Concept of "blindwatchmaking"
david ford
david ford:
> > The point of the post was mainly to define a term, blindwatchmaking,
> > that I frequently use and that John W. asked for a definition of.
>
> In that case, it failed. The many contradictions in the explanation
> likely convinced people that it doesn't mean anything at all.
Please present 2 of the contradictions you have in mind.
Feel free to draw on
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
and John W.'s reply in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1g7i6bc.m1z0nj1i4xijkN%25john.wilkins%40bigpond.com
> By the way, if someone did find an instance of a structure in a living
> thing that could not have possibly have arisen by a sequence of steps that
> each conferred reproductive benefit, then evolution would be refuted. (I'm
> being a bit imprecise here, because there's issues about the sizes of the
> steps and about random small changes not having to have any benefit at all.)
> Numerous people have alleged that they have found such structures and in
> each case, in some cases after extensive detective work, plausible steps
> have been discovered.
[DS]"then evolution would be refuted"
Blindwatchmaking by Darwinian natural selection, for that
structure, yes.
Blindwatchmaking by Goldschmidtian mechanisms, or
mechanisms to-be-discovered, no.
[DS]"in each case... plausible steps have been discovered"
What [DS]"plausible steps have been discovered" for
Frazetta's snakes and Long's rodents?
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1982. "The Uses of Heresy: An
Introduction to Richard Goldschmidt's _The Material Basis
of Evolution_" in Richard Goldschmidt, _The Material Basis
of Evolution_ (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1940, 1982), at least 399pp., xiii-xlii.
A paragraph on xxxvi:
The classical argument for saltation, on the other hand,
requires a claim for the _inviability of conceivable
intermediate states_. The fact that a phenotype arises
discontinuously as a teratologous mutant in one species
does not prove that it cannot be built gradually in other
circumstances. Interesting claims for phenotypic
saltation have always invoked the inconceivability of
intermediary stages in an evolutionary sequence-- as in
the torsion of snails, Frazzetta's snakes with a split
maxillary (1970), and Long's rodents with inverted
cheek pouches (1976). Mivart's old argument (1871)
about the inviability of "incipient stages of useful
structures" seems as sound as ever, and Goldschmidt
fails to use it.
> The absence of such structures, at least to date, is strong evidence
> that random changes and differential survival are the correct explanatory
> mechanisms for the 'design' found in living things.
David Schwartz
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04013...@posting.google.com...
> David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
> news:<bv7v3i$qa5$1...@nntp.webmaster.com>...
> david ford:
>> > The point of the post was mainly to define a term, blindwatchmaking,
>> > that I frequently use and that John W. asked for a definition of.
>>
>> In that case, it failed. The many contradictions in the explanation
>> likely convinced people that it doesn't mean anything at all.
> Please present 2 of the contradictions you have in mind.
> Feel free to draw on
>
> concept of "blindwatchmaking"
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
> and John W.'s reply in
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1g7i6bc.m1z0nj1i4xijkN%25john.wilkins%40bigpond.com
My reply explained several of them, they mostly involve giving god a
special status.
>> By the way, if someone did find an instance of a structure in a
>> living
>> thing that could not have possibly have arisen by a sequence of steps
>> that
>> each conferred reproductive benefit, then evolution would be refuted.
>> (I'm
>> being a bit imprecise here, because there's issues about the sizes of the
>> steps and about random small changes not having to have any benefit at
>> all.)
>> Numerous people have alleged that they have found such structures and in
>> each case, in some cases after extensive detective work, plausible steps
>> have been discovered.
> [DS]"then evolution would be refuted"
> Blindwatchmaking by Darwinian natural selection, for that
> structure, yes.
> Blindwatchmaking by Goldschmidtian mechanisms, or
> mechanisms to-be-discovered, no.
> [DS]"in each case... plausible steps have been discovered"
> What [DS]"plausible steps have been discovered" for
> Frazetta's snakes and Long's rodents?
I think you misunderstand my argument. I'm not saying that finding one
case that *has* *not* been explained as a sequence of plausible steps would
refute evolution. I said finding a case that "could not have possibly arisen
by a sequence of steps" would refute evolution.
So even if we assume, arguendo, that plausible steps have not been
discovered for Frazetta's snakes or Long's rodents, this would not be the
same as a demonstration that they could not plausibly have arisen out of a
sequence of steps. If you have any links to arguments that they could not
have arisen in this manner, feel free to post them.
DS