim(s) does this instance of a
df snail species turning into another snail species provide
df evidence?

JA Punctuated equilibrium, which was the whole point in the
JA first place.

What is the concept of punctuated equilibrium?

To which of the following taxa is the concept applicable?:
kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.

For what reason(s) was the punk-eek idea introduced? Is punk-eek
an idea whose time has gone?; if "no," what is the basis for
answering as you do?

Is the proposed mechanism of "natural selection" the mechanism
responsible for all instances where punctuated equilibrium is
generally believed to have occurred?; if "no," what alternative
mechanism(s) were at work?

df [JA]"I believe that evolution is a God-guided process." Do you
df believe God was responsible in any way for the snail species
df becoming another snail species over the period of 1000 years?;
df what are the reasons justifying that belief?

JA Yes, I do. My reason is the fact that I am a Christian
JA and I know that God is in control of all aspects of
JA the world.

Knowledge-justified true belief "Justified" because something
cannot properly be called knowledge without having been
justified, and "true" because it is impossible to know something
that's false. Is this an acceptable definition?

[JA]"I know that God is in control of all aspects of the world."
If God is to be in control of anything, God must first exist.
What is the justification for the claim that God exists?

What is the justification for the claim that God controls all
aspects of the world?

df At one time snails of any sort did not exist; do you believe God
df was responsible in any way for snails' coming into existence?;
df what are the reasons justifying that belief?

JA See above.

df [JA]"Evolution is a God-guided process, the results of which
df cannot be distinguished from natural processes when using the
df investigative methods of science." Rephrased: Using the
df investigative methods of science, the results of that God-guided
df process called evolution cannot be distinguished from the results
df of natural processes. Is this an acceptable rephrasing?

JA Yes.

df Suppose I present you with an organism; how would _you_ go about
df determining whether God-guided processes were responsible in any
df way for the appearance of that organism? In your opinion, is it
df possible that a combination of natural processes and God-guided
df processes operated to produce that organism?

JA I know that God-guided processes were responsible for the
JA appearance of that organism. However, there is no type of
JA scientific methodology I could employ to provide any evidence
JA for the action of God in creating the appearance of the
JA organism.

Is there any not-scientific methodology you would use to provide
evidence for God's action in creating organisms?

JA All of the processes that created the appearance
JA of the organism appear entirely natural when investigated
JA scientifically. (To put it another way, science can only
JA investigate the action of natural processes.)

Disregarded blindwatchmaking vs. creation discussions, in what
areas of inquiry is an operating intelligence invoked as a
possible explanation for observations?

>JA *You might as well read that paragraph again.

df I've reread it. You might want to look up "obscurantist"
df before slinging it as a pie. At someone. Again. _Mag_pie,
df that is.

JA Here's the definition of obscurantism:
JA
JA "opposition to the spread of knowledge : a policy of
JA withholding knowledge from the general public"
JA
JA Anybody who claims that evolutionary theory is not scientific
JA and who insists that the legs of Basilosaurus are not the
JA results of evolution is practicing obscurantism.
JA I know who I'm talking to.

I'm delighted to hear you're opposed to obscurantism.

Regarding [JA]"and who insists that the legs of Basilosaurus are
not the results of evolution": [JA]"As you may already know, I
believe that evolution is a God-guided process, the results of

which cannot be distinguished from natural processes when using

the investigative methods of science." Rephrasing of [JA]"who
insist that the legs of Basilosaurus are not the results of
evolution": [JA]"who insist that the legs of Basilosaurus _are
not_ the results of [a God-guided process]." On the contrary, I
believe that the Basilosaurus appendages you refer to _are_ the
result of a God-guided process.

If your conception of "evolution" differs from the meaning
renowned expositors of evolutionism ascribe to the word, in the
interest of clarity it would be best if you explicitly defined
the term when using it, or even scrapped entirely use of the
word. Please list, to the best of your awareness, all the
celebrated expositors of evolutionism that agree with your
conception of "evolution" as being [JA]"a God-guided process."
Some possibilities include Darwin, T.H. Huxley, J. Huxley,
Simpson, Dawkins, Gould, Dobzhansky, Mayr, Ayala, Wilson, Ruse,
Futumaya, Eldredge, Lewontin, R. Leakey, Lewin, and Johanson.

[JA]"Anybody who claims that evolutionary theory is not
scientific." Keeping in mind your conception of "evolution,"
what does "evolutionary theory" mean?

[JA]"Anybody who claims that evolutionary theory is not
scientific." At one time, philosopher of science Karl Popper
claimed exactly this, if [JA]"evolutionary theory" is taken in
the conventional meaning of the phrase. Prior to his retraction
of these remarks, was Popper practicing obscurantism?

[Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," _Natural History_ (May
1994), 13. Article reprinted in _Dinosaur in a
Haystack_.]"Gingerich and his coauthors write: 'Hind limbs of
Basilosaurus appear to have been too small relative to body size
to have assisted in swimming, and they could not possibly have
supported the body on land.' The authors strive bravely to
invent some potential function for these minuscule limbs and end
up speculating that they may have served 'as guides during
copulation, which may otherwise have been difficult in a

serpentine aquatic mammal.' (I regard such guesswork as
unnecessary, if not ill-conceived. We need not justify the
existence of a structure by inventing some putative Darwinian
function. All bodies contain vestigial features of little, if
any, utility. Structure of lost usefulness in genealogical
transitions do not disappear in an evolutionary overnight.)" In
making these remarks, what comments by [Gould]"the authors"
concerning the appendages did Gould withhold from the general
public?

At the bottom of the _Basilosaurus_ illustration Gould provides,
in small letters we read, "Adapted from _Science_, vol. 249, 13
July 1990." In adapting the illustration, what part of
Gingerich, Smith, and Simon's illustration did Gould neglect to
reproduce, i.e., what part of the illustration did Gould withhold
from the general public?

In your opinion, should Gould have reproduced the illustration in
full?; please justify your response.

[Physicist Richard Feynman in a 1974 commencement speech to the
California Institute of Technology, in the chapter "Cargo Cult
Science" in _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman: Adventures of a
Curious Character_ (1989), 308-17. Cited in Phillip E. Johnson,
_Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds_ (1997), 46-7.]"In summary,
the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to
judge the value of your contribution; not just the information
that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you
are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful

about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to
fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a
conventional way after that. I would like to add something
that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of
believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're
talking as a scientist.... I'm talking about a specific, extra
type of integrity that is [more than] not lying, but bending over
backwards to show you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when
acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to
laymen."

In the matter of _Basilosaurus_, has Gould presented
[Feynman]"all the information to help others to judge the value
of" his claim that [_Natural History_ (May 1994), 10.]"The
embarrassment of past absence has been replaced by a bounty of
new evidence--and by the sweetest series of transitional fossils
an evolutionist could ever hope to find"? Or has Gould instead
attempted to present [Feynman]"just the information that leads to
judgement in one particular direction"?

In his _Natural History_ pieces, Gould speaks to laymen as a
scientist; is Gould [Feynman]"bending over backwards to show
[he's] maybe wrong" in this particular _Natural History_ column?

Based on your reading of his columns discussing what he asserts
are [Gould, (May 1994), 8.]"superb examples of intermediary forms
and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded
skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy," how
frequent is Gould's failure to bend over backwards to show that
perhaps he's wrong?

Can you recall _any_ instance(s) when, while discussing
[Gould]"the reality of life's physical genealogy," Gould _did_
bend over backwards to show that perhaps he's wrong about the
reality of this [Gould]"reality"?

If you cannot recall any, what other prominent evolutionists,
when speaking as scientists to laymen, _have_ bent over backwards
to show that maybe they're wrong about the reality of this
[Gould]"reality"?

Please list the prominent evolutionists, plus where they were
speaking, that have presented all the information to help others
to judge the reality of this alleged [Gould]"reality," and
[Feynman]"not just the information that leads to judgement in one
particular direction or another."

[James G. Acker]

James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 27 Mar 1998:
david ford:
James G. Acker on 24 Mar 1998:

---
I'm going to delete everything that came before the beginning of the
discussion unless it's directly related to what I think we're discussing
now.
---

df You spoke of a [JA]"transition between two snail species... in a
df sedimentary layer"; what does "species" mean in this sentence?

JA A type of snail that can be classified as distinct
JA from other type of snails. I assume on the basis of
JA shell morphology, but that's basically a hunch. You would
JA have to ask the authors to be sure.

df In _your_ opinion, for what claim(s) does this instance of a
df snail species turning into another snail species provide
df evidence?

JA Punctuated equilibrium, which was the whole point in the
JA first place.

df What is the concept of punctuated equilibrium?

---
JA What is this, a test? As I understand it, which may or
may not be textbook Gould/Eldredge, PE explains why species to
species transitions are poorly documented in the fossil record.
---

df To which of the following taxa is the concept applicable?:
df kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.

---
JA If you're talking about evolution with this question,
PE is primarily concerned with the evolution of species.
---

df For what reason(s) was the punk-eek idea introduced? Is punk-eek
df an idea whose time has gone?; if "no," what is the basis for
df answering as you do?

---
JA As I understand it, PE is meant to explain the temporal and
spatial distribution of fossils in the fossil record. I believe it is
certainly still applicable. Gould apparently thinks so too, or else he
wouldn't be giving examples of it.
---

df Is the proposed mechanism of "natural selection" the mechanism
df responsible for all instances where punctuated equilibrium is
df generally believed to have occurred?; if "no," what alternative
df mechanism(s) were at work?

---
JA David, this question is hopeless. PE is not a process that
occurs anywhere, PE is a description of how fossils are arranged in the
fossil record. PE postulates that speciation occurs rapidly, and natural
selection is a broadly applicable term for how speciation occurs wrt the
environment. However, the term "natural selection" doesn't really address
the genetic and reproductive basis for speciation.
---

df [JA]"I believe that evolution is a God-guided process." Do you
df believe God was responsible in any way for the snail species
df becoming another snail species over the period of 1000 years?;
df what are the reasons justifying that belief?

JA Yes, I do. My reason is the fact that I am a Christian
JA and I know that God is in control of all aspects of
JA the world.

df Knowledge-justified true belief "Justified" because something
df cannot properly be called knowledge without having been
df justified, and "true" because it is impossible to know something
df that's false. Is this an acceptable definition?

---
JA I can't figure out what you're trying to define.
The first half of the sentence sounds ridiculous and the second half
seems redundant. There are two ways in which I determine the truth of
my brain's information store. One is external, an evaluation based on
input from other external sources of information. And one is internal,
based on my own personal experiences. Clearly the first is more
objective and the second is very subjective.
---

df [JA]"I know that God is in control of all aspects of the world."
df If God is to be in control of anything, God must first exist.
df What is the justification for the claim that God exists?

---
JA The primary justification is my own personal relationship with
God. This is supported by my study and interpretation of the Bible and other
theological sources.
---

df What is the justification for the claim that God controls all
df aspects of the world?

---
JA See above. Also read the book of Job again. Genesis 1 is
also quite illustrative. If you give me time, I'm reading Conrad Hyers' "The
Meaning of Genesis" right now, so I can report back to you.
---

[del]

df Suppose I present you with an organism; how would _you_ go about
df determining whether God-guided processes were responsible in any
df way for the appearance of that organism? In your opinion, is it
df possible that a combination of natural processes and God-guided
df processes operated to produce that organism?

JA I know that God-guided processes were responsible for the
JA appearance of that organism. However, there is no type of
JA scientific methodology I could employ to provide any evidence
JA for the action of God in creating the appearance of the
JA organism.

df Is there any not-scientific methodology you would use to provide
df evidence for God's action in creating organisms?

---
JA Only in a non-scientific context, because then I am allowed
to address the theological and philosophical aspects of the question.
I can then make a theological investigation of what the Bible
says about God's action in creating organisms. In a non-scientific
context, the Bible is evidence for God's action in creating organisms.
In that same non-scientific context, my personal relationship with God is also
evidence for same.
---

JA All of the processes that created the appearance
JA of the organism appear entirely natural when investigated
JA scientifically. (To put it another way, science can only
JA investigate the action of natural processes.)

df Disregarded blindwatchmaking vs. creation discussions, in what
df areas of inquiry is an operating intelligence invoked as a
df possible explanation for observations?

---
JA Sociology, psychology, etc. But again, invoking a
supernatural operating intelligence in these fields is also non-
scientific. But it is done.
---

[del]

df I'm delighted to hear you're opposed to obscurantism.

df Regarding [JA]"and who insists that the legs of Basilosaurus are
df not the results of evolution": [JA]"As you may already know, I
df believe that evolution is a God-guided process, the results of
df which cannot be distinguished from natural processes when using
df the investigative methods of science." Rephrasing of [JA]"who
df insist that the legs of Basilosaurus are not the results of
df evolution": [JA]"who insist that the legs of Basilosaurus _are
df not_ the results of [a God-guided process]." On the contrary, I
df believe that the Basilosaurus appendages you refer to _are_ the
df result of a God-guided process.

---
JA Good for you!
---

df If your conception of "evolution" differs from the meaning
df renowned expositors of evolutionism ascribe to the word, in the
df interest of clarity it would be best if you explicitly defined
df the term when using it, or even scrapped entirely use of the
df word. Please list, to the best of your awareness, all the
df celebrated expositors of evolutionism that agree with your
df conception of "evolution" as being [JA]"a God-guided process."
df Some possibilities include Darwin, T.H. Huxley, J. Huxley,
df Simpson, Dawkins, Gould, Dobzhansky, Mayr, Ayala, Wilson, Ruse,
df Futumaya, Eldredge, Lewontin, R. Leakey, Lewin, and Johanson.

---
JA When did I ever say that my definition of evolution differs
from that held by one, any, or all of the names in the above list? There
are several definitions we could bandy about, such as change of allele
frequency over time, or more simply, common descent. I _believe_
that evolution is a God-guided process, but the definition of how it works
does not change because of my belief. The definition is still formulated
by the methods of science and therefore there will be no reference to
God (or any other supernatural entity) in the definition if it is to be
scientifically meaningful.
I am trying to distinguish what science can do or say from areas
that it cannot address. God cannot be forced into a scientific assessment of
nature. I think where you're trying to go is to point out that
"evolutionists" exclude God from the definition of evolution. They
obviously should if they are talking about it in a scientific context.
Some of them draw philosophical conclusions from this exclusion.
I don't think that's either necessary or useful.
---

df [JA]"Anybody who claims that evolutionary theory is not
df scientific." Keeping in mind your conception of "evolution,"
df what does "evolutionary theory" mean?

---
JA The rule-based construct that creates a model of nature from
which both the relatedness and diversity of biological organisms can be
derived.
---

df [JA]"Anybody who claims that evolutionary theory is not
df scientific." At one time, philosopher of science Karl Popper
df claimed exactly this, if [JA]"evolutionary theory" is taken in
df the conventional meaning of the phrase. Prior to his retraction
df of these remarks, was Popper practicing obscurantism?

---
JA I am reasonably certain he was practicing philosophy. So
I stand by my statement. Popper retracted his statement because it
was wrong. I invite you to do the same.
Popper made a statement and subjected it to analysis. He was
inquiring into the accuracy of his own statement. In contrast, a reiterated
claim that "evolutionary theory is not scientific" presented in a particular
manner is definitely akin to obscurantism, because it is not being presented
as an arguable thesis but rather as a propagandistic device. An example of
this is when creationists argue that scientists are "covering up" the supposed
lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record because this lack
constitutes a refutation of evolutionary science. It's obscurantism
because such fossils do exist, and when arguments are posed to negate the
obvious transitional nature of such fossils, that too is obscurantism.
Oh my, look what we have next:
---

df [Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," _Natural History_ (May
df 1994), 13. Article reprinted in _Dinosaur in a
df Haystack_.]"Gingerich and his coauthors write: 'Hind limbs of
df Basilosaurus appear to have been too small relative to body size
df to have assisted in swimming, and they could not possibly have
df supported the body on land.' The authors strive bravely to
df invent some potential function for these minuscule limbs and end
df up speculating that they may have served 'as guides during
df copulation, which may otherwise have been difficult in a
df serpentine aquatic mammal.' (I regard such guesswork as
df unnecessary, if not ill-conceived. We need not justify the
df existence of a structure by inventing some putative Darwinian
df function. All bodies contain vestigial features of little, if
df any, utility. Structure of lost usefulness in genealogical
df transitions do not disappear in an evolutionary overnight.)" In
df making these remarks, what comments by [Gould]"the authors"
df concerning the appendages did Gould withhold from the general
df public?

---
JA Gould left out the author's description of the locking
mechanism of the knee in his summary. He also left out the position
of the nostrils because he was concentrating on the legs. But the
position of the nostrils is very significant, too.
---

df At the bottom of the _Basilosaurus_ illustration Gould provides,
df in small letters we read, "Adapted from _Science_, vol. 249, 13
df July 1990." In adapting the illustration, what part of
df Gingerich, Smith, and Simon's illustration did Gould neglect to
df reproduce, i.e., what part of the illustration did Gould withhold
df from the general public?

---
JA I assume that it doesn't reproduce the schematic diagram.
All I have is the original Science article.
---

df In your opinion, should Gould have reproduced the illustration in
df full?; please justify your response.

---
JA I don't think he had to; however, the full diagram shows
that the hind limbs are clearly legs, so perhaps he actually weakened his
essay by not showing it. It's amazing that the Basilosaurus leg has a
patella, just like ours. But let's get to my justification. Gould is
emphasizing that the legs are evolutionary leftovers on their way out.
So he presents
the illustrations which best support that point. The authors, however,
were attempting to demonstrate that although much reduced, the legs were
still functional, i.e., they could move and not just follow the animal around,
so their diagrams support that point. There's a difference between
"evidence of hindlimbs" and "evidence of functional hindlimbs".
There are plenty of _Basilosaurus cetoides_ fossils around that show
evidence of hindlimbs, and that's been known since the late 19th
century.
---

df [Physicist Richard Feynman in a 1974 commencement speech to the
df California Institute of Technology, in the chapter "Cargo Cult
df Science" in _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman: Adventures of a
df Curious Character_ (1989), 308-17. Cited in Phillip E. Johnson,
df _Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds_ (1997), 46-7.]"In summary,
df the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to
df judge the value of your contribution; not just the information
df that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.
df The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you
df are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful
df about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to
df fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a
df conventional way after that. I would like to add something
df that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of
df believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're
df talking as a scientist.... I'm talking about a specific, extra
df type of integrity that is [more than] not lying, but bending over
df backwards to show you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when
df acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
df scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to
df laymen."

df In the matter of _Basilosaurus_, has Gould presented
df [Feynman]"all the information to help others to judge the value
df of" his claim that [_Natural History_ (May 1994), 10.]"The
df embarrassment of past absence has been replaced by a bounty of
df new evidence--and by the sweetest series of transitional fossils
df an evolutionist could ever hope to find"? Or has Gould instead
df attempted to present [Feynman]"just the information that leads to
df judgement in one particular direction"?

---
JA This "sweetest series" covers the transition of land animals
to primitive whales. Gould presents all the information necessary to
demonstrate that particular point. The details of how each organism
may have operated in its particular environment and niche in time are
minimized because they aren't relevant to the central issue. Furthermore,
as long as he cites the reference, he gives laymen the opportunity to
investigate the issue at a more detailed level and make their own judgement.
Not presenting the reference might be construed as a tactic, or at least lack
of care.
---

df In his _Natural History_ pieces, Gould speaks to laymen as a
df scientist; is Gould [Feynman]"bending over backwards to show
df [he's] maybe wrong" in this particular _Natural History_ column?

---
JA In my opinion providing the reference is sufficient. I hope that
he did.
---

df Based on your reading of his columns discussing what he asserts
df are [Gould, (May 1994), 8.]"superb examples of intermediary forms
df and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded
df skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy," how
df frequent is Gould's failure to bend over backwards to show that
df perhaps he's wrong?

---
JA I'm not going to admit that Gould has exhibited a failure in
this instance.
---

df Can you recall _any_ instance(s) when, while discussing
df [Gould]"the reality of life's physical genealogy," Gould _did_
df bend over backwards to show that perhaps he's wrong about the
df reality of this [Gould]"reality"?

---
JA No. In the matter of the physical genealogy of the
whales, how can he be wrong? I wouldn't expect him to say that "whales
might possibly not be descended from four-legged land mammals if you
disregard the weight of the evidence and argue against the point
philosophically." That would be bending over way too far. And
if he addresses philosophical alternatives, then he isn't presenting the
scientific case accurately. There is no other valid way to interpret
the fossils in a scientific context.
---

df If you cannot recall any, what other prominent evolutionists,
df when speaking as scientists to laymen, _have_ bent over backwards
df to show that maybe they're wrong about the reality of this
df [Gould]"reality"?

---
JA I can't think of any, but I have to pose a counter-question
here. Should scientists, when speaking to laymen, confuse laymen with
possible non-scientific interpretations of data regarding nature? I would
prefer that the scientists explained the scientific aspects to the laymen, and
left the philosophy out of it.
---

df Please list the prominent evolutionists, plus where they were
df speaking, that have presented all the information to help others
df to judge the reality of this alleged [Gould]"reality," and
df [Feynman]"not just the information that leads to judgement in one
df particular direction or another."

---
JA I doubt that any prominent scientists have publicly
undermined a scientific discussion of evolution by introducing the
possibility of non-natural influences on the process.
---

Jim Acker

[Stanley Friesen]

david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>What is the concept of punctuated equilibrium?
>
>To which of the following taxa is the concept applicable?:
>kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
>

As JA said: species.

>Is the proposed mechanism of "natural selection" the mechanism
>responsible for all instances where punctuated equilibrium is
>generally believed to have occurred?; if "no," what alternative
>mechanism(s) were at work?
>

To try to answer what is probably the underlying question:

According to Gould: P.E. occurs as a *result* of natural selection.

The peace of God be with you.

Stanley Friesen

[david ford]

James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 2 April 1998:
david ford:

df Regarding [JA]"and who insists that the legs of Basilosaurus are
df not the results of evolution": [JA]"As you may already know, I
df believe that evolution is a God-guided process, the results of
df which cannot be distinguished from natural processes when using
df the investigative methods of science." Rephrasing of [JA]"who
df insist that the legs of Basilosaurus are not the results of
df evolution": [JA]"who insist that the legs of Basilosaurus _are
df not_ the results of [a God-guided process]." On the contrary, I
df believe that the Basilosaurus appendages you refer to _are_ the
df result of a God-guided process.

JA Good for you!

[snips: might be replied to in upcoming summer]

Correct me if any of the following accounts of your positions are
wrong. You believe that God-guided processes were responsible
for plants' and animals' appearances. So do I. You believe that
the Basilosaurus appendages referred to are the result of a
God-guided process. So do I. You believe that the earth is
about 4.5 billion years old. So do I.

I'm trying to understand the basis for your arguing against my
statements, and even if you are in fact doing such. What is it
that you and I disagree about?; what are the major differences
between your and my positions worth arguing about?

[david ford]

[Physicist Sir William Bragg, reputedly speaking during a lecture
about sound, at the Royal Institution. Cited in Alan Hayward,
_Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and
the Bible_ (1985), 207.]"Religion and science are opposed... but
only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger
are opposed -- and between the two, one can grasp everything."

[James G. Acker]

James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 2 April 1998:
david ford:

df Regarding [JA]"and who insists that the legs of Basilosaurus are
df not the results of evolution": [JA]"As you may already know, I
df believe that evolution is a God-guided process, the results of
df which cannot be distinguished from natural processes when using
df the investigative methods of science." Rephrasing of [JA]"who
df insist that the legs of Basilosaurus are not the results of
df evolution": [JA]"who insist that the legs of Basilosaurus _are
df not_ the results of [a God-guided process]." On the contrary, I
df believe that the Basilosaurus appendages you refer to _are_ the
df result of a God-guided process.

JA Good for you!

[snips: might be replied to in upcoming summer]

JA: I'll look forward to that. I know you're busy, so am I.

df Correct me if any of the following accounts of your positions are
df wrong. You believe that God-guided processes were responsible
df for plants' and animals' appearances. So do I. You believe that
df the Basilosaurus appendages referred to are the result of a
df God-guided process. So do I. You believe that the earth is
df about 4.5 billion years old. So do I.

JA: You are quite accurate in your characterization of
my positions here.

df I'm trying to understand the basis for your arguing against my
df statements, and even if you are in fact doing such. What is it
df that you and I disagree about?; what are the major differences
df between your and my positions worth arguing about?

JA: David, I dislike the positions of Philip Johnson. And
you're the closest thing to PJ that we've got right now on t.o.
As far as I can tell in reading you, we differ on these points:

1. The practice of science in the study of evolution. You,
and PJ, argue that the study of evolution should not exclude the
possibility of supernatural influence on the process. I counter that
by arguing that no scientific study can ever include a consideration of
supernatural influence and still be called scientific. "Then a miracle
occurs" or "God did it" cannot be investigated using scientific
methodology.
I just received a short article authored by PJ, courtesy of an
ideological opposite on this subject who's also a friend of mine. The
article is entitled "Opening Minds About Evolution", and it's in a
publication titled "Veritas Vincit (Truth Conquers)" from Trinity
International University in Deerfield, Illinois. (Not a diploma factory;
I've been there).

Quoting PJ: "Evolution -- as the scientific community understands
the term -- is based on a philosophy called naturalism or materialism, and
this philosophy excludes God from any role in the creation of human
beings or anything else. This philosophy makes evolution atheistic,
not the scientific evidence."

See? He's singling out evolution here. SCIENCE is based on
naturalism. Science excludes God (or any other force, being, or entity
outside of the realm of nature) from its method. Science is about
observing and modeling nature based on forces within nature. If forces
outside nature are brought into it, science is no longer being practiced.
It's not the philosophy that makes evolution atheistic, it's how scientific
inquiry is necessarily done. To summarize, scientists can't help the fact
that science is based on naturalism. The only way science can be practiced
properly is for it to be entirely naturalistic.

2. Transitional fossils, which would demonstrate gradual evolution,
don't exist.

One of PJ's stalking horses is theistic evolution. I'm a theistic
evolutionist, so that raises my hackles. Consider this quote:

"Of course, God could have used a gradual, guided process to
create. The problem with this idea isn't that God could not do it -- the
scientific problem is that the fossil evidence does not support evolutionary
gradualism. You find the sudden appearance of all the major groups of
living things without a detailed history of step-by-step development. If
God did use a gradual process to create, He also chose not to leave the
evidence of it lying around."

To which I reply -- Basilosaurus. There is so much glossed over
in this paragraph it's sickening. No mention of how geology makes the
fossil record imperfect. Note the key words: "detailed" and "step-by-
step". He wants us to go to the videotape! Sorry, it doesn't exist.
But later on there's this juicy quote:

"But in case after case, particularly where the fossil record is
most plentiful, we find an absence of evidence of step-by-step change
of one kind of thing into another. There are a couple of exceptional,
doubtful cases that we debate, but the dearth of evidence of gradual
change of creatures is the overall pattern. If the theory were true the
fossil record ought to be full of evidence of macroevolutionary
transitions, but it isn't."

There's "step-by-step" again. And what are the "exceptional,
doubtful cases that we debate"? Why, land mammals to whales,
therapsids to mammals, and increasingly, dinosaurs to birds. Isn't this
just a perfect demonstration of a defense lawyer trying to downplay
the prosecution's evidence?
The key inaccuracy is that last sentence. Even Darwin, in
_The Origin of Species_, anticipated what geology would do to the fossil
record. Yet PJ and others constantly state how "complete"
the fossil record OUGHT to be to make their case, while rarely
discussing how incomplete the fossil record actually IS!

And when he tries, after a brief introduction to trilobites,
the result is this classic handwave:

"When looking at the fossil record, [Niles] Eldredge says
it seems that evolution always seems to have happened "somewhere
else". Yet he also says he is a knee-jerk neo-Darwinist. Why is he a
knee-jerk neo-Darwinist? Because his worldview requires that
Darwinism has to be true."

David, you asked me before what Punc Eq was about. It's about
species-to-species transitions. They happen rapidly and are hard
to find (but they are found, occurring rapidly and in isolated regions).
PJ either doesn't get it, or more likely, doesn't want his audience to
get it. His obfuscation here is akin to lying, or in the minimum arguing
from ignorance. In either case I don't respect it.
So I say that honesty demands two things of Christians on
this subject. The first: admission that the fossil evidence, as interpreted
properly in a scientific context, supports evolution. And this is just
about the fossils---it doesn't even touch upon genetics. The second:
Admission that science is by necessity based on naturalism.

3. Scientific methods of inquiry can be used to provide
scientific evidence for God's existence.

As one might suspect, PJ's hero is Michael Behe right now.
After a cursory exposition of intelligent design, he says

"In Behe's symposiums, the argument is not about science.
Scientists who don't like his conclusions usually don't say he is wrong
on any of the science. They admit he has the facts right.* The main
question is philosophical. Behe says the evidence shows design. It
shows that there is an intelligence. His opponents say people are
not allowed to think that -- it is against the rules."

(*Comment: I seriously doubt the statement preceding
the asterisk is true.)

So close, and yet so wrong. PJ admits that the argument is
philosophical. So is he saying that the evidence, philosophically
interpreted, shows design? Fine! But would he move to the next logically
correct position (reflected by the last sentence) that Behe's evidence,
interpreted scientifically, only shows that cellular machinery functions
effectively, as would be expected from natural selection of working cellular
functions?

My main problem is that I see PJ and his type of approach as
trying to use scientific methods to reach non-scientific conclusions.
The reason that he, and many others, do this is the overriding power of
science in present-day intellectual society. It's the reason that
the ICR tries to show "scientifically" that the Noachian flood could
have occurred, because to do so lends more credence in the popular mind
to the truth of the Bible. I think Conrad Hyers said this: "It's bad
science, and it's also bad theology."

I want good science, and I want good theology.

I like your thumb and forefinger quote, David. Together
they can grasp everything. But separately, there is only a certain
amount of range to either scientific or theophilosophical inquiry.
And I will strive to oppose those who try to do too much with either one.
If PJ was just trying to show that science doesn't have the power to
answer questions outside its naturalistic jurisdiction, that would be
fine with me.

Contrast these two statements:

"God can't possibly be involved in evolution"
and
"God must be involved in evolution."

Both statements are philosophical positions. Neither statement
has any scientifically analyzable content.

(Thanks to everyone who read this far.)

[Wade Hines]

jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:

<PJ is Phillip Johnson>

> Quoting PJ: "Evolution -- as the scientific community understands
>the term -- is based on a philosophy called naturalism or materialism, and
>this philosophy excludes God from any role in the creation of human
>beings or anything else. This philosophy makes evolution atheistic,
>not the scientific evidence."

> See? He's singling out evolution here. SCIENCE is based on
>naturalism. Science excludes God (or any other force, being, or entity
>outside of the realm of nature) from its method.

<<< snip fine words >>>

I do this to highlight an excellent point well made.

According to James G. Acker, science is a method not a
philosophy. I agree. A huge cascade could ensue from "I agree"
(let's not and just pretend we did).

Phillip Johnson presumes that the naturalism of the method forces
one to a philosophy of naturalistic materialism which seems to
be heavily ladden with connotive baggage saying 3 things.
1.) no God the creator. 2.) no fairies or IPUs. 3.) Like to
shop at the mall and drive big cars. Something to offend everyone.

Johnson is wrong to force the connection between method and
philosophy despite the fact that some peoples philosophies
amount to science-ism. Without the forced connection, one might
however look at the possibility of their being no God acting
on the world and find it possible and I'd guess that to PJ,
that's the first step down a slippery slope. Regardless of his
parental instincts on protecting folks from a slide into
what he must think is oblivion, connecting method with philosophy
is not just unnecessary, it is flatly flawed thinking.

[david ford]

James G. Acker <jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> on 8 Apr 1998:
david ford:

df Correct me if any of the following accounts of your positions are
df wrong. You believe that God-guided processes were responsible
df for plants' and animals' appearances. So do I. You believe that
df the Basilosaurus appendages referred to are the result of a
df God-guided process. So do I. You believe that the earth is
df about 4.5 billion years old. So do I.

JA You are quite accurate in your characterization of

JA my positions here.

df I'm trying to understand the basis for your arguing against my
df statements, and even if you are in fact doing such. What is it
df that you and I disagree about?; what are the major differences
df between your and my positions worth arguing about?

JA David, I dislike the positions of Philip Johnson. And

JA you're the closest thing to PJ that we've got right now on t.o.
JA As far as I can tell in reading you, we differ on these points:
JA
JA 1. The practice of science in the study of evolution. You,
JA and PJ, argue that the study of evolution should not exclude the
JA possibility of supernatural influence on the process. I counter
JA that by arguing that no scientific study can ever include a
JA consideration of supernatural influence and still be called
JA scientific. "Then a miracle occurs" or "God did it" cannot be
JA investigated using scientific methodology.

[JA]"No scientific study can ever include a consideration of
supernatural influence and still be called scientific." First
off, I'm not saying that my arguments concerning and
investigations of origins constitute [JA]"scientific stud[ies],"
and do not feel the need to label those arguments and
investigations "scientific." If anything, they are
"philosophical" in nature.

For another thing, several fields that are commonly regarded as
being fields of [JA]"scientific study" _do_ consider the
possibility of _intelligent_ influence. I have in mind
paleoanthropology, archeology, and the search for
extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI). After finding a stone or
piece of bone, a paleoanthropologist may posit that intelligence
was involved in the crafting of that stone or bone. If an
archeologist locates a piece of metal, he/she may posit that
intelligence was involved in the crafting of that metal. And if
a radio astronomer discovers a radio signal containing directions
for building a machine, the astronomer may take those directions
to be evidence that intelligence was involved in the creation and
sending of that signal.

I submit that similarly, the directions for building a fruitfly,
a cow, a salamander, and a human, directions that are coded in
DNA, provide evidence that _intelligence_ was involved in the
creation of those directions. Note the similarity in the
following two quotes.

[Michael J. Behe, _Darwin's Black Box_ (1996), 196-7.]"Inferences
to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of
designer. We can determine that a system was designed by
examining the system itself, and we can hold the conviction of
design much more strongly than a conviction about the identity of
the designer.... The conclusion that something was designed can
be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a
matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before
there can be any further question about the designer. The
inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is
possible in this world, without knowing anything about the
designer."

[Statement by df. Replied to by Benjamin J. Tilly
<Benjamin.J.Tilly [at] Dartmouth.EDU> on 22 Sep
1997.]"Postulating intelligent design is not necessarily the same
as postulating Intelligent design/ God. Once we get to the stage
of acknowledging that intelligence was responsible for the
appearance of say bacterium, several options are still available.
E.g., aliens are intelligent; perhaps _they_ created the bacteria
and all the rest, and placed the organisms on earth, maybe as a
college senior biology project. After saying 'intelligence was
responsible,' it's time for some additional reasoning making
liberal use of the razor. The first question I'd put to this
proposal is 'How did the aliens come into existence?' "

JA I just received a short article authored by PJ, courtesy of
JA an ideological opposite on this subject who's also a friend of
JA mine. The article is entitled "Opening Minds About Evolution",
JA and it's in a publication titled "Veritas Vincit (Truth
JA Conquers)" from Trinity International University in Deerfield,
JA Illinois. (Not a diploma factory; I've been there).
JA
JA Quoting PJ: "Evolution -- as the scientific community
JA understands the term -- is based on a philosophy called
JA naturalism or materialism, and this philosophy excludes God from
to JA any role in the creation of human beings or anything else. This
JA philosophy makes evolution atheistic, not the scientific
JA evidence."
JA
JA See? He's singling out evolution here. SCIENCE is based on
JA naturalism. Science excludes God (or any other force, being, or
JA entity outside of the realm of nature) from its method. Science
JA is about observing and modeling nature based on forces within
JA nature. If forces outside nature are brought into it, science
JA is no longer being practiced. It's not the philosophy that makes
JA evolution atheistic, it's how scientific inquiry is necessarily
JA done. To summarize, scientists can't help the fact that science
JA is based on naturalism. The only way science can be practiced
JA properly is for it to be entirely naturalistic.

Having presented above my own approach, I'm not going to defend
Johnson's remark. I will, however, recast his and your remarks
in terms of the belief in spontaneous generation and present some
statements by believers in blindwatchmaking, thereby providing a
different angle of looking at his comment and your reply. [df's
recasting of Johnson]"As it is currently practiced, the study of
abiogenesis is based on a philosophy called naturalism or

materialism, and this philosophy excludes God from any role in

the creation of the first lifeforms. This philosophy makes the
study of how the first lifeforms arose atheistic, not the
scientific evidence."

[df's recasting of JA]"Johnson is singling out the field of
abiogenesis here. SCIENCE is based on naturalism. Science

excludes God (or any other force, being, or entity outside of the

realm of nature) from its method. Science is about observing and
modeling nature based on forces within nature. If forces outside
nature are brought into it, science is no longer being practiced.

It's not the philosophy that makes the field of abiogenesis

atheistic, it's how scientific inquiry is necessarily done. To
summarize, scientists can't help the fact that science is based
on naturalism. The only way science can be practiced properly is
for it to be entirely naturalistic."

Here are some quotes, plus a question, to close out this
substitution of "abiogenesis" for "evolution." [Dawkins,
_Climbing Mount Improbable_ (1996). Cited in Volkmar Weissig's
book review, _Free Inquiry_ (spring 1998), 63.]"In terms of the
obvious question how the first 'program' came into existence,
Dawkins tells us, 'Nobody knows how it happened but, but somehow,
without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule
arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying--a
replicator.' And further: '... the self-duplicating entities
must have been simple enough to arise by the spontaneous
accidents of chemistry.' "

[George Gaylord Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids,"
_Science_ 143:771 (1964).]"There are wide differences of opinion
as to the particular course followed [in life's arrival], but
here again there is near unanimity on the essential points.
Virtually all biochemists agree that life on earth arose
spontaneously from nonliving matter and that it would almost
inevitably arise on sufficiently similar young planets elsewhere.
That confidence is based on chemical experience."

[Luria, Gould, Singer, _A View of Life_ (1981), 711.]"Life arose
naturally from chemical constituents of the earth's original
atmosphere and oceans."

Do you agree with me that Dawkins's, Simpson's, and Gould's
pro-spontaneous generation positions are the result of
preconceived notions and wishful thinking, and are not an
outgrowth of looking hard at the experimental evidence?

JA 2. Transitional fossils, which would demonstrate gradual
JA evolution, don't exist.
JA
JA One of PJ's stalking horses is theistic evolution. I'm a
JA theistic evolutionist, so that raises my hackles. Consider
JA this quote:
JA
JA "Of course, God could have used a gradual, guided process to
JA create. The problem with this idea isn't that God could not
JA do it -- the scientific problem is that the fossil evidence
JA does not support evolutionary gradualism. You find the sudden
JA appearance of all the major groups of living things without a
JA detailed history of step-by-step development. If God did use
JA a gradual process to create, He also chose not to leave the
JA evidence of it lying around."
JA
JA To which I reply -- Basilosaurus. There is so much glossed
JA over in this paragraph it's sickening. No mention of how
JA geology makes the fossil record imperfect. Note the key words:
JA "detailed" and "step-by-step". He wants us to go to the
JA videotape! Sorry, it doesn't exist. But later on there's this
JA juicy quote:
JA
JA "But in case after case, particularly where the fossil
JA record is most plentiful, we find an absence of evidence of
JA step-by-step change of one kind of thing into another. There are
JA a couple of exceptional, doubtful cases that we debate, but the
JA dearth of evidence of gradual change of creatures is the overall
JA pattern. If the theory were true the fossil record ought to be
JA full of evidence of macroevolutionary transitions, but it
JA isn't."
JA
JA There's "step-by-step" again. And what are the
JA "exceptional, doubtful cases that we debate"? Why, land mammals
JA to whales, therapsids to mammals, and increasingly, dinosaurs to
JA birds. Isn't this just a perfect demonstration of a defense
JA lawyer trying to downplay the prosecution's evidence?
JA
JA The key inaccuracy is that last sentence. Even Darwin, in
JA _The Origin of Species_, anticipated what geology would do to
JA the fossil record. Yet PJ and others constantly state how
JA "complete" the fossil record OUGHT to be to make their case,
JA while rarely discussing how incomplete the fossil record
JA actually IS!
JA
JA And when he tries, after a brief introduction to trilobites,
JA the result is this classic handwave:
JA
JA "When looking at the fossil record, [Niles] Eldredge says it
JA seems that evolution always seems to have happened 'somewhere
JA else'. Yet he also says he is a knee-jerk neo-Darwinist. Why is
JA he a knee-jerk neo-Darwinist? Because his worldview requires
JA that Darwinism has to be true."
JA
JA David, you asked me before what Punc Eq was about. It's
JA about species-to-species transitions. They happen rapidly and
JA are hard to find (but they are found, occurring rapidly and in
JA isolated regions). PJ either doesn't get it, or more likely,
JA doesn't want his audience to get it. His obfuscation here is
JA akin to lying, or in the minimum arguing from ignorance. In
JA either case I don't respect it.
JA
JA So I say that honesty demands two things of Christians on
JA this subject. The first: admission that the fossil evidence, as
JA interpreted properly in a scientific context, supports
JA evolution. And this is just about the fossils---it doesn't even
JA touch upon genetics.

Let's see. That word of many meanings, "evolution," has been
brought up again. You consider "evolution" to be a God-guided
process responsible for the appearance of all manner of living
and extinct plants and animals. Rephrasing your first demand
using this definition: [df's rephrasing of JA]"Honesty requires

admission that the fossil evidence, as interpreted properly in a

scientific context, supports the claim that there exists a
God-guided process responsible for all lifeforms." I'll admit to
that.

JA The second: Admission that science is by
JA necessity based on naturalism.

At the present moment, I can think of no objections to this. I
agree with you that [JA]"science is by necessity based on
naturalism."

JA 3. Scientific methods of inquiry can be used to provide
JA scientific evidence for God's existence.
JA
JA As one might suspect, PJ's hero is Michael Behe right now.
JA After a cursory exposition of intelligent design, he says
JA "In Behe's symposiums, the argument is not about science.
JA Scientists who don't like his conclusions usually don't say he is
JA wrong on any of the science. They admit he has the facts right.*
JA The main question is philosophical. Behe says the evidence shows
JA design. It shows that there is an intelligence. His opponents
JA say people are not allowed to think that -- it is against the
JA rules."
JA
JA (*Comment: I seriously doubt the statement preceding the
JA asterisk is true.)

Perhaps a reader of this post knows whether or not biochemist
Behe's biochemistry in _Darwin's Black Box_ (1996) is wrong, or
whether he got any biochemistry wrong in his 30+ scientific
papers.

JA So close, and yet so wrong. PJ admits that the argument is
JA philosophical. So is he saying that the evidence,
JA philosophically interpreted, shows design? Fine! But would he
JA move to the next logically correct position (reflected by the
JA last sentence) that Behe's evidence, interpreted scientifically,
JA only shows that cellular machinery functions effectively, as
JA would be expected from natural selection of working cellular
JA functions?

I don't understand what you're asking for, particularly your
distinction between [JA]"philosophically interpreted" and
[JA]"interpreted scientifically." Also, it's unclear whether you
regard this [JA]"natural selection of working cellular functions"
as reasonably-postulated-to-be-intelligence-directed, or as as-
far-as-we-can-determine-non-intelligence-directed, or as a
combination of the preceding. But then again, the question was
directed toward Johnson and not me.

JA My main problem is that I see PJ and his type of approach as
JA trying to use scientific methods to reach non-scientific
JA conclusions.

I don't understand this. Please provide several instances-- the
more the better-- where I was [JA]"trying to use scientific

methods to reach non-scientific conclusions."

Behe does not believe that [Behe's letter, _Newsweek_ (7 October
1996), 24.]"animals were created by direct supernatural acts,"
but does "argue that biochemical systems--as well as other
complex systems--were designed by an intelligent agent." He
continues, "Like the big-bang theory, intelligent design may have
religious implications. But it is solidly grounded in empirical
observation." Do you have a problem with inferring from the
plain fact that biochemical systems exhibit a large degree of
design, inferring that those biochemical systems were designed by
a designer (not Designer, just designer)?

Do you have a problem my inferring from the proposition that
spacetime-matter-energy had a beginning, my inferring that
spacetime-matter-energy had a beginner (not Beginner, just
beginner)? Do you have a problem with my additional reasoning,
in which a Beginner is argued for/ arrived at?

JA The reason that he, and many others, do this is the
JA overriding power of science in present-day intellectual society.
JA It's the reason that the ICR tries to show "scientifically" that
JA the Noachian flood could have occurred, because to do so lends
JA more credence in the popular mind to the truth of the Bible. I
JA think Conrad Hyers said this: "It's bad science, and it's also
JA bad theology."
JA
JA I want good science, and I want good theology.
JA
JA I like your thumb and forefinger quote, David. Together
JA they can grasp everything. But separately, there is only a
JA certain amount of range to either scientific or
JA theophilosophical inquiry. And I will strive to oppose those who
JA try to do too much with either one. If PJ was just trying to show
JA that science doesn't have the power to answer questions outside
JA its naturalistic jurisdiction, that would be fine with me.
JA
JA Contrast these two statements:
JA
JA "God can't possibly be involved in evolution"
JA and
JA "God must be involved in evolution."
JA
JA Both statements are philosophical positions. Neither
JA statement has any scientifically analyzable content.

Actually, using your definition of "evolution," one statement is
false by definition and the other is true by definition: [df's
rephrasing of JA]"God can't possibly be involved in a
God-directed process" and [df's rephrasing of JA]"God must be
involved in a God-directed process." Your observation that
[JA]"Neither statement has any scientifically analyzable content"
is absolutely correct, though not because [JA]"both statements
are philosophical positions."

JA (Thanks to everyone who read this far.)

You're welcome.

[Richard Keatinge]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980411...@umbc10.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes

>I submit that similarly, the directions for building a fruitfly,
>a cow, a salamander, and a human, directions that are coded in
>DNA, provide evidence that _intelligence_ was involved in the
>creation of those directions.

Given the existence of natural mechanisms (=evolution) for producing
those directions, your assertion is baseless.

--
Richard Keatinge

homepage http://www.keatinge.demon.co.uk

[david ford]

[Entire abstract of the commentary "Darwin's three mistakes,"
Kenneth J. Hsu, Geological Institute, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
_Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).]"Darwin's three mistakes were that (1)
he dismissed mass extinctions as artifacts of an imperfect
geological record; (2) he assumed that species diversity, like
individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially
with time; and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major
cause of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory
propounded in his book _On the Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
Struggle for Life_ (Darwin, 1859), which has been adopted by many
as the scientific basis of their social philosophies." The
article's last two sentences state, "We have had enough of the
Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
has no clothes.' "

The emperor has no clothes.

[david ford]

Richard Keatinge <ric...@keatinge.demon.co.uk> on 13 Apr 1998:
david ford:

df I submit that similarly, the directions for building a fruitfly,
df a cow, a salamander, and a human, directions that are coded in
df DNA, provide evidence that _intelligence_ was involved in the
df creation of those directions.

RK Given the existence of natural mechanisms (=evolution) for
RK producing those directions, your assertion is baseless.

I give you the nucleotide sequence
AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA,
which codes for the amino acids of
Lys-Lys-Lys-Lys-Lys.

Suppose a particular enzyme involved in say mouse blood-clotting
requires the following amino acid sequence if it is to do its job
in the blood-clotting biochemical pathway (if this sequence is
not present, the mice have thrombotic complications since fibrin
clots can't be dissolved). The required amino acid sequence is
Arg-Phe-Gln-Gln-stop.

Using non-intelligence-directed-as-far-as-can-reasonably-be-
determined-processes, please describe how the second amino-acid
sequence can be obtained from the 5 DNA triplet codons coding for
the first amino-acid sequence. In other words, how can 1) become
2) via non-intelligence-directed-processes?

1) AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA
2) 1st codon, for Arg: CGU or CGC or CGA or CGG or AGA or AGG
2nd codon, for Phe: UUU or UUC
3rd codon, for Gln: CAA or CAG
4th codon, for Gln: CAA or CAG
5th codon, for stop: UAA or UAG or UGA

Since they have to defend what amounts to a 19th-century
speculation against 20th-century discoveries in biology and
biochemistry, I kinda feel sorry for neo-Darwinians.

[Alexey Merz]

david ford wrote:

> I give you the nucleotide sequence
> AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA,
> which codes for the amino acids of
> Lys-Lys-Lys-Lys-Lys.
>
> Suppose a particular enzyme involved in say mouse blood-clotting
> requires the following amino acid sequence if it is to do its job
> in the blood-clotting biochemical pathway (if this sequence is
> not present, the mice have thrombotic complications since fibrin
> clots can't be dissolved). The required amino acid sequence is
> Arg-Phe-Gln-Gln-stop.
>
> Using non-intelligence-directed-as-far-as-can-reasonably-be-
> determined-processes, please describe how the second amino-acid
> sequence can be obtained from the 5 DNA triplet codons coding for
> the first amino-acid sequence. In other words, how can 1) become
> 2) via non-intelligence-directed-processes?
>
> 1) AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA
> 2) 1st codon, for Arg: CGU or CGC or CGA or CGG or AGA or AGG
> 2nd codon, for Phe: UUU or UUC
> 3rd codon, for Gln: CAA or CAG
> 4th codon, for Gln: CAA or CAG
> 5th codon, for stop: UAA or UAG or UGA

The answer is that the nucleotide sequence AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA
would NOT be modified to a sequence encoding the polypeptide
Arg-Phe-Gln-Gln-COOH. Instead of being modified, it would be
replaced _en bloc_ by a sequence encoding Arg-Phe-Gln-Gln-stop, or
a closely related sequence. The mechanism would be genetic
recombination.

There is abundant evidence that most proteins are constructed in a
modular, rather than monolithic, fashion; that is, they contain
different structural domains and these correspond to functional
domains. The prevailing view is that the vast majority of new
proteins arise through the recombination of existing modules rather
than through stepwise mutation from sequences such as (A)n.

A further assumption made in your question is that the amino
acid sequence Arg-Phe-Gln-Gln-COOH evolved so that it could be
recognized and bound. This is not necessarily so. It is equally
possible that this sequence originally arose in an arbitrary
fashion, perhaps as a nonessential region, and that the protein
that _recognizes_ this sequence evolved to recognize it. It is
extremely likely that there are a large number of _different_
amino acid sequences that will recognize (bind to) Arg-Phe-
Gln-Gln-COOH equally well. Perhaps it was much simpler for another,
preexisting amino acid sequence to mutate so that it could recognize
this sequence, because a _specific_ sequence was not required
for the task.

As stated your problem is very difficult; but it is also very
misleading, because it implies that the clotting machinery
evolved in a way that it almost certainly did not. And that
suggests either that you should learn more molecular biology
or that you are not being wholly honest in your argument.

[ad hominem deleted]

-A.
..........................................................................
Alexey Merz | URL: http://www.webcom.com/alexey | email: ale...@webcom.com
| PGP public key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/ | voice:503/494-6840
| "I had also thought that Vanna was the ultimate TV creature,
| a Dada artist who does not speak but methodically destroys
| language by revealing cliches letter by letter, day after
| day, year after year." -Andrei Codrescu

[Richard Keatinge]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980418...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes

>[Entire abstract of the commentary "Darwin's three mistakes,"
>Kenneth J. Hsu, Geological Institute, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
>_Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).]"Darwin's three mistakes were that (1)
>he dismissed mass extinctions as artifacts of an imperfect
>geological record;

For most of the events then postulated as mass extinctions (by the likes
of Cuvier) he was right. I doubt if he ever asserted that mass
extinctions were impossible.

>(2) he assumed that species diversity, like
>individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially
>with time;

Did he? References to Darwin's own voluminous work, please, not to
somebody else's opinions.

>and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major
>cause of species extinction.

Did he? He certainly thought of competition as a major factor driving
diversification, and of most environments as containing, for practical
purposes, a limited number of niches. Not quite the same thing.

>Those mistakes led to the theory
>propounded in his book _On the Origin of Species by Means of
>Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
>Struggle for Life_ (Darwin, 1859),

Actually, he noticed that heritable variation exists, that it can be the
basis for natural selection, and that this and other mechanisms could
potentially account for life's diversity.

>which has been adopted by many

Fortunately, almost all of them are now extinct, none of them were
acting as scientists, and I've never met one or seen one of them posting
on t.o.

>as the scientific basis of their social philosophies." The
>article's last two sentences state, "We have had enough of the
>Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
>has no clothes.' "
>
>The emperor has no clothes.
>

Your emperor maybe. *Please* check your facts before posting yet more
nonsense.

[Richard Keatinge]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980418...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes

>Richard Keatinge <ric...@keatinge.demon.co.uk> on 13 Apr 1998:
>david ford:
>
>df I submit that similarly, the directions for building a fruitfly,
>df a cow, a salamander, and a human, directions that are coded in
>df DNA, provide evidence that _intelligence_ was involved in the
>df creation of those directions.
>
>RK Given the existence of natural mechanisms (=evolution) for
>RK producing those directions, your assertion is baseless.
>

>I give you the nucleotide sequence
>AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA,
>which codes for the amino acids of
>Lys-Lys-Lys-Lys-Lys.
>
>Suppose a particular enzyme involved in say mouse blood-clotting
>requires the following amino acid sequence if it is to do its job
>in the blood-clotting biochemical pathway (if this sequence is
>not present, the mice have thrombotic complications since fibrin
>clots can't be dissolved).

(I sniff Behe redivivus. Presumably the mice did not evolve merely by
simple addition of presently-observed proteins to the pathway, but
through stages that included a clotting process perhaps less finely-
tuned, perhaps even more complicated, but nevertheless workable. Such a
shame that biochemistry doesn't fossilise. Please don't imagine that a
request for fossilised biochemistry and the full breeding records of
every organism that's ever lived will amount to any sort of argument.
You've tried it before with trilobite eyes and only exposed your own
ignorance.)

>The required amino acid sequence is
>Arg-Phe-Gln-Gln-stop.
>
>Using non-intelligence-directed-as-far-as-can-reasonably-be-
>determined-processes, please describe how the second amino-acid
>sequence can be obtained from the 5 DNA triplet codons coding for
>the first amino-acid sequence. In other words, how can 1) become
>2) via non-intelligence-directed-processes?

By unbalanced recombination, with or without natural selection for any
intermediate stages?

>
>1) AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA
>2) 1st codon, for Arg: CGU or CGC or CGA or CGG or AGA or AGG
> 2nd codon, for Phe: UUU or UUC
> 3rd codon, for Gln: CAA or CAG
> 4th codon, for Gln: CAA or CAG
> 5th codon, for stop: UAA or UAG or UGA
>

>Since they have to defend what amounts to a 19th-century
>speculation against 20th-century discoveries in biology and
>biochemistry, I kinda feel sorry for neo-Darwinians.

Your silly little comment is based on a rather obvious fallacy, which I
leave to the intelligence of the reader.

--
Richard Keatinge

Official Howler Monkey,
Karl Crawford Reader in Remedial Education,

University of Ediacara

[Matt Silberstein]

In sci.skeptic david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>I give you the nucleotide sequence
>AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA,
>which codes for the amino acids of
>Lys-Lys-Lys-Lys-Lys.

>Suppose a particular enzyme involved in say mouse blood-clotting
>requires the following amino acid sequence if it is to do its job
>in the blood-clotting biochemical pathway (if this sequence is
>not present, the mice have thrombotic complications since fibrin

>clots can't be dissolved). The required amino acid sequence is
>Arg-Phe-Gln-Gln-stop.

>Using non-intelligence-directed-as-far-as-can-reasonably-be-
>determined-processes, please describe how the second amino-acid
>sequence can be obtained from the 5 DNA triplet codons coding for
>the first amino-acid sequence. In other words, how can 1) become
>2) via non-intelligence-directed-processes?

This is a ridiculous challenge and seems based on some significant
misunderstandings. The idea that an organism needs enzyme X in order
to survive, so it has to evolve it just is not the way it works. Nor
does evolution have to start with some blank slate like you
AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA sequence. The sequence present in the organism came
from a similar previous sequence. It occurred in an organism similar
to, but different from the current one. You can't particularly make up
a sequence and ask for the evolutionary path from that to another
sequence. One may exists, in fact, evolution may be a general solution
to traversing the problem space, but that does not mean the path
occurred or even makes sense.

To know where a particular enzyme comes from you need lots of
information, it is not just an exercise in logic. You need to look at
similar sequences and similar organisms. You need to examine the
genetic make-up to look for appropriate patterns that suggest descent.

>
>1) AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA
>2) 1st codon, for Arg: CGU or CGC or CGA or CGG or AGA or AGG
> 2nd codon, for Phe: UUU or UUC
> 3rd codon, for Gln: CAA or CAG
> 4th codon, for Gln: CAA or CAG
> 5th codon, for stop: UAA or UAG or UGA
>
>Since they have to defend what amounts to a 19th-century
>speculation against 20th-century discoveries in biology and
>biochemistry, I kinda feel sorry for neo-Darwinians.

Since that have to defend what amounts to 3rd-century B.C.E.
speculations against 20th-century discoveries in biology, I kinda feel
sorry for scientific creationists.

Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------

I can't think for you,
it is you who must decide
If Judas Iscariot,
had God on his side

By RZ (from memory)

[Richard Harter]

Richard Keatinge <ric...@keatinge.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980418...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
>david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes

Um, Richard, with all due respect (and I have a considerable amount; I generally
enjoy reading your postings) this is the sort of thing that PN rants against in
his inept way.

First of all, the text in question is not from David Ford but rather it is a
quotation from Kenneth Hsu. As such, unless Ford has misquoted, it is Hsu you
are arguing with, not Ford. Now who is Kenneth Hsu? Hsu is a quite prominent
geologist. I have two of his books on my shelf, _The Great Dying_ (1986) about
the K-T extinction event and _The Mediterranean Was A Desert_ (1983) about the
dessication of the Mediterranean basin and its flooding ~6MyrBP. He definitely
is not a lightweight. He is also a bit of an original thinker; his 1994
retirement lecture, Why Newton was not Chinese, is intriguing if somewhat
dubious. See http://www.datapages.com/Hsu/newton.htm.

Secondly, it is an abstract; a call for supporting references is ridiculous.

Thirdly, you are nit picking without paying close attention to context. Hsu is
arguing that Darwin made the said three mistakes. There is a general problem in
assessing Darwin's thought; he considered lots of issues and tackled them from
multiple approaches. As a result it is fairly easy to attribute all sorts of
different opinions to Darwin - a practice that has been going on for 140 years.

Nonetheless the first and third really are fair points. Darwin was strongly
influenced by Lyell and Lyell's gradualism. He did postulate gaps in the
geological record to account for major transitions. He also considered biotic
competition as the major element in evolution (the infamous wedge metaphor).
The second sounds dubious to me but it might be right; it is part and parcel of
the Malthusian metaphor.

The thesis as stated (the mistakes led to Darwin's theory) sounds ridiculous.
As you note, in effect, there is much more to Darwin's opus than these three
elements.

However a bit of context is in order. 1986 is the same year as the publication
of _The Great Dying_ (a very good book BTW). One of the major theses of this
book is that the history of life at the large level is shaped by catastrophes.
That is, the history of life is relatively quiet and change is minor between
major events; the great extinctions (which are not due to biotic competition)
are followed by radical changes in the species of life. I haven't read the
paper from which the abstract is drawn but it is quite likely that it is an
elaboration of this thesis.

In short, Hsu is being overly dramatic in his abstract.

Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
Dear Josephine: I will be arriving home in three days.
Don't bathe. - Napoleon

[Chris Nedin]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980418...@umbc8.umbc.edu>, david

says...

>
>[Entire abstract of the commentary "Darwin's three mistakes,"
>Kenneth J. Hsu, Geological Institute, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
>_Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).]"Darwin's three mistakes were that (1)
>he dismissed mass extinctions as artifacts of an imperfect

>geological record; (2) he assumed that species diversity, like

>individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially

>with time; and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major
>cause of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory

>propounded in his book _On the Origin of Species by Means of
>Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the

>Struggle for Life_ (Darwin, 1859), which has been adopted by many

>as the scientific basis of their social philosophies." The
>article's last two sentences state, "We have had enough of the
>Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
>has no clothes.' "
>
>The emperor has no clothes.

Ah yes, it still appears that quoting out of context is still a standard
antievolutionist ploy.

The reference is:

Hsu, K. J. (1986) Darwin's three mistakes. Geology, 14: 532-534

The abstract reads:

"Darwin's three mistakes were that (1) he dismissed mass extinctions as

artifacts of an incomplete fossil record; (2) he assumed that species

diversity, like individuals of a given species, tends to increase

exponantially with time; and (3) he considered biotic interactions the
major cause of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory

propounded in his book _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural

Selection ot the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
(Darwin 1859), which has been adopted by many as a scientific basis of
their social philosphies."

The "three mistakes" have little bearing on the theory of evolution,
however, as we shall see, this is not what Hsu was on about. The last part
of the last sentence of the abstract should give you a clue, however Hsu
gets more explicit,

"I did not bother to read _Origin of Species_ until I started to write a
book on the terminal Cretaceous mass extinction. Only then did I realize
how wrong Darwin was on some critical issues [critical issues WRT mass
extinctions - cn] and how unfortunate it is that his mistakes have been
misused by ideologists for their propaganda. This essay in as attempt to
point out those mistakes and an APPEAL TO RENOUNCE SOCIAL DARWINISM." p.
532. (emphasis added)

As is now obvious, Hsu's article was an attempt to point out the importance
of mass extinctions in evolution, but even more importantly, to point out
the fallacy of social Darwinism.

The last 3 paragraphs read:

"Darwinism was also used in a defence of competitive individualism and its
economic corollery of laissez-faire capitalism in England and in America.
Andrew Carnegie wrote that the 'law of competition, be it benign or not, is
here; we cannot evede it.' Rockefeller went a step further when he claimed
that 'the growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest;
it is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God'.
Not only capitalists but also socialists welcomed Darwinism; Karl Marx
thought Darwin's book important because it supported the class stuggle in
history from the point of view of natural science. Worst of all, Darwinism
opened the door for racists who wanted to apply the principle of natural
selection to better mankind. Darwin's theory of biology, transferred to
Germany and nurtured by Ernst Haeckel, inspired an ideology that led
eventually to the rise of the Nazis.
George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please
everybody who had an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered
through two world wars and are threatened by Armageddon. We have had enough

of the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: "The emperor has no

clothes.'" p. 534.

It is now obvious that the "Darwinian fallacy" is *SOCIAL* Darwinism, *NOT*
the theory of Evolution.

Chris

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au | "How can Nedin be trusted" |
| ne...@ediacara.org | C Wieland Director, |
|http://members.tripod.com/ | Creation Research Foundation, |
| ~Cambrian/index.html | Queensland Australia |
---------------------------*my views only*--------------------------

[david ford]

Chris Nedin <cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au> on 19 Apr 1998:
david ford:

df [Entire abstract of the commentary "Darwin's three mistakes,"
df Kenneth J. Hsu, Geological Institute, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
df _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).]"Darwin's three mistakes were that (1)
df he dismissed mass extinctions as artifacts of an imperfect
df geological record; (2) he assumed that species diversity, like
df individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially
df with time; and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major
df cause of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory
df propounded in his book _On the Origin of Species by Means of
df Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
df Struggle for Life_ (Darwin, 1859), which has been adopted by many
df as the scientific basis of their social philosophies." The
df article's last two sentences state, "We have had enough of the
df Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
df has no clothes.' "
df
df The emperor has no clothes.

CN Ah yes, it still appears that quoting out of context is still a
CN standard antievolutionist ploy.
CN
CN The reference is:
CN
CN Hsu, K. J. (1986) Darwin's three mistakes. Geology, 14: 532-534
CN
CN The abstract reads:
CN
CN "Darwin's three mistakes were that (1) he dismissed mass
CN extinctions as artifacts of an incomplete fossil record; (2) he
CN assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a given
CN species, tends to increase exponentially with time; and (3) he
CN considered biotic interactions the major cause of species
CN extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory propounded in his
CN book _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or
CN the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_
CN (Darwin 1859), which has been adopted by many as a scientific
CN basis of their social philosophies."
CN
CN The "three mistakes" have little bearing on the theory of
CN evolution, however, as we shall see, this is not what Hsu was on
CN about.

There's that word-of-many-meanings again, "evolution," sans
definition as usual. But wait, it's part of the phrase [CN]"the
theory of evolution." Nope, not enough context for me to know
what's being referred to. No matter, Hsu fortunately is more
explicit about what he [CN]"was on about": [entire 1st paragraph
of Hsu's article]"The Darwinian theory of evolution has two
themes: common descent and natural selection. Creationists are
barking up the wrong tree when they question common descent,
which is amply documented by scientific evidence. Darwin's
mistakes were in his emphasis on biotic competition in natural
selection."

I'm in a quotacious mood. [entire 2nd paragraph]"We learned
evolution in school, along with aphorisms about the struggle for
existence, natural selection, adaptation, and survival of the
fittest. Few of us have found it necessary to check the
scientific basis of the Darwinian theory. I did not bother to

read _Origin of Species_ until I started to write a book on the
terminal Cretaceous mass extinction. Only then did I realize how

wrong Darwin was on some critical issues and how unfortunate it

is that his mistakes have been misused by ideologists for their

propaganda. This essay is an attempt to point out those mistakes
and an appeal to renounce social Darwinism."

[entire 3rd paragraph]"Evolution is not so much a theory as a
history of life--of what has been, not what should be. History
depends upon record, and the record of the history of life on
Earth is the geological record. Darwin made his first mistake
when he all but dismissed the geologic record of a history of
life punctuated by repeated mass extinctions. He kept on beating
the drums and chanting the imperfection of the geologic record.
Well, the geologic record was not perfect, is not perfect, and
can never be perfect, but that is not relevant. The key question
is, Does the imperfection tell lies?" [4th paragraph's first
sentence]"Darwin thought so."

CN The last part of the last sentence of the abstract should
CN give you a clue, however Hsu gets more explicit,
CN
CN "I did not bother to read _Origin of Species_ until I started to
CN write a book on the terminal Cretaceous mass extinction. Only
CN then did I realize how wrong Darwin was on some critical issues
CN [critical issues WRT mass extinctions - cn] and how unfortunate
CN it is that his mistakes have been misused by ideologists for
CN their propaganda. This essay is an attempt to point out those
CN mistakes and an APPEAL TO RENOUNCE SOCIAL DARWINISM." p. 532.
CN (emphasis added)
CN
CN As is now obvious, Hsu's article was an attempt to point out the
CN importance of mass extinctions in evolution,

No, Hsu's essay did not constitute [CN]"an attempt to point out
the importance of mass extinctions in evolution": in the words of
Hsu, "This essay is an attempt to point out those mistakes [of
Darwin] and an appeal to renounce social Darwinism."

CN but even more
CN importantly, to point out the fallacy of social Darwinism.

I personally considered his discussion of [Hsu's commentary's
title]"Darwin's three mistakes" more important than his pointing
out social-Darwinism's use of those mistakes.

CN The last 3 paragraphs read:
CN
CN "Darwinism was also used in a defence of competitive
CN individualism and its economic corollary of laissez-faire
CN capitalism in England and in America. Andrew Carnegie wrote that
CN the 'law of competition, be it benign or not, is here; we cannot
CN evade it.' Rockefeller went a step further when he claimed that
CN 'the growth of a large business is merely a survival of the
CN fittest; it is merely the working out of a law of nature and a
CN law of God'.

[Hsu on 534]".... law of God' (cited in Oldroyd, 1980)." Next
paragraph: "Not only capitalists...."

CN Not only capitalists but also socialists welcomed
CN Darwinism; Karl Marx thought Darwin's book important because it
CN supported the class struggle in history from the point of view of
CN natural science. Worst of all, Darwinism opened the door to
CN racists who wanted to apply the principle of natural selection to
CN better mankind. Darwin's theory in biology, transferred to
CN Germany and nurtured by Ernst Haeckel, inspired an ideology that
CN led eventually to the rise of the Nazis.

[Hsu on 534]".... the Nazis (Gasman, 1971)." Next paragraph:
"George Bernard Shaw...." Other typos, including wrong and
missing words, corrected where noticed.

CN George Bernard Shaw
CN wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who
CN had an axe to grind,

[Hsu on 534]".... luck to please everybody who had an axe to
grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased."

CN but I am not pleased. We have suffered
CN through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have
CN had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we
CN cry: 'The emperor has no clothes.'" p. 534.
CN
CN It is now obvious that the "Darwinian fallacy" is *SOCIAL*
CN Darwinism, *NOT* the theory of Evolution.

That word (curiously capitalized), that phrase, again, undefined.

On the contrary, [Hsu]"the Darwinian fallacy" is not a reference
to social Darwinism. Looking at the _Geology_ abstract & article
again, it seems obvious to me that Hsu has an axe to grind over
mistakes he perceives in Darwin's _Origin_, mistakes that happen
to have been seized upon and [Hsu in abstract]"adopted by many as
the scientific basis of their social philosophies." In support of
my interpretation: before launching into an extended mentioning of
instances of social Darwinism, the last half of which you quote
directly above, Hsu states

[entire 5th paragraph from end]"Our understanding of evolution is
imperfect; we could still argue on the relative importance of
biotic and environmental factors in evolution or on the role of
natural selection at times of biotic crisis, but few propose
today that 'each new variety or species... will generally press
hardest on its nearest kindred, and tends to exterminate them.'
Yet, unfortunately, it is this aspect of the Darwinian ideology
that has permeated our social philosophy all too deeply."

Also, in the third column on 532, Hsu states "Charles Darwin's
second mistake was to compare the trend of increased species
diversity to that of a population growth. Both Darwin and Wallace
were inspired to formulate their evolutionary theory by the work of
Malthus." During the ensuing discussion, he remarks

[an entire paragraph on 533]"Influenced by Malthus and by the
social philosophy of his time, Darwin emphasized the negative
aspect of biotic interaction. He painted a picture of species
aiming at mutual destruction in their struggle for life. Misled
by the Malthusian implication of the finite area on the surface
of the Earth, Darwin (1859, p. 67) compared it to 'a yielding
surface, with ten thousand sharp wedges packed close together and
driven inwards by incessant blows, sometimes one wedge being
struck, and then another with greater force,' forcing out a
previously struck wedge. 'The boat is full,' as the Swiss said
in justifying the closure of their borders to refugees during
World War II." The next paragraph's first sentence reads, "But
the boat is not full."

In sum, Hsu's essay's final two sentences, "We have had enough of

the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor

has no clothes'" refers to [Hsu in 5th paragraph from end]"this
aspect of the Darwinian ideology that ['unfortunately'] has
permeated our social philosophy all too deeply," i.e., Darwin's
third mistake, and also refers to Darwin's second mistake of [Hsu
on 532]"compar[ing] the trend of increased species diversity to
that of a population growth."

[Chris Nedin]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980420...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, david
says...

[lots of stuff snipped - see the original posts]

>In sum, Hsu's essay's final two sentences, "We have had enough of
>the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
>has no clothes'" refers to [Hsu in 5th paragraph from end]"this
>aspect of the Darwinian ideology that ['unfortunately'] has
>permeated our social philosophy all too deeply," i.e., Darwin's
>third mistake, and also refers to Darwin's second mistake of [Hsu
>on 532]"compar[ing] the trend of increased species diversity to
>that of a population growth."

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths some people will go to in attempts to
discredit evolution. Even to the extent of bending over backwards in their
interpretations of the writings of others.

This was the original post:

df [Entire abstract of the commentary "Darwin's three mistakes,"
df Kenneth J. Hsu, Geological Institute, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
df _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).]"Darwin's three mistakes were that (1)
df he dismissed mass extinctions as artifacts of an imperfect
df geological record; (2) he assumed that species diversity, like
df individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially
df with time; and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major
df cause of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory
df propounded in his book _On the Origin of Species by Means of
df Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
df Struggle for Life_ (Darwin, 1859), which has been adopted by many
df as the scientific basis of their social philosophies." The
df article's last two sentences state, "We have had enough of the
df Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
df has no clothes.' "
df
df The emperor has no clothes.

When it is pointed out that the final two sentances are separated by a whole
article and that final part of the article explicitly commenting on social
Darwinism, David goes through a whole series of contortions in order to support
his post. Claiming that the last two sentances refer to material 5 paragraphs
back. Once again, the final paragraph:

"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please
everybody with an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not
pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an
Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallicy. It is about time that
we cry: "The emperor has no clothes". (p. 534)

According to David then, two of Darwins mistakes have led to 2 world wars and
possible Armageddon! Or is it more likely that Hsu was refering to social
Darwinism as the problem?

Further, according to David, Hsu, the reviewers and the editor, lost track of
grammer, since Hsu states "the Darwinian fallacy" in referring to two mistakes.

Also, Hsu, the reviewers and the editor lost track of compositional style by
having the last two sentences (supposedly referring to material 5 paragraphs
back) to run on in a paragraph referring to 4 paragraphs devoted to social
Darwinism.

Also, Hsu does not refer to "Darwinism" in the body of the commentary devoted to
Darwin's "mistakes", but in the part of the commentary devoted to social
Darwinism.

Once again the key phrase in the commentary:
(Para 2, line 19)

"This essay is an attempt to point out these mistakes and *an appeal to renounce
social Darwinism*" (p. 532, emphasis added).

That Darwin made mistakes is not in question.
That people have misused Dawinism is not in question.
That the "Dawinian fallacy" referred to is social Darwiniam should not be in
question.

Chris

Hsu. K.J. (1986) Darwin's three mistakes. Geology, 14:532-534

[david ford]

Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> on 19 Apr 1998:

RH Um, Richard, with all due respect (and I have a considerable
RH amount; I generally enjoy reading your postings) this is the sort
RH of thing that PN rants against in his inept way.
RH
RH First of all, the text in question is not from David Ford but
RH rather it is a quotation from Kenneth Hsu. As such, unless Ford
RH has misquoted, it is Hsu you are arguing with, not Ford. Now who
RH is Kenneth Hsu? Hsu is a quite prominent geologist. I have two
RH of his books on my shelf, _The Great Dying_ (1986) about the K-T
RH extinction event and _The Mediterranean Was A Desert_ (1983)
RH about the desiccation of the Mediterranean basin and its flooding
RH ~6MyrBP. He definitely is not a lightweight. He is also a bit
RH of an original thinker; his 1994 retirement lecture, Why Newton
RH was not Chinese, is intriguing if somewhat dubious. See
RH http://www.datapages.com/Hsu/newton.htm.
RH
RH Secondly, it is an abstract; a call for supporting references is
RH ridiculous.
RH
RH Thirdly, you are nit picking without paying close attention to
RH context. Hsu is arguing that Darwin made the said three
RH mistakes. There is a general problem in assessing Darwin's
RH thought; he considered lots of issues and tackled them from
RH multiple approaches. As a result it is fairly easy to attribute
RH all sorts of different opinions to Darwin - a practice that has
RH been going on for 140 years.
RH
RH Nonetheless the first and third really are fair points. Darwin
RH was strongly influenced by Lyell and Lyell's gradualism. He did
RH postulate gaps in the geological record to account for major
RH transitions. He also considered biotic competition as the major
RH element in evolution (the infamous wedge metaphor). The second
RH sounds dubious to me but it might be right; it is part and parcel
RH of the Malthusian metaphor.
RH
RH The thesis as stated (the mistakes led to Darwin's theory) sounds
RH ridiculous. As you note, in effect, there is much more to
RH Darwin's opus than these three elements.
RH
RH However a bit of context is in order. 1986 is the same year as
RH the publication of _The Great Dying_ (a very good book BTW). One
RH of the major theses of this book is that the history of life at
RH the large level is shaped by catastrophes. That is, the history
RH of life is relatively quiet and change is minor between major
RH events; the great extinctions (which are not due to biotic
RH competition) are followed by radical changes in the species of
RH life. I haven't read the paper from which the abstract is drawn
RH but it is quite likely that it is an elaboration of this thesis.
RH
RH In short, Hsu is being overly dramatic in his abstract.

Disregarding his article "Darwin's three mistakes," what are
Hsu's views of the proposed mechanism of "natural selection"?

Does Hsu believe "natural selection" to be capable of accounting
for the existence of all living and dead plants and animals?; if
not, of what does he believe it to be capable of accounting for?

What mechanism(s) does Hsu believe to be responsible for the
existence of all living and dead plants and animals?

[Alexey Merz]

WHOOPS! BRAIN FART!

> david ford wrote:
[...]

> > Using non-intelligence-directed-as-far-as-can-reasonably-be-
> > determined-processes, please describe how the second amino-acid
> > sequence can be obtained from the 5 DNA triplet codons coding for
> > the first amino-acid sequence. In other words, how can 1) become
> > 2) via non-intelligence-directed-processes?

> > 1) AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA
> > 2) 1st codon, for Arg: CGU or CGC or CGA or CGG or AGA or AGG
> > 2nd codon, for Phe: UUU or UUC
> > 3rd codon, for Gln: CAA or CAG
> > 4th codon, for Gln: CAA or CAG
> > 5th codon, for stop: UAA or UAG or UGA

I replied:
[...]

> A further assumption made in your question is that the amino
> acid sequence Arg-Phe-Gln-Gln-COOH evolved so that it could be
> recognized and bound. This is not necessarily so. It is equally
> possible that this sequence originally arose in an arbitrary
> fashion, perhaps as a nonessential region, and that the protein
> that _recognizes_ this sequence evolved to recognize it. It is
> extremely likely that there are a large number of _different_
> amino acid sequences that will recognize (bind to) Arg-Phe-
> Gln-Gln-COOH equally well. Perhaps it was much simpler for another,
> preexisting amino acid sequence to mutate so that it could recognize

> this sequence, because a _specific_ sequence was not required
> for the task.

Ford, of course, was not specifying that the required sequence was a
_binding site_ for another protein; I imposed that requirement because
I've been doing a lot of sequence-gazing, _looking_ for binding sites.

Nevertheless, the bulk of my reply to Mr. Ford stands. The evolution
of protein (or nucleotide) sequences by stepwise point mutation alone,
or by recombination alone, would be slow. But if they are combined
these processes are synergistic, a point confirmed by both computer
simulations and in vitro evolution experiments [for example, see
WPC Stemmer, 1994, Nature 370:389-91]. And we know for a fact that
proteins _do_ evolve through recombination in the wild, and that the
variation thus arising is acted upon by natural selection [for exmple,
see HS Seifert, 1996, Molecular Microbiology 21:433-40].

[Richard Keatinge]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980420...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes

>In sum, Hsu's essay's final two sentences, "We have had enough of
>the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
>has no clothes'" refers to [Hsu in 5th paragraph from end]"this
>aspect of the Darwinian ideology that ['unfortunately'] has
>permeated our social philosophy all too deeply," i.e., Darwin's
>third mistake, and also refers to Darwin's second mistake of [Hsu
>on 532]"compar[ing] the trend of increased species diversity to
>that of a population growth."

Fortunately I don't (in this case) particularly care what Hsu had to
say. Insofar as "social Darwinism" has not a lot to do with science, he
may well be right. But, just to clarify, David, would you care to
provide any reason to suppose that:

1) Social Darwinism is alive and well

2) That the failure of Social Darwinism has any bearing on the success
or otherwise of modern evolutionary theory

3) And, just for the sake of interest, that Darwin actually said the
things that you have attributed to him.

[david ford]

Chris Nedin <cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au> on 21 Apr 1998:
david ford:

df In sum, Hsu's essay's final two sentences, "We have had enough of
df the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
df has no clothes'" refers to [Hsu in 5th paragraph from end]"this
df aspect of the Darwinian ideology that ['unfortunately'] has
df permeated our social philosophy all too deeply," i.e., Darwin's
df third mistake, and also refers to Darwin's second mistake of [Hsu
df on 532]"compar[ing] the trend of increased species diversity to
df that of a population growth."

CN It never ceases to amaze me the lengths some people will go to in
CN attempts to discredit evolution. Even to the extent of bending
CN over backwards in their interpretations of the writings of others.
CN
CN This was the original post:

df [Entire abstract of the commentary "Darwin's three mistakes,"
df Kenneth J. Hsu, Geological Institute, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
df _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).]"Darwin's three mistakes were that (1)
df he dismissed mass extinctions as artifacts of an imperfect
df geological record; (2) he assumed that species diversity, like
df individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially
df with time; and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major
df cause of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory
df propounded in his book _On the Origin of Species by Means of
df Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
df Struggle for Life_ (Darwin, 1859), which has been adopted by many
df as the scientific basis of their social philosophies." The
df article's last two sentences state, "We have had enough of the
df Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
df has no clothes.' "
df
df The emperor has no clothes.

CN When it is pointed out that the final two sentences are separated
CN by a whole article

No duh. An article's abstract was quoted, and then the article's
last two sentences were quoted: clearly an article sits in the
middle.

CN and that final part of the article explicitly
CN commenting on social Darwinism, David goes through a whole series
CN of contortions in order to support his post. Claiming that the
CN last two sentences refer to material 5 paragraphs back. Once
CN again, the final paragraph:
CN
CN "George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to
CN please everybody with an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe
CN to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two
CN world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had
CN enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry:
CN 'The emperor has no clothes.'" (p. 534)
CN
CN According to David then, two of Darwin's mistakes have led to 2
CN world wars and possible Armageddon!

[Hsu in section about 2nd mistake]"But the boat is not full.
Darwin's younger contemporary, Peter Alexander Kropotkin,
advocated the opposite view of mutual aid and symbiosis in
evolution. Darwin's view of killing the competition reflected
the philosophy of his time." [same paragraph, further down]"New
groups evolved, but they did not always ride over the dead bodies
of the old. They ventured out and created new ecologic niches
for themselves and for others as well (Lovelock, 1980)."

Darwin's ideas about [Hsu]"killing the competition" and having
[Hsu]"new groups... ride over the dead bodies of the old" sounds
to me like a good basis for starting and maintaining a war or
three. Huns got you down? Kill 'em all. The emergence of a
purebred Aryan race being restrained by the presence of invalids,
mental defectives, the old, homosexuals, Jews, Eastern Europeans?
Exterminate them to allow the new Aryans to ride over the dead
bodies of the old groups. Some group cutting into your drug
profits, invading your turf? Annihilate the competition.
Problem solved. Some country cutting into your nationalized
industries' profits? Lob a couple nukes their way and say
"Goodbyyyyye competition!" [CN]"According to David then, two of
Darwin's mistakes have led to 2 world wars and possible
Armageddon!"

[An entire paragraph in section about 3rd mistake; follows "....

but few propose today that 'each new variety or species... will
generally press hardest on its nearest kindred, and tends to
exterminate them.' Yet, unfortunately, it is this aspect of the
Darwinian ideology that has permeated our social philosophy all

too deeply."]"The success of the Darwinian theory on natural
selection has been attributed to the _Zeitgeist_ of his age. As
Rupert Riedl (in Green, 1982, p. 210), an eminent biologist,
wrote, 'The reading public of England, which, with Victorian
industrialization, had demonstrated its (often ruthless)

efficiency, could now see the rights it arrogated to itself on
the ground of that efficiency legitimized as law of nature.'
Colonialism was justified then, and nationalism now. Even Darwin
himself, although not a racist, wrote in a letter to W. Graham
dated July 3, 1881 (cited in Oldroyd, 1980, p. 218): 'The more
civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish
hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no
very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will
have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the
world.'" [First part of next paragraph]"Darwinism was also used
in a defense of...."

Hypothetical letter from a German tank commander to the Fuhrer:
"The more civilized so-called Aryan race has beaten the Poles
thoroughly in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world
at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower
races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized race
throughout the world." [CN]"According to David then, two of
Darwin's mistakes have led to 2 world wars and possible
Armageddon!"

[Hsu on 533]"Darwin made a third mistake when he claimed that
biotic causes were the most critical factor influencing the
course of evolution. He wrote in his _Origin of Species_ (1859,
p. 110) '[should be an ellipsis here-df] I think it inevitably
follows that as new species in the course of time are formed
through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer and
finally extinct. The forms which stand in closest competition
with those undergoing modification and improvement, will
naturally suffer most. As we have seen in the chapter on the
Struggle For Existence that it is the most closely allied

forms,-varieties of the same species, and species of the same
genus or of related genera - which, from having nearly the same
structure, constitution, and habits, generally come into the
severest competition with each other. Consequently each new
variety or species, during the progress of its formation, will

generally press hardest on its nearest kindred, and tends to

exterminate them.' The new, according to Darwin, were adapted
and favored by Nature, while the old became extinct because they
had been 'beaten in the race for life,' even though they occupied
almost the same ecologic niche. If anyone still is unclear what
Darwin meant, I would like to repeat a pronouncement by Darwin

cited by Hallam (1983, p. 367). 'The most important of all
causes of organic change is one which is almost independent of
altered and perhaps suddenly altered physical condition, namely,
the mutual relation of organism to organism--the improvement of
one organism entailing the improvement or extermination of
others.'" Hypothetical line from a report outlining plans for
implemention of the Final Solution: "The improvement of the Aryan
race entails the improvement or extermination of other races."
[CN]"According to David then, two of Darwin's mistakes have led

to 2 world wars and possible Armageddon!"

CN Or is it more likely that
CN Hsu was referring to social Darwinism as the problem?
CN
CN Further, according to David, Hsu, the reviewers and the editor,
CN lost track of grammar, since Hsu states "the Darwinian fallacy"
CN in referring to two mistakes.

Agreed; the grammar poses a problem for the interpretation I have
hitherto advanced.

CN Also, Hsu, the reviewers and the editor lost track of
CN compositional style by having the last two sentences (supposedly
CN referring to material 5 paragraphs back) to run on in a paragraph
CN referring to 4 paragraphs devoted to social Darwinism.

[CN]"Claiming that the last two sentences refer to material 5
paragraphs back." The paragraph containing [Hsu]"emperor" is the
last paragraph in the essay; last paragraphs of essays frequently
summarize essays' main points. Such is the case with Hsu's
essay. Just as referring to material 13, 5, 4, 3, etc. chapters
back is not unusual in a book's concluding chapter, so it is not
unusual for an essay's concluding paragraph to refer to material
13, 5, 4, 3, etc. paragraphs back.

CN Also, Hsu does not refer to "Darwinism" in the body of the
CN commentary devoted to Darwin's "mistakes", but in the part of the
CN commentary devoted to social Darwinism.

[Hsu]".... but few propose today that 'each new variety or

species... will generally press hardest on its nearest kindred,
and tends to exterminate them.' Yet, unfortunately, it is this
aspect of the Darwinian ideology that has permeated our social

philosophy all too deeply." Since "ideology" equals "ism," Hsu's
"Darwinian ideology" comes awfully close to doing what you say
doesn't occur, namely, [CN]"refer to 'Darwinism' in the body of
the commentary devoted to Darwin's 'mistakes.'" ([df]"Awfully
close" because the sentence containing [Hsu]"Darwinian ideology"
is not entirely devoted to one of Darwin's mistakes.)

CN Once again the key phrase in the commentary:
CN (Para 2, line 19)
CN
CN "This essay is an attempt to point out these mistakes and *an
CN appeal to renounce social Darwinism*" (p. 532, emphasis added).
CN
CN That Darwin made mistakes is not in question.
CN That people have misused Darwinism is not in question.

I'll agree that Hsu says "used," but I don't see [CN]"misused."
I must have missed it; where does Hsu say that social Darwinists
[CN]"misused" Darwin's thoughts?

CN That the "Darwinian fallacy" referred to is social Darwinism
CN should not be in question.

[Hsu]"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is about
time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes.'" Rephrased Chris
N.'s way: "We have had enough of social Darwinism. It is about
time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes.'" In addition to
the preceding quotations and concomitant remarks, I beg to differ
for the following reason. "The emperor has no clothes" is a
remark applied to orthodoxy/ conventional wisdom. Social
Darwinism does not AFAIK currently qualify as "orthodoxy," and
was not regarded as such in the 1980s.

On the other hand, the concept of "natural selection"-- which,
according to Hsu's abstract, is an outgrowth of 3 mistakes, with
the essay's body tethering 2 of those mistakes to social
Darwinism (see excerpts above)-- _is_ considered orthodoxy....
Tentative rephrasing by df: "We have had enough of the concept of
natural selection. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
has no clothes.'"

I find it interesting that while Hsu says [1st
paragraph]"creationists are barking up the wrong tree when they
question common descent" and that common descent is "amply
documented by scientific evidence," he does not state anything
similar about the "Darwinian theory of evolution['s]" second
"them[e]... natural selection."

Come to think of it, I also find this part of Hsu's abstract
intriguing: ".... the theory propounded in his book _On the
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_ (Darwin,
1859)... has been adopted by many as the scientific basis of
their social philosophies." Pray tell, to what exactly does
[Hsu]"the theory propounded in" _Origin_ refer? Why, "natural
selection," of course.

No longer tentative rephrasing by df: "We have had enough of the
concept of natural selection. It is about time that we cry: 'The
emperor has no clothes.'"

CN Hsu, K.J. (1986) Darwin's three mistakes. Geology, 14:532-534

[Richard Harter]

david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> on 19 Apr 1998:

[snip my glorious words]

>Disregarding his article "Darwin's three mistakes," what are
>Hsu's views of the proposed mechanism of "natural selection"?

>Does Hsu believe "natural selection" to be capable of accounting
>for the existence of all living and dead plants and animals?; if
>not, of what does he believe it to be capable of accounting for?

>What mechanism(s) does Hsu believe to be responsible for the
>existence of all living and dead plants and animals?

These are odd questions. Life came into existence some 3.8 billion years ago.
Since then the existence of life has been a matter of reproduction and death.
The existence of past and present lifeforms is accounted for by the fact that
lifeforms both die and reproduce.

The species of life have altered dramatically over those 3+ billion years.
Darwin emphasized natural selection as the driving element in change over time.
In _The Great Dying_ Hsu argued for a much great role for chance. Between
catastrophe change is slow; the fit survive but the fit of this generation are
like unto the fit of the last generation. In a catastrophe survival of lines of
descent is very much a matter of chance; ergo the shape of the grand history of
life is more one of contingency than one of superior competition.

[Chris Nedin]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.96.980422...@umbc8.umbc.edu>, david
says...

of the old." Is Lovelock's phrase, not Darwins.

>to me like a good basis for starting and maintaining a war or
>three. Huns got you down? Kill 'em all. The emergence of a
>purebred Aryan race being restrained by the presence of invalids,
>mental defectives, the old, homosexuals, Jews, Eastern Europeans?
>Exterminate them to allow the new Aryans to ride over the dead
>bodies of the old groups. Some group cutting into your drug
>profits, invading your turf? Annihilate the competition.
>Problem solved. Some country cutting into your nationalized
>industries' profits? Lob a couple nukes their way and say
>"Goodbyyyyye competition!"

Yes, a typical social Darwinian response :-)

[CN]"According to David then, two of
>Darwin's mistakes have led to 2 world wars and possible
>Armageddon!"
>
>[An entire paragraph in section about 3rd mistake; follows "....
>but few propose today that 'each new variety or species... will
>generally press hardest on its nearest kindred, and tends to
>exterminate them.' Yet, unfortunately, it is this aspect of the
>Darwinian ideology that has permeated our social philosophy all
>too deeply."]

Note there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Darwin's statement here. That
species can cause the extinction of other species is a fact - see below.

Yep, this is the link between the body of text on Darwin's mistakes and the text
on social Darwinism

"The success of the Darwinian theory on natural
>selection has been attributed to the _Zeitgeist_ of his age. As
>Rupert Riedl (in Green, 1982, p. 210), an eminent biologist,
>wrote, 'The reading public of England, which, with Victorian
>industrialization, had demonstrated its (often ruthless)
>
>efficiency, could now see the rights it arrogated to itself on
>the ground of that efficiency legitimized as law of nature.'
>Colonialism was justified then, and nationalism now. Even Darwin
>himself, although not a racist, wrote in a letter to W. Graham
>dated July 3, 1881 (cited in Oldroyd, 1980, p. 218): 'The more
>civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish
>hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no
>very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will
>have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the
>world.'" [First part of next paragraph]"Darwinism was also used
>in a defense of...."

". . . in a defence of competitive individualism and its economic corollary of
laissez-faire capitalism in England and in America."

I.e. social Darwinism

>Hypothetical letter from a German tank commander to the Fuhrer:
>"The more civilized so-called Aryan race has beaten the Poles
>thoroughly in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world
>at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower
>races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized race
>throughout the world." [CN]"According to David then, two of
>Darwin's mistakes have led to 2 world wars and possible
>Armageddon!"

Again you are describing the misapplication of Darwin's work to a social setting
(social Darwinism).

Or how about this:

Hypothetical letter from a German think-tank commander to the Fuhrer:
"The more economically viable so-called Aryan race has beaten the Poles
thoroughly in the struggle for capital. Looking to the world
at no very distant date, what an endless number of the less well
capitalised will have been eliminated by the higher capitalised races
throughout the world."

Hypothetical letter from a German tank commander to the Fuhrer:

"The more politically viable so-called Aryan race has beaten the Poles
thoroughly in the struggle for politics. Looking to the world
at no very distant date, what an endless number of the less well
politicised will have been eliminated by the higher politicised races
throughout the world."

Hypothetical letter from a German tank commander to the Fuhrer:

"The more religious so-called Aryan race has beaten the Poles
thoroughly in the struggle for God. Looking to the world

at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower

religions will have been eliminated by the higher religion
throughout the world."

Hypothetical letter from a German tank commander to the Fuhrer:

"The anti-evolutionary so-called Aryan race has beaten the evolutionists
thoroughly in the struggle for life. Looking to the world
at no very distant date, what an endless number of the evolutionists
will have been eliminated by anti-evolutionists throughout the world."

Surely you are not suggesting that the 2nd world war would not have occurred had
Darwin not written 'Origin"??! Social Dawinism was used as a justification
(along with political, economic and religious 'reasons'), it was not a cause.

Why bring a secondary source in when you don't adequately cite it?

Besides, biotic interaction as a cause of extinction is a demonstrable fact.
In the early 1940's Guam had a thriving bird poulation, including several
species unique to the island. Today there are no birds on Guam. Towards the
end of the war the tree snake _Boiga irregularis_ was introduced to the island.
Within 20 years the bird poulation was decimated and completely extinct by the
1980's. The snake has also caused catastophic decline in small mammals, lizard
and skinks. The extinction of a number of bird species is the direct result of
being eaten by the snakes (see Quammen, D. 1996. The Song of the Dodo: Island
Biogeorgaphy in an Age of Extinction. New York : Scribner, 702p.)

Thus biotic competition leading to extinction is a fact and not a fallacy. It
is the use of this to legitimatise social policies that is the fallacy.

>Hypothetical line from a report outlining plans for
>implemention of the Final Solution: "The improvement of the Aryan
>race entails the improvement or extermination of other races."
>[CN]"According to David then, two of Darwin's mistakes have led
>to 2 world wars and possible Armageddon!"

Hypothetical line from a report outlining plans for
implemention of the Final Solution: "The improvement of the Aryan

economy entails the improvement or extermination of other economies."

Hypothetical line from a report outlining plans for
implemention of the Final Solution: "The improvement of the Aryan

Party entails the improvement or extermination of other political parties."

Hypothetical line from a report outlining plans for
implemention of the Final Solution: "The improvement of the Aryan

religion entails the improvement or extermination of other religions."

Again you are describing the misapplication of Darwin's work to a social setting
(social Darwinism).

>CN Or is it more likely that
>CN Hsu was referring to social Darwinism as the problem?
>CN
>CN Further, according to David, Hsu, the reviewers and the editor,
>CN lost track of grammar, since Hsu states "the Darwinian fallacy"
>CN in referring to two mistakes.
>
>Agreed; the grammar poses a problem for the interpretation I have
>hitherto advanced.
>
>CN Also, Hsu, the reviewers and the editor lost track of
>CN compositional style by having the last two sentences (supposedly
>CN referring to material 5 paragraphs back) to run on in a paragraph
>CN referring to 4 paragraphs devoted to social Darwinism.
>
>[CN]"Claiming that the last two sentences refer to material 5
>paragraphs back." The paragraph containing [Hsu]"emperor" is the
>last paragraph in the essay; last paragraphs of essays frequently
>summarize essays' main points. Such is the case with Hsu's
>essay. Just as referring to material 13, 5, 4, 3, etc. chapters
>back is not unusual in a book's concluding chapter, so it is not
>unusual for an essay's concluding paragraph to refer to material
>13, 5, 4, 3, etc. paragraphs back.

But Hsu was not suggesting that Darwin's mistakes had caused two world wars, he
was writing about the use of Darwin's theory in a social context and its use to
support social policies.

>CN Also, Hsu does not refer to "Darwinism" in the body of the
>CN commentary devoted to Darwin's "mistakes", but in the part of the
>CN commentary devoted to social Darwinism.
>
>[Hsu]".... but few propose today that 'each new variety or
>species... will generally press hardest on its nearest kindred,
>and tends to exterminate them.' Yet, unfortunately, it is this
>aspect of the Darwinian ideology that has permeated our social
>philosophy all too deeply." Since "ideology" equals "ism," Hsu's
>"Darwinian ideology" comes awfully close to doing what you say
>doesn't occur, namely, [CN]"refer to 'Darwinism' in the body of
>the commentary devoted to Darwin's 'mistakes.'" ([df]"Awfully
>close" because the sentence containing [Hsu]"Darwinian ideology"
>is not entirely devoted to one of Darwin's mistakes.)

Let's see, "ideology equals "ism"" is mental gymnastics, and even it it were
correct, " . the sentence containing [Hsu]"Darwinian ideology" is not entirely
devoted to one of Darwin's mistakes." (in fact it is in the paragraph linking
the text on the three mistakes to the text on social Darwinism).

Gee, then my point is made then! So are we agreed that "Hsu does not refer to
"Darwinism" in the body of the commentary devoted to Darwin's "mistakes", but in
the part of the commentary devoted to social Darwinism."?

>CN Once again the key phrase in the commentary:
>CN (Para 2, line 19)
>CN
>CN "This essay is an attempt to point out these mistakes and *an
>CN appeal to renounce social Darwinism*" (p. 532, emphasis added).
>CN
>CN That Darwin made mistakes is not in question.
>CN That people have misused Darwinism is not in question.
>
>I'll agree that Hsu says "used," but I don't see [CN]"misused."
>I must have missed it; where does Hsu say that social Darwinists
>[CN]"misused" Darwin's thoughts?

Umm, parsing error here I think. *I* say that social Darwinists "misused"
Darwin, I did not (nor mean to) imply that Hsu said as much.

>CN That the "Darwinian fallacy" referred to is social Darwinism
>CN should not be in question.
>
>[Hsu]"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is about
>time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes.'" Rephrased Chris
>N.'s way: "We have had enough of social Darwinism. It is about
>time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes.'" In addition to
>the preceding quotations and concomitant remarks, I beg to differ
>for the following reason. "The emperor has no clothes" is a
>remark applied to orthodoxy/ conventional wisdom. Social
>Darwinism does not AFAIK currently qualify as "orthodoxy," and
>was not regarded as such in the 1980s.

Defining usage of terminology to favour your interpretation.
Besides from Hsu's text you included above:

"The reading public of England, which, with Victorian
industrialization, had demonstrated its (often ruthless)
efficiency, could now see the rights it arrogated to itself on
the ground of that efficiency legitimized as law of nature.'

Colonialism was justified then, *and nationalism now.*"
(emphasis added)

Is nationalism not "orthodoxy"?

>On the other hand, the concept of "natural selection"-- which,
>according to Hsu's abstract, is an outgrowth of 3 mistakes,

Actually the abstract makes no mention of natural selection, and the first
paragraph of the article ends:

"Darwin's mistakes were in his emphasis on biotic competition in natural
selection."

Not, you will note, "Darwin's mistakes were in his emphasis of natural
selection."

FWIW I recall that Hsu has problems with natural selection and considered in
akin to tautology. He even disagreed with Gould on natural selection (if I
remember something which I read, by Hsu, correctly. I can't remember where I
read it though.)

>with the essay's body tethering 2 of those mistakes to social
>Darwinism (see excerpts above)-- _is_ considered orthodoxy....

>Tentative rephrasing by df: "We have had enough of the concept of
>natural selection. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor
>has no clothes.'"
>
>I find it interesting that while Hsu says [1st
>paragraph]"creationists are barking up the wrong tree when they
>question common descent" and that common descent is "amply
>documented by scientific evidence," he does not state anything
>similar about the "Darwinian theory of evolution['s]" second
>"them[e]... natural selection."
>
>Come to think of it, I also find this part of Hsu's abstract
>intriguing: ".... the theory propounded in his book _On the
>Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the
>Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_ (Darwin,
>1859)... has been adopted by many as the scientific basis of
>their social philosophies." Pray tell, to what exactly does
>[Hsu]"the theory propounded in" _Origin_ refer?

Descent with modification from common ancestry.

>Why, "natural selection," of course.

Via natural selection.

But read the sentence again:

"the theory propounded in his book _On the
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_ (Darwin,

1859) *which has been adopted by many as the scientific basis of
their social philosophies*." (emphasis added).

"SOCIAL PHILOSOPHIES"

>No longer tentative rephrasing by df: "We have had enough of the
>concept of natural selection. It is about time that we cry: 'The
>emperor has no clothes.'"

More accurate possibly:

"We have had enough of the concept of natural selection as the scientific basis
of social philosophies. It is about time that we cry: 'The emperor has no
clothes.'"

So, to accept your interpretation we have to:

- Accept a significant grammatical error.
- Accept that 2 world wars were associated with Darwin's 'On the Origin of
Species . ." and not people's selective use of his work.
- Ignore the absence of "Darwininsm" in association with discussion of Darwin's
mistakes, but common use in assocaition with social Darwinism.
- Accept your strict definition as to the usage of ""The emperor has no clothes"
_ Ignore the fact that biotic interactions leading to extinction is a valid
phenomenon and thus cannot be described as a fallacy.
- Ignore the last half line of the abstract.
_ Ignore the twinning of the key phrase about the emperor's new clothes with
talk of two world wars and Armageddon (coming directly after a paragraph
discussing the rise of the Nazis.)

Chris

>CN Hsu, K.J. (1986) Darwin's three mistakes. Geology, 14:532-534

Hallam (1983) ??