Evolution Hypothesis is Unfalsifiable
david ford
on 1999/4/28, in reply to Howard:
[snips]
H What actual evidence that someone might be able to gather would
H allow you to disprove your design hypothesis?
JT I've answered this question many times. So why don't you answer
JT what actual evidence someone might be able to gather that would
JT allow you to disprove your belief that bacterial flagella evolved?
H Sequences the same. Evidence of design. Sequences different. Also
H evidence of design. Able to see possible subsystems. Evidence of
H design. Not able to see possible subsystems. Evidence of design.
JT Sequence the same? Evidence of evolution. Sequences different?
JT Also evidence of evolution. Able to see possible subsystems? Evidence
JT of evolution. Not able to see possible subsystems? Evidence of
JT evolution. Function? Evidence of evolution. No function? Evidence
JT of evolution. Optimal "design"? Evidence of evolution. Suboptimal
JT "design"? Evidence of evolution. Evolutionary history? Evidence
JT of evolution. No apparent evolutionary history? Evidence of
JT evolution. Nests in a phylogenetic tree? Evidence of evolution.
JT Doesn't nest in a phylogenetic tree? Evidence of evolution. IC?
JT Evidence of evolution. Not IC? Evidence of evolution. Fast change?
JT Evidence of evolution. Slow change? Evidence of evolution. No
JT change? Evidence of evolution. Looks designed? Evidence of
JT evolution. Doesn't look designed? Evidence of evolution. Howard
JT clearly views evolution through his omphalic glasses.
ReMine, Walter James. 1993. _The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus
Message Theory_ (Saint Paul, MN: Saint Paul Science), 538pp. On 24:
Evolutionary theory has no coherent structure. It is amorphous.
It is malleable and can readily adjust to disparate patterns of
data. Evolution accommodates data like fog accommodates landscape.
In fact, evolutionary theory fails to clearly predict anything
about life that is actually true.
Birch, L.C. and P.R. Ehrlich. 1967. "Evolutionary History and
Population Biology" _Nature_ 214: 349-52. From the 2nd to last
paragraph:
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper^19 described, one
which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every
conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside
of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think
of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based
on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified
systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They
have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as
part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding
of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism
about many of its tenets.
19: K.R. Popper, _Fed. Proc._ 22: 661 (1963).
Ehrlich & Holm on faith in the theory of evolution
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=360902753
John W. and I discuss whether the ToE is falsifiable
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=255661094
attempts to prevent the ToE from being falsified
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=258418784
(correction: "lack of *[whale]* transitional forms")
altruism, sociobiology, and unfalsifiability
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=172687699
Donald C. Lindsay
In article <Pine.SGI.3.96A.9906200...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>ReMine, Walter James.
> In fact, evolutionary theory fails to clearly predict anything
> about life that is actually true.
Ah, ReMine. He used to post here.
A list of predictions:
http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/evo_science.html
--
Don
Donald C. Lindsay www.best.com/~dlindsay
John Savard
Of course, while it is true that quite a bit can be accomodated by
evolution, it certanily _is_ falsifiable.
If there were no relations between the genetic code of creatures of
different species,
if there were no structures in animals and plants that, instead of
being optimally designed for their present purpose, are instead
slightly altered versions of structures used for other purposes in
other creatures,
if the fossil record showed modern forms of life even in the earliest
strata, with any forms that became extinct not showing any trend
towards current creatures,
I'd say we would have to consider the idea of intelligent design.
Now, if one wants a non-falsifiable alternative to Genesis, one could
try the hypothesis that space aliens (who evolved on *their* planet)
engineered life on earth...
John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://members.xoom.com/quadibloc/crypto.htm
JackW10541
John Savard:Of course, while it is true that quite a bit can be accomodated by
evolution, it certanily _is_ falsifiable.
If there were no relations between the genetic code of creatures of
different species,
if there were no structures in animals and plants that, instead of being
optimally designed for their present purpose, are instead slightly altered
versions of structures used for other purposes in
other creatures,
if the fossil record showed modern forms of life even in the earliest strata,
with any forms that became extinct not showing any trend towards current
creatures,
I'd say we would have to consider the idea of intelligent design.
Now, if one wants a non-falsifiable alternative to Genesis, one could
try the hypothesis that space aliens (who evolved on *their* planet) engineered
life on earth...
Jack: You are missing the point. Even if every claim of neo-Darwinism was
falsified that would still leave the blind watchmaker thesis unfalsified. All
that would happen is that scientists would abandon the current blind watchmaker
and look for another blind watchmaker. The possibility that a competent blind
watchmaker doen't exist would never be considered. The blind watchmaker thesis
is unfalsifiable.
Michael Suttkus, II
>
> Jack: You are missing the point. Even if every claim of neo-Darwinism was
> falsified that would still leave the blind watchmaker thesis unfalsified. All
> that would happen is that scientists would abandon the current blind watchmaker
> and look for another blind watchmaker. The possibility that a competent blind
> watchmaker doen't exist would never be considered. The blind watchmaker thesis
> is unfalsifiable.
So is the God hypothesis. That's why neither is actually science if given
only in vague, generic terms. Now, when you have something more specific,
like evolution, it isn't just blind watchmaker. Likewise, creationism also
speculates falsifiable aspects (like 6000 year old world, separately created
kinds). The difference is, the falsifiable aspects of creationism have been
falsified and the falsifiable aspects of evolution are still in good
standing.
God, however, remains unfalsifiable, as does the atheism, blind watchmaker,
and giant holy hamsters.
--
"I dislike stupidity, especially when it masquerades as virtue."
- The Duke, "The Man of La Mancha"
hrgr...@my-deja.com
jackw...@aol.com (JackW10541) wrote:
>
> John Savard:Of course, while it is true that quite a bit can be
accomodated by
> evolution, it certanily _is_ falsifiable.
>
> If there were no relations between the genetic code of creatures of
> different species,
>
> if there were no structures in animals and plants that, instead of
being
> optimally designed for their present purpose, are instead slightly
altered
> versions of structures used for other purposes in
> other creatures,
>
> if the fossil record showed modern forms of life even in the earliest
strata,
> with any forms that became extinct not showing any trend towards
current
> creatures,
>
> I'd say we would have to consider the idea of intelligent design.
>
> Now, if one wants a non-falsifiable alternative to Genesis, one could
> try the hypothesis that space aliens (who evolved on *their* planet)
engineered
> life on earth...
>
Darwinism was
> falsified that would still leave the blind watchmaker thesis
unfalsified. All
> that would happen is that scientists would abandon the current blind
watchmaker
> and look for another blind watchmaker. The possibility that a
competent blind
> watchmaker doen't exist would never be considered. The blind
watchmaker thesis
> is unfalsifiable.
>
I don't know what you mean by the "blind watchmaker thesis". Dawkins'
metaphor of the blind watchmaker means exactly the mechanism proposed
by neo-Darwinism (mutations and natural selection) and thus can be
falsified.
BTW, looking for scientific explanations (and not throwing their hands
up and cry "Design, Design" or "Creator, Creator") is what scientists
do - by definition, as it were!
HRG.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
mel turner
>
>>John Savard: Of course, while it is true that quite a bit can be
>>accomodated by evolution, it certanily _is_ falsifiable.
>>If there were no relations between the genetic code of creatures of
>>different species,
>>if there were no structures in animals and plants that, instead of
>>being
>>optimally designed for their present purpose, are instead slightly
>>altered versions of structures used for other purposes in
>>other creatures,
>>if the fossil record showed modern forms of life even in the earliest
>>strata,
>>with any forms that became extinct not showing any trend towards
>>current creatures,
>>I'd say we would have to consider the idea of intelligent design.
>>Now, if one wants a non-falsifiable alternative to Genesis, one could
>>try the hypothesis that space aliens (who evolved on *their* planet)
>>engineered life on earth...
>Jack: You are missing the point. Even if every claim of neo-Darwinism
was
>falsified that would still leave the blind watchmaker thesis
unfalsified.
Nonsense. If the above list of hypothetical findings had all happened
to be the case, the evolutionary common descent of life on earth would
clearly have had to be rejected as false. What other "blind watchmaker
theses" would remain? [That's a pretty good list of imaginable
evolution-falsifying data; a few more were mentioned in
<http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465057867>, most notably a general
lack of nested hierarchies of groups of organisms; a lack of mutations;
a much-too-young earth...]
>All
>that would happen is that scientists would abandon the current blind
>watchmaker and look for another blind watchmaker.
Such as? What other "blind watchmaker theses" can you envision, apart
from the current evolutionary common descent one? How could they be
compatible with all the above hypothetical findings?
>The possibility that a competent blind
>watchmaker doen't exist would never be considered.
If evolutionary theory was thoroughly falsified, science would just be
left with a great big "I don't know", which would be an accurate
statement.
>The blind watchmaker thesis is unfalsifiable.
Nonsense. See above. The idea of evolution could have been falsified if
the observed evidence from the world had been different. It just
happens that the data from the real world mostly fit the evolutionary
model rather nicely.
cheers
david ford
1999, <http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/evo_science.html>:
DL Philosophers of science such as Popper and Kitcher say that it is.
DL Scientists such as Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Ridley agree. Many
DL organizations have passed resolutions to this effect. However, the
DL important question is whether these authorities can back up what they
DL say with evidence.
DL
DL The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made
DL from the Theory of Evolution:
DL
DL Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in
DL pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: Cambrian and pre-Cambrian fossils
DL were subsequently found.
'Darwin predicted' isn't the same as 'the Theory of Evolution
predicted.' Just as 'Einstein predicted' isn't the same as 'the general
theory of relativity predicted.'
Are you saying that the Theory of Evolution (hereafter ToE) predicts
that ancestors to trilobites reside in a certain strata of rock? If
"yes," does the theory also predict what strata the ancestors to the
trilobites' ancestors reside in? Please present the names of the
trilobite-precursors that have been unearthed.
DL There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain
DL microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a
DL transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and
DL baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
Are you saying that the ToE predicts that whales with both baleen and
teeth once existed? If "yes," please list and briefly describe three
additional animals that the ToE predicts once existed.
What's the name of the whale found having both teeth and baleen? What's
the name of the animal from which it evolved, and the name of the animal
it evolved into? What are the respective ages of the rocks containing
the 3 animals' first known appearances?
DL Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
If I found a monkey, a bear, and a whale, in strata 300 million, 200
million, and 100 million years old, respectively, would I have found a
"fossil series"?
Stanley, Steven M. 1975. "A Theory of Evolution Above the Species
Level" _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA_ 72: 646-50.
On 646:
Phylogenies have traditionally been characterized as having
tree-like patterns. In plots depicting morphologic change on a
horizontal scale and time on a vertical scale, continuous phyletic
change is typically represented by diagonal branches and twigs.
Being based on fragmentary fossil evidence, such plots are
interpretive. They represent the concept of evolution that has
been called _phyletic gradualism_ (2). In reality, gradual
phyletic change is recognized for only a few fossil lineages, and
in these it is of minor morphologic consequence.
On 648 of the same article, Stanley writes,
_A Disclaimer_. It must be emphasized that the above tests do not
demonstrate that no gradual change occurs within established
species, but only that such change is generally slow and of minor
consequence relative to changes that frequently occur in speciation
events.
Do you agree that [Stanley]"In reality, gradual phyletic change is
recognized for only a few fossil lineages, and in these it is of minor
morphologic consequence"?
Donald Lindsay, "Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium," 1 Oct 1997,
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/punk_eek.html>:
In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould revived this idea,
under the name Punctuated Equilibrium. They agreed that
transitional fossils are plentiful, and that smooth transitional
sequences are sometimes found. However, they argued that these are
not as common as theory predicted.
Did the ToE make the prediction you refer to? If "no," what did?
DL Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different
DL populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts
DL we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs,
DL since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous
DL seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different
DL kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of
DL ammonite together in the same rockbed.
If somebody were to find fossils of trilobites with fossils of
dinosaurs, would you reject the ToE? Would Mayr, Kitcher, and/or
Ridley? If somebody were to find two different kinds of ammonites
together in the same rockbed, would you reject the ToE? Would Mayr,
Kitcher, and/or Ridley? If somebody were to find dinosaurs living in
the Amazon that had been previously believed to have become extinct 65
million years ago, would the ToE be falsified?
DL Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely
DL related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more
DL distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
Do continents qualify as being "islands"? Does the ToE make a
prediction about peninsulas, and if so, what is that prediction?
DL Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a
DL hierarchical arrangement of relatedness.
References to the peer-reviewed scientific literature, please.
If a ship from the planet Xeron landed on earth, and the life aboard did
not fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness, would the ToE be
falsified?
DL For example, arthropods all
DL have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have
DL all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all
DL that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus
DL a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and
DL back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate
DL flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
DL
DL Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve
DL independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have
DL differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of
DL molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears
DL can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different
DL insects.
What makes a feature "valuable"?
Please list 3 "simple" features. Which of these "simple" features are
humans currently able to construct?
Does the ToE predict that the eye evolved independently?
Does the ToE predict how many times the eye evolved independently?
DL In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development,
DL part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of
DL the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that
DL there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw
DL joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been
DL found - the cynodont therapsids.
Does the ToE predict the existence of a fossil reptile with a spare jaw
joint right near its ear?
DL It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since
DL other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have
DL fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An
DL examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary
DL bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
Please list those structures the ToE predicts humans have.
Please list those structures the ToE predicts humans _don't_ have.
Does the ToE predict that humans exist?
DL From my junk DNA example I predict that the two defunct viruses can both
DL be found in sheep, but neither can be found in monkeys.
Does the ToE predict the existence of "junk DNA"?
Does the ToE predict the nonexistence of "junk DNA"?
Does the ToE predict the existence of viruses?
DL In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a
DL primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very
DL badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both
DL were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth.
DL It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it
DL too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and
DL the prediction turned out to be correct.
Does the ToE predict the existence of teeth in Archaeopteryx?
If Archaeopteryx lacked teeth, would the ToE be falsified?
Does the ToE predict the existence of: ears? noses? fingers?
sexual reproduction? asexual reproduction? vision? mammals?
reptiles? alien life? bats? dinosaurs?
DL Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted
DL that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we
DL had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which
DL didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When
DL human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the
DL Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
Does the ToE predict that humans are descended from creatures that
could: make Vitamin C inside their bodies? digest cellulose? live in
oxygen-free environments? live in aqueous, 200 degree Celsius
environments? inject venom? fly? run over 50 miles per hour?
Does the ToE predict that we have turned-off copies of genes that code
for any of the above capacities, and if so, which capacities?
DL The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that
DL these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong
DL predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing
DL science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it
DL suggested what evidence to look for, and where.
Donald Lindsay, "What Makes A Theory Scientific?," 16 Dec 1998,
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/falsify.html>:
DL So, a scientific theory is one which can in principle be falsified.
DL The theory has to make strong statements about evidence. If the
DL statements aren't strong, then the theory fits any evidence, and is
DL unfalsifiable. That's bad.
Can the ToE accommodate any conceivable data? If "no," what conceivable
data can the ToE not accommodate? Do you think the ToE can be falsified
in principle?
Ken Cox
> God, however, remains unfalsifiable, as does the atheism, blind watchmaker,
> and giant holy hamsters.
The preferred talk.origins term is "invisible pink unicorn".
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Michael Suttkus, II
>
> Michael Suttkus, II wrote:
> > God, however, remains unfalsifiable, as does the atheism, blind watchmaker,
> > and giant holy hamsters.
>
> The preferred talk.origins term is "invisible pink unicorn".
Invisible pink unicorns are just silly. Deny the truth of giant holy
hamsters if you will, but His Gnawingness will punish you for your lack of
faith while I reside the in the great hamster wheel in the sky.
Scoff at your own peril, unbeliever.
Dave Woetzel
<snip>
>Nonsense. If the above list of hypothetical findings had all happened
>to be the case, the evolutionary common descent of life on earth would
>clearly have had to be rejected as false. What other "blind watchmaker
>theses" would remain? [That's a pretty good list of imaginable
>evolution-falsifying data; a few more were mentioned in
><http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465057867>, most notably a general
>lack of nested hierarchies of groups of organisms; a lack of mutations;
>a much-too-young earth...]
>
>>All
>>that would happen is that scientists would abandon the current blind
>>watchmaker and look for another blind watchmaker.
>
>Such as? What other "blind watchmaker theses" can you envision, apart
>from the current evolutionary common descent one? How could they be
>compatible with all the above hypothetical findings?
Such as transposition. Gould stands ready and willing to invoke
transposition (which is vastly more elementary than convergence or natural
selection) if the pattern were obliging.
Gould, Stephen J., 1986, "Linnaean Limits,: _Natural History_, vol. 95, no.
8
p. 18
"The debate about lateral transfer does not center upon plausible
mechanisms. ...The issue is not plausibility but relative frequency.
Lateral transfer is intelligible and feasible, but how often does it happen
in nature? This crucial question must be established by example, not by
theory."
p. 23
The major argument against high frequency is a statement of simple common
sense--obvious but powerful. We have a fairly reliable Linnaean
classification, at least for animals.
To the extent that biodiversity exhibits nested hierarchy it supposedly
supports evolution. To the extent that it does not, evolutionists will
happily accommodate with a variation on their theory. Evolutionism adapts
to data like fog to a landscape.
Dave
Ken Cox
> Invisible pink unicorns are just silly. Deny the truth of giant holy
> hamsters if you will, but His Gnawingness will punish you for your lack of
> faith while I reside the in the great hamster wheel in the sky.
Don't be silly. The unicorn is a beautiful, noble beast, and Its
invisible pink nature only adds to Its ineffability. Hamsters are
glorified rats noted chiefly as the subjects of various sick jokes
involving duct tape and hospital emergency rooms.
It's obvious which one would be nicer to worship. And since the
universe pays a great deal of attention to the way I want things
to be, the IPU is the one that wins.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Henry Barwood
david ford wrote:
> Are you saying that the Theory of Evolution (hereafter ToE) predicts
> that ancestors to trilobites reside in a certain strata of rock? If
> "yes," does the theory also predict what strata the ancestors to the
> trilobites' ancestors reside in? Please present the names of the
> trilobite-precursors that have been unearthed.
As you should know, trilobite precursors are exceptionally rare because they
cross the "Cambrian Explosion" boundary that likely marks the point of
mineralized exoskeleton development. Prior to mineralization, only soft bodied
animals (rare, like the Ediacaran fauna). Post-mineralization we have lots of
trilobites.
> If I found a monkey, a bear, and a whale, in strata 300 million, 200
> million, and 100 million years old, respectively, would I have found a
> "fossil series"?
No, you would have found an impossibility. None of the species named are that
old.
Rest of the rant deleted.
Barwood
Michael Suttkus, II
Yeah, right. No one but a true fool could believe that. Look around you
blasphemer! The world is a miserable place designed by a dirty rat that
hates us all. Only by worship of the Giant Holy Hamsters do we have hope of
serving them in the afterlife, which is far better than what happens to the
blasphemers like you!
Ah Ha, now you're withering the the clutches of my logic.
--
"I dislike stupidity, especially when it masquerades as virtue."
- The Duke, "The Man of La Mancha"
(What do you think, should I remove the sig when I'm saying really dumb
things like this?)
Ken Cox
> Only by worship of the Giant Holy Hamsters do we have hope of serving
> them in the afterlife, which is far better than what happens to the
> blasphemers like you!
I speak to you from the love and human decency that being a follower
of the Invisible Pink Unicorn instills in my soul.
You are a piece of filth and will burn in hell forever.
(BTW, sorry about trying to actually illustrate a point in this
exchange. In my defense, I will say that I suspect it will pass
right over the heads of the people who most need it.)
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
mel turner
>I wrote:
>>jackw...@aol.com wrote:
><snip>
Lateral transfers could be a plausible explanation for some modest
departures from a strictly nested hierarchy of traits,
[hybridization/reticulation is another] but it couldn't account for
any of the other imagined evolution-falsifying data that were
mentioned. Besides the hypothetical lack of nested hierarchies and the
absence of mutations and the YEC-aged earth mentioned above, the
previous poster had mentioned:
[restored]
>>John Savard:
>>If there were no relations between the genetic code of creatures of
>>different species,
>>if there were no structures in animals and plants that, instead of
>>being optimally designed for their present purpose, are instead
>>slightly
>>altered versions of structures used for other purposes in
>>other creatures,
>>if the fossil record showed modern forms of life even in the
>>earliest strata
None of these could be addressed by appealing to lateral transfers or
to any other modification of evolutionary theory that I can imagine.
>Gould, Stephen J., 1986, "Linnaean Limits,: _Natural History_, vol.
95, no.
>8
>p. 18
>"The debate about lateral transfer does not center upon plausible
>mechanisms. ...The issue is not plausibility but relative frequency.
>Lateral transfer is intelligible and feasible, but how often does it
happen
>in nature? This crucial question must be established by example, not
>by theory."
So? He's right, The extent to which it occurs can only be examined by
looking for examples where it must have occurred.
>p. 23
>The major argument against high frequency is a statement of simple
common
>sense--obvious but powerful. We have a fairly reliable Linnaean
>classification, at least for animals.
>To the extent that biodiversity exhibits nested hierarchy it
supposedly
>supports evolution.
And it generally does so very nicely. Therefore, there wasn't any
overwhelming amount of lateral transfer to obscure the nested pattern.
Nested hierarchies are the only pattern that's compatible with and
predicted by branching lineages and common descent; is there any
creationist explanation for them?
>To the extent that it does not, evolutionists will
>happily accommodate with a variation on their theory.
Only if it 'does not' to no more than a very minor extent. If all
organisms were really exchanging lots of genes very freely via
abundant lateral transfers, there would be no nested hierarchies or
any identifiable taxonomic groups at all. The whole biosphere would be
one big messy gene pool.
>Evolutionism adapts to data like fog to a landscape.
Nice slogan, but good science always changes to reflect the best
available data. The data indicates evolution.
cheers
WRowe0521
argument of Dave W.
>If all
>organisms were really exchanging lots of genes very freely via
>abundant lateral transfers, there would be no nested hierarchies or
>any identifiable taxonomic groups at all. The whole biosphere would be
>one big messy gene pool.
If frogs routinely exchanged genetic material with cheetahs, wouldn't someone
have noticed? Wouldn't we humans feel the impulse to to something similar?
Yes, I know some people do, I mean almost all of us.
Bill Rowe.
msyv...@my-deja.com
mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
> In article <19990623175556...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> jackw...@aol.com wrote:
>To the extent that biodiversity exhibits nested hierarchy it
supposedly
>supports evolution.
And it generally does so very nicely. Therefore, there wasn't any
overwhelming amount of lateral transfer to obscure the nested pattern.
Nested hierarchies are the only pattern that's compatible with and
predicted by branching lineages and common descent;
In general nest hierarchies have rather limited applicability. Let us
ignore for now metazoans, there is a good agreement here
between systematics and the evolutionary tree. Nested hierarchies have
found very limited utility in the following areas.
Bacteria
Fungi
Bryophytes
Organization of plant families within angiosperm
Organization of plant families within gymnosperm
Chlorophytes
Archaea
Now to return to metazoans. In the early Cambrian 30 some metazoan
phyla made their appearance in the fossil record and some 15 or so have
extant members today. How are these metazoan phyla arranged into nested
hierarchies? Consider the 17 mammalian orders that appeared after the
KT event. How are these orders arranged in nested hierarchies?
Mike Syvanen
Richard Harter
>Ken Cox wrote:
>>
>> Michael Suttkus, II wrote:
>> > God, however, remains unfalsifiable, as does the atheism, blind watchmaker,
>> > and giant holy hamsters.
>>
>> The preferred talk.origins term is "invisible pink unicorn".
>
>Invisible pink unicorns are just silly. Deny the truth of giant holy
>hamsters if you will, but His Gnawingness will punish you for your lack of
>faith while I reside the in the great hamster wheel in the sky.
>
>Scoff at your own peril, unbeliever.
The following material may be relevant:
THE KULT OF HAMSTUR
[For your edification: information on a spiritual discipline which,
although not widely known at the moment, we are sure will soon be taking
its place among the major religions of the world. Many thanks to the
Kult of Hamstur for generously allowing us to make these revelations
available to you.]
Q: What is the Kult of Hamstur?
A: The Kult of Hamstur is a cult (a group or sect bound together by
devotion to or veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.) and in
this case the object of devotion is Hamstur the Unsqueekable. It's
really quite simple. Don't you own a dictionary?
Q: Who is Hamstur the Unsqueekable?
A: Hamstur, known to many of his followers as "He Whose Cage Must Not Be
Cleaned," is the greatest of the Outer Mammals described in the
Gerbilnomicon, a tome as ancient and evil as it is furry.
Q: Really? Is this for real?
A: Don't be silly.
Q: Wait a minute...Hamstur? Unsqueekable? Gerbilnomicon? This sounds
vaguely familiar...
A: Ah, very astute! Of course, you refer to the stories by Lovecraft and
other writers which use similar sounding names and themes. Of course,
Lovecraft knew the real truth, but was afraid to write anything more
than vague and veiled references for fear of angering the Outer Mammals
and their minions.
Q: Then how come you write about it?
A: We fear not the Outer Mammals! We are true followers of Hamstur! We
have sunk a ton of money into Kult of Hamstur products that we really
need to move!
Q: Well, in that case...what can I do to support Hamstur and his cause?
A: Unlike most others, the Kult of Hamstur doesn't require or even
encourage its members to sell off all of their worldly possessions and
give all the proceeds to the Kult leadership. After all, there is only
so much Habitrail stuff that one can buy. However, if you insist, just
send all your money to the address at the end of this article. It's not
tax deductable and will probably be used for some purpose which might be
illegal and most likely immoral. Or we might just use it to buy beer.
Q: How do I join?
A: So you want to become a member of the Kult of Hamstur? Who wouldn't,
right? Well, all you have to do is get a hamster. It will tell you the
rest (if you are worthy). At least that's how it happened with me. But
it can't be just any hamster - no way! It's got to be the right hamster.
Here's how you go about getting the right hamster:
First, it's important to note that all pet store owners know about
Hamstur (and the other Outer Mammals like Dogsothoth and Cathulhu). Even
if your own brother owns a pet store and you know he couldn't normally
find his ass with both hands, much less keep a secret like this. But
believe me, it's just a clever disguise. Even better than that Peter Pan
costume your mother made for you when you were 6. It's that good...
When you decide to join, just go to any pet store and ask for a hamster.
When you ask for the hamster, you must look the owner in the eye and say
something like, "I would like a hamster. A normal one. Nothing special
and not out of the ordinary in any way. Just a regular old run-of-mill
hamster." The actual words are not important, but you get the idea. You
must insist on a normal, ordinary average run-of- the-mill hamster. It
is especially important that you keep this kind of running dialog during
the whole purchase. This is called the Persistance of Normalcy. If you
ever waver, even a little, the owner will not give you a true Spawn of
Hamstur and you'll end up with a stupid little rodent who runs in a
wheel all the time and sleeps in his own filth. What you want, of
course, is a cosmically intelligent little rodent who runs in a wheel
all the time and sleeps in his own filth.
Now, of course, the owner will not make this easy for you, otherwise,
any idiot could join. Hamstur only wants the truly special cases for his
minions. As you continue with the Persistance of Normalcy, asking for
the most ordinary, non-descript, average and normal in every way
hamster, the owner's part is to wear the Mask of Confused Annoyance.
He/she will pretend to not understand your rantings. DO NOT ALLOW THIS
WEAKEN YOUR RESOLVE! This is merely a test to see if you are worthy. The
more confused and annoyed they look, the more you should insist on a
normal, average, every-day hamster. In fact, if at any point they seem
to understand, then you're in the wrong place and you should leave
immediately.
If you properly keep up the Persistance of Normalcy and end up
purchasing a hamster, only then will you have a true Spawn of Hamstur.
SB, High Priest of Hamstur
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
SF types think that the great conflict is beween Good and Evil;
in the real world it is between Marketing, Engineering, and Sales.
Michael L. Siemon
wrote:
+ A: The Kult of Hamstur is a cult (a group or sect bound together by
+ devotion to or veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.) and in
+ this case the object of devotion is Hamstur the Unsqueekable.
Shouldn't that be "unsquickable"???
--
Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must
m...@panix.com love the truth we know, and we must
act according to the measure of our love.
-- Thomas Merton
John Wilkins
|"Michael Suttkus, II" <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
|
|>Ken Cox wrote:
|>>
|>> Michael Suttkus, II wrote:
|>> > God, however, remains unfalsifiable, as does the atheism, blind
watchmaker,
|>> > and giant holy hamsters.
|>>
|>> The preferred talk.origins term is "invisible pink unicorn".
|>
|>Invisible pink unicorns are just silly. Deny the truth of giant holy
|>hamsters if you will, but His Gnawingness will punish you for your lack of
|>faith while I reside the in the great hamster wheel in the sky.
|>
|>Scoff at your own peril, unbeliever.
|
|The following material may be relevant:
|
|
|THE KULT OF HAMSTUR
|
|
|Ham...@aol.com
|
|
<esoteric lore excised, to quieten the quickly-beating hearts of the faint>
I see no mention of the role the High Priest Richard Gere plays in all this...
|
|SB, High Priest of Hamstur
|Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
|URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
|SF types think that the great conflict is beween Good and Evil;
|in the real world it is between Marketing, Engineering, and Sales.
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Michael Suttkus, II
>
> Michael Suttkus, II wrote:
> > them in the afterlife, which is far better than what happens to the
> > blasphemers like you!
>
> I speak to you from the love and human decency that being a follower
> of the Invisible Pink Unicorn instills in my soul.
Get thee to a madhouse, RAVE about DECENCY where no one can hear you.
(Wondering if anyone will know what that is a misquote of.)
> You are a piece of filth and will burn in hell forever.
That's more like it! Are you sure you aren't a follower of the Giant Holy
Hamsters? You really have that last part down.
> (BTW, sorry about trying to actually illustrate a point in this
> exchange. In my defense, I will say that I suspect it will pass
> right over the heads of the people who most need it.)
(Making a point? Is this thread? Is that allowed? How dare you?)
Michael Suttkus, II
>
> "Michael Suttkus, II" <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
>
> >Invisible pink unicorns are just silly. Deny the truth of giant holy
> >hamsters if you will, but His Gnawingness will punish you for your lack of
> >faith while I reside the in the great hamster wheel in the sky.
> >
> >Scoff at your own peril, unbeliever.
>
> The following material may be relevant:
>
> THE KULT OF HAMSTUR
The Kult of the Hamstur is a pale imitation of the true followers of the
Giant Holy Hamster, as can be told by the former's continual spelling
problem. Get real.
Ken Cox
> Get thee to a madhouse, RAVE about DECENCY where no one can hear you.
>
> (Wondering if anyone will know what that is a misquote of.)
It's from that Mel Gibson movie, right? Kenneth Branagh did a
remake of it just a year or two ago.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Jim Phillips
>
>
> david ford wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that the Theory of Evolution (hereafter ToE) predicts
> > that ancestors to trilobites reside in a certain strata of rock? If
> > "yes," does the theory also predict what strata the ancestors to the
> > trilobites' ancestors reside in? Please present the names of the
> > trilobite-precursors that have been unearthed.
>
> As you should know, trilobite precursors are exceptionally rare because they
> cross the "Cambrian Explosion" boundary that likely marks the point of
> mineralized exoskeleton development. Prior to mineralization, only soft bodied
> animals (rare, like the Ediacaran fauna). Post-mineralization we have lots of
> trilobites.
>
> > If I found a monkey, a bear, and a whale, in strata 300 million, 200
> > million, and 100 million years old, respectively, would I have found a
> > "fossil series"?
>
> No, you would have found an impossibility. None of the species named are that
> old.
More specifically, that would be evidence against evolution as we
understand it. Thus, it would *falsify* evolution, which contradicts the
title of this thread.
--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net
Quakle for President - he solved the 'Y to K' problem!
Dave Woetzel
mel turner wrote in message <7kuc4r$npo$1...@news.duke.edu>...
I commented on the one that particularly interested me. But since you
asked...
>[restored]
>>>John Savard:
>>>If there were no relations between the genetic code of creatures of
>>>different species,
multiple biogenesis
>>>if there were no structures in animals and plants that, instead of
>>>being optimally designed for their present purpose, are instead
>>>slightly
>>>altered versions of structures used for other purposes in
>>>other creatures,
The argument from imperfection has never been evidence for evolution since
it handily accomodates either scenario. It has been used (prominently by
Gould) as a tool against creation. "But perfection could be imposed by a
wise creator or evolved by natural selection" (Gould, Stephen J., "Evolution
as a Fact and a Theory," _Discover_, 1984, p.122).
>>>if the fossil record showed modern forms of life even in the
>>>earliest strata
panspermia
>None of these could be addressed by appealing to lateral transfers or
>to any other modification of evolutionary theory that I can imagine.
>
>>Gould, Stephen J., 1986, "Linnaean Limits,: _Natural History_, vol.
>95, no.
>>8
>>p. 18
>>"The debate about lateral transfer does not center upon plausible
>>mechanisms. ...The issue is not plausibility but relative frequency.
>>Lateral transfer is intelligible and feasible, but how often does it
>happen
>>in nature? This crucial question must be established by example, not
>>by theory."
>
>So? He's right, The extent to which it occurs can only be examined by
>looking for examples where it must have occurred.
Thanks for making my point. Evolution never predicted nested hierarchy and
Carl Linnaeus' work preceded Darwin by over a hundred years. To the extent
that NH did not exist, evolution would happily accommodate with processes of
loss, replacement, distant hybridization, anagenesis, transposition,
unmasking, panspermia, or multiple biogenesis. Much of them would be far
simpler than natural selection or convergence. They could handily explain
troublesome features of the fossil record without resorting to PE. There is
no good naturalist/evolutionist reason for them not to have occurred. But
the NH pattern is intractably resistant.
>>p. 23
>>The major argument against high frequency is a statement of simple
>common
>>sense--obvious but powerful. We have a fairly reliable Linnaean
>>classification, at least for animals.
>
>>To the extent that biodiversity exhibits nested hierarchy it
>supposedly
>>supports evolution.
>
>And it generally does so very nicely. Therefore, there wasn't any
>overwhelming amount of lateral transfer to obscure the nested pattern.
>Nested hierarchies are the only pattern that's compatible with and
>predicted by branching lineages and common descent; is there any
>creationist explanation for them?
Walter Remine (_The Biotic Message_, 1993, p. 465) gives a good list of
reasons for NH.
1. It allows for enormous diversity (making it cumbersome for evolution to
explain), while
2. uniting all of life together, often in a visible way,
3. confounds simpler explanations like transposition,
4. it highlights the absence of identifiable phylogeny
5. it conveys the *single* designer message even when the observer lacks
much of the data,
6. the pattern is embedded deeply into each organism, thereby making the
biotic message resistant to mutation, and
7. the nested pattern cannot be the haphazard result of a single
civilization (panspermia) but points to a single Designer.
>>To the extent that it does not, evolutionists will
>>happily accommodate with a variation on their theory.
>
>Only if it 'does not' to no more than a very minor extent. If all
>organisms were really exchanging lots of genes very freely via
>abundant lateral transfers, there would be no nested hierarchies or
>any identifiable taxonomic groups at all. The whole biosphere would be
>one big messy gene pool.
Agreed...and irrelevant. But maybe you want to inform your partner in the
parallel thread that evolution theory does not predict nested hierarchy.
>>Evolutionism adapts to data like fog to a landscape.
>
>Nice slogan, but good science always changes to reflect the best
>available data. The data indicates evolution.
No. Evolutionism, like play-doh, fits any shape required by the naturalists
as they defend their worldview.
Regards,
Dave
acker james
: DL There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain
: DL microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a
: DL transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and
: DL baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
: Are you saying that the ToE predicts that whales with both baleen and
: teeth once existed? If "yes," please list and briefly describe three
: additional animals that the ToE predicts once existed.
: What's the name of the whale found having both teeth and baleen? What's
: the name of the animal from which it evolved, and the name of the animal
: it evolved into? What are the respective ages of the rocks containing
: the 3 animals' first known appearances?
**** Since I have a fondness for the archaeocetes, I'll answer these
questions to the best of my (and the fossil record's) ability. BTW,
David, I hope to work on "Last call" again soon.
Once it had been established that Basilosaurus was actually
a fossil whale (remember that it was misclassified as a reptile originally,
explaining why the name means "King Lizard"), the ToE would likely
have predicted that the mysticetes and odontocetes shared a common
ancestor. It don't know if this was ever explicitly stated by anyone,
though. A more recent discovery, Dorudon atrox, is considered the
likeliest precursor to the modern whales. Dorudon and Basilosaurus
were contemporaneous, late Bartonian, 36-34 Mya.
Aetiocetus is considered the earliest mysticete, and it had
teeth with the jaw structure of the mysticetes. The earliest reported
occurrence of transitional whales (that is, between the archaeocetes
and the mysticetes) is about 34 Mya, near the Eocene/Oligocene boundary.
Aetiocetus matches this description, but my source (provided below)
seems to indicate that Aetiocetus dates to about 30 Mya. That implies
that there have been discoveries of transitional mysticetes prior to
Aetiocetus, but they are unnamed in the text. They could be recent
discoveries that are not yet named.
http://www.kanazawa-med.ac.jp/~hum-sci/Fordyce.htm
Interestingly, this short article also provides a nice
ecological "cause" for the appearance of the mysticetes -- the opening
of the Southern Ocean.
The "oldest known" mysticete was recently put on display at
the University of Washington, and has not been named yet. It
dates from the Oligocene, 28 million years ago, and this link has
a superb image of the fossil:
http://140.142.3.7/newsroom/news/1998archive/08-98archive/k083198.html
(This 28 Mya date pins down Fordyce's reference to the first
toothless baleen whales occurring "about 30 Mya".)
I hope this will be somewhat helpful. Can anyone spare
$120 so I can buy "The Emergence of Whales" by Hans Thewissen? ;-)
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
Paul J Gans
>In article <3772c98b....@199.0.65.59>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
>wrote:
>+ A: The Kult of Hamstur is a cult (a group or sect bound together by
>+ devotion to or veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.) and in
>+ this case the object of devotion is Hamstur the Unsqueekable.
>Shouldn't that be "unsquickable"???
No, that's me. Unqueekable is when you get laryngitis.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Matt Silberstein
<ga...@panix.com>:
Is Unqueegable when you don't like ice cream or marbles?
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
I would sooner believe a yankee professor would lie
than stones would fall from the heavens.
Thomas Jefferson
Richard Harter
>In talk.origins I read this message from Paul J Gans
><ga...@panix.com>:
>
>>Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In article <3772c98b....@199.0.65.59>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>+ A: The Kult of Hamstur is a cult (a group or sect bound together by
>>>+ devotion to or veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.) and in
>>>+ this case the object of devotion is Hamstur the Unsqueekable.
>>
>>>Shouldn't that be "unsquickable"???
>>
>>No, that's me. Unqueekable is when you get laryngitis.
>
>Is Unqueegable when you don't like ice cream or marbles?
Unsqueegiable is when you can't mop the floor.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
"A tool, such as human sacrifice, is ethically neutral.
Some tools are better left unused." - MRD
Adam Noel Harris
:>
:> > Get thee to a madhouse, RAVE about DECENCY where no one can hear you.
:> >
:> > (Wondering if anyone will know what that is a misquote of.)
:>
:> It's from that Mel Gibson movie, right? Kenneth Branagh did a
:> remake of it just a year or two ago.
:Actually, it's not from Hamlet, although now that you mention it, it is
:similar to something the prince said to Ophelia.
Get thee to a nunnery?
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Michael Suttkus, II
>
> Michael Suttkus, II wrote:
> > Get thee to a madhouse, RAVE about DECENCY where no one can hear you.
> >
> > (Wondering if anyone will know what that is a misquote of.)
>
> It's from that Mel Gibson movie, right? Kenneth Branagh did a
> remake of it just a year or two ago.
Actually, it's not from Hamlet, although now that you mention it, it is
similar to something the prince said to Ophelia.
No, it's from the same play as my signature. Just replace decency with
nobility.
Michael Suttkus, II
>
> Michael Suttkus, II <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
> :>
> :> Michael Suttkus, II wrote:
> :> > Get thee to a madhouse, RAVE about DECENCY where no one can hear you.
> :> >
> :> > (Wondering if anyone will know what that is a misquote of.)
> :>
> :> It's from that Mel Gibson movie, right? Kenneth Branagh did a
> :> remake of it just a year or two ago.
> :
> :Actually, it's not from Hamlet, although now that you mention it, it is
> :similar to something the prince said to Ophelia.
>
Yep. Of course, nunnery, in addition to the obvious meaning, was Elizabethan
slang for whorehouse...
Matt Silberstein
Harter):
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>>In talk.origins I read this message from Paul J Gans
>><ga...@panix.com>:
>>
>>>Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <3772c98b....@199.0.65.59>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>+ A: The Kult of Hamstur is a cult (a group or sect bound together by
>>>>+ devotion to or veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.) and in
>>>>+ this case the object of devotion is Hamstur the Unsqueekable.
>>>
>>>>Shouldn't that be "unsquickable"???
>>>
>>>No, that's me. Unqueekable is when you get laryngitis.
>>
>>Is Unqueegable when you don't like ice cream or marbles?
>
>Unsqueegiable is when you can't mop the floor.
>
Would unsquirrelable mean we would have to proceed moosely?
David Iain Greig
>In talk.origins I read this message from c...@tiac.net (Richard
>Harter):
>
>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>
>>>In talk.origins I read this message from Paul J Gans
>>><ga...@panix.com>:
>>>
>>>>Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>In article <3772c98b....@199.0.65.59>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>+ A: The Kult of Hamstur is a cult (a group or sect bound together by
>>>>>+ devotion to or veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.) and in
>>>>>+ this case the object of devotion is Hamstur the Unsqueekable.
>>>>
>>>>>Shouldn't that be "unsquickable"???
>>>>
>>>>No, that's me. Unqueekable is when you get laryngitis.
>>>
>>>Is Unqueegable when you don't like ice cream or marbles?
>>
>>Unsqueegiable is when you can't mop the floor.
>>
>Would unsquirrelable mean we would have to proceed moosely?
No, that would be how good Scientologists proceed.
--D.
--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum
david ford
Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, wrote _Extinction: Bad Genes
or Bad Luck?_ (1991) and coauthored with Steven Stanley _Principles of
Paleontology_ (1971, 1978). In entirety:
As the evolution-creation [i.e. blindwatchmaking vs.
seeingwatchmaking] debate heats up, the amount of misinformation
passed back and forth increases. An important example of general
interest is contained in the letter by Robert Root-Bernstein (26
June, p. 1446). In discussing the power of evolutionary theory,
Root-Bernstein says: "In the absence of evolutionary theories, any
chronological ordering of the fossil record would seem to be a
possibility, and no means would exist to choose one order over
another." This statement expresses the common misconception that
paleontologists arrange fossils in a theoretically reasonable order
and then use this order to construct a chronology. In fact, no
evolutionary theory at all is required to use fossils for
geochronology. The best evidence is that the geological time scale
in its modern form was fully developed by about 1840--before
Darwin's _Origin of Species_. The time scale based on fossils was
built by geologists who were creationists. Since 1840, many
details have been filled in, but the basic sequence has remained
unchanged.
So, the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological
change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory.
It follows that the documentation of evolution [aka broad
biological change through time in the fossil record] does not
depend on Darwinian theory or any other theory. Darwinian theory
is just one of several biological mechanisms proposed to explain
the evolution [i.e., broad biological change through time] we
observe to have happened.
This is part of a more general problem. A large number of
well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and
paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil
record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from
the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level
textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is
probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after
Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In
general, these have not been found-- yet the optimism has died
hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. This is
illustrated by other statements in the Root-Bernstein letter, such
as: "Evolution postdicts certain immutable trends of progressive
change that can be falsified." This is simply not the case! In
the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change:
modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and
a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing
the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory
in these cases is almost nil. The problem faced by the
evolutionary paleontologist is not unlike that of the stock market
analyst. Both the stock market record and the fossil record are
complex Markovian time series wherein causal interpretations after
the fact are often possible but the predictive value of theory is
weak to nonexistent. In fact, the technical market analyst
probably has a better record than the paleontologist. This does
not disqualify evolutionary theory; it simply illustrates the
difficulty of applying any statistical theory to actual cases.
One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the
creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil
record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone
to great lengths to accommodate this "fact" in their Flood geology.
mel turner
>mel turner wrote in message <7kuc4r$npo$1...@news.duke.edu>...
>>In article <08688125420...@csi.com>, dwoe...@juno.com
wrote:
[snip of previous re: things that would falsify evolutionary
explanations]
>>Lateral transfers could be a plausible explanation for some modest
>>departures from a strictly nested hierarchy of traits,
>>[hybridization/reticulation is another] but it couldn't account for
>>any of the other imagined evolution-falsifying data that were
>>mentioned. Besides the hypothetical lack of nested hierarchies and
the
>>absence of mutations and the YEC-aged earth mentioned above, the
>>previous poster had mentioned:
>
>I commented on the one that particularly interested me. But since
you
>asked...
>
>>[restored]
>>>>John Savard:
>>>>If there were no relations between the genetic code of creatures
of
>>>>different species,
>
>multiple biogenesis
i.e., it requires an outright rejection of evolutionary common descent
to whatever extent that the above-described situation applies. For
common descent to apply at all, there would still have to be
similarity in genetic codes & biochemistry among the descendants of
each of the separate origins of life. If in fact there were no such
fundamental similarity throughout any large groups of related-looking
things [if for example, humans and chimps used completely different
biochemical codes, the "multiple biogenesis" explanation becomes
essentially the same as the "special creation" one: one origin of life
per "kind".
>>>>if there were no structures in animals and plants that, instead of
>>>>being optimally designed for their present purpose, are instead
>>>>slightly
>>>>altered versions of structures used for other purposes in
>>>>other creatures,
>
>The argument from imperfection has never been evidence for evolution
since
>it handily accomodates either scenario.
I don't see this so much as an argument from imperfection as being one
about patterns of homology. Things don't look optimally designed from
scratch, but do look like gradually altered versions of
common-ancestral patterns. Functional design doesn't explain why human
hands, whale flippers, bat wings and mole digging feet all have the
same arrangement of bones. If no such patterns of shared
homologous-looking features existed, there'd be no basis for
hypotheses of common descent.
[snip]
>>>>if the fossil record showed modern forms of life even in the
>>>>earliest strata
>panspermia
And therefore again a rejection of any autochthonous evolution or
common descent of each of the different panspermial colonists [are
there really any models of panspermia that would argue for the
transplantation of an entire fully-modern biota]? If the oldest
Precambrian fossils had included humans and an array of other modern
species it clearly would have refuted the idea that any of those
species had evolved after that time.
[snip of Gould quote re: lateral transfers]
>>So? He's right, The extent to which it occurs can only be examined
by
>>looking for examples where it must have occurred.
>Thanks for making my point. Evolution never predicted nested
hierarchy and
>Carl Linnaeus' work preceded Darwin by over a hundred years.
Yes, nested hierarchies were identified long before Darwin. Still,
evolutionary common descent explains the origins of the nested
patterns, and it does indeed predict new discoveries of nested
hierarchies in other organisms and in traits that Linnaeus didn't look
at. Our modern knowledge of the data and the patterns goes quite a bit
beyond Carl Linne's.
>To the extent
>that NH did not exist, evolution would happily accommodate with
processes of
>loss, replacement, distant hybridization, anagenesis,
"Distant hybridization" might have explained some
hypothetical departures from strictly nested hierarchies, but the
other words so far in your list are just evolutionary changes; these
would be expected map out in a nested-hierarchical pattern if
branching common descent was correct. As for the "distant
hybridization" [reticulation] hypothesis, that too should be testable
and falsfiable: are the "parental" taxa in question indeed able to
form viable, fertile hybrids? Do the putative hybrid groups carry the
genetic markers of their hybrid origins? Lots of real hybrids are
known; we have ways of identifying such. We don't see any truly
distant hybrids; it would take extraordinary evidence to show
otherwise...
>transposition,
>unmasking, panspermia, or multiple biogenesis.
In other words, outright rejections of an evolutionary common descent
explanation. Thanks for agreeing...
>Much of them would be far
>simpler than natural selection or convergence.
Except that they don't fit the evidence.
>They could handily explain troublesome features of the fossil record
Such as?
>without resorting to PE.
PE isn't something "resorted" to to explain away "troublesome features
of the fossil record". It's about the speciation process as seen in
the fossil record, and changing rates of morphological change during
speciation.
>There is
>no good naturalist/evolutionist reason for them not to have occurred.
Except for what we know from biology.
> But the NH pattern is intractably resistant.
Reality tends to be that way.
[snip]
>>Nested hierarchies are the only pattern that's compatible with and
>>predicted by branching lineages and common descent; is there any
>>creationist explanation for them?
>Walter Remine (_The Biotic Message_, 1993, p. 465) gives a good list
of
>reasons for NH.
>1. It allows for enormous diversity (making it cumbersome for
>evolution to explain),
Does he think evolution should predict lower diversity? Surely an
omnipotent Designer could have created enormous diversity with any
type of patterns [or with no patterns at all] of "relationships",
besides the nested one required by evolution.
>while
>2. uniting all of life together, often in a visible way,
Still nonsense-- any pattern of interrelationships among organisms
could have united all life. A vast multidimensional reticulum would do
it without ever being mistaken for the results of branching evolution.
>3. confounds simpler explanations like transposition,
?? Was that ever held as a rival explanation for biodiversity?
>4. it highlights the absence of identifiable phylogeny
That's a bit ridiculous. The nested hierarchies of shared-derived
traits are the means by which phylogenies are identified.
>5. it conveys the *single* designer message even when the observer
lacks
>much of the data,
Yes, evidence of common descent points to a single, common origin of
life. Still, the point is nonsensical. A non-nested, amazingly
reticulated non-hierarchy of "interrelationships" among all types of
organisms would have served much better, since it would show universal
interconnections without looking exactly like convincing evidence of
common descent.
>6. the pattern is embedded deeply into each organism,
?? Huh? Methinks the pattern isn't in each organism, but across all
organisms.
>thereby making the
>biotic message resistant to mutation, and
Huh? As opposed to what? I really dont' see the point-- does Remine
imagine that mutations might somehow have caused organisms to lose
their place in the hierarchy?
>7. the nested pattern cannot be the haphazard result of a single
>civilization (panspermia) but points to a single Designer.
Or a single group of panspermists, who designed their organisms in a
stepwise, "evolutionary" pattern?
>>>To the extent that it does not, evolutionists will
>>>happily accommodate with a variation on their theory.
>>
>>Only if it 'does not' to no more than a very minor extent. If all
>>organisms were really exchanging lots of genes very freely via
>>abundant lateral transfers, there would be no nested hierarchies or
>>any identifiable taxonomic groups at all. The whole biosphere would
be
>>one big messy gene pool.
>
>Agreed...and irrelevant. But maybe you want to inform your partner
in the
>parallel thread that evolution theory does not predict nested
hierarchy.
[What 'partner'? What parallel thread?] Evolutionary theory [branching
common descent] does indeed predict [and explain] nested hierarchies,
even if the initial recognition that such hierarchies can be
identified predated evolutionary theory. We continue to discover new
evidence of such hierarchies [new organisms, new traits, all unknown
to Linnaeus] throughout systematic/comparative biology.
>>>Evolutionism adapts to data like fog to a landscape.
>>
>>Nice slogan, but good science always changes to reflect the best
>>available data. The data indicates evolution.
>
>No. Evolutionism, like play-doh, fits any shape required by the
naturalists
>as they defend their worldview.
Doesn't have to, since it fits the world we see.
cheers.
maff91
[snip]
>http://140.142.3.7/newsroom/news/1998archive/08-98archive/k083198.html
>
> (This 28 Mya date pins down Fordyce's reference to the first
>toothless baleen whales occurring "about 30 Mya".)
>
> I hope this will be somewhat helpful. Can anyone spare
>$120 so I can buy "The Emergence of Whales" by Hans Thewissen? ;-)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0306458535/
>
> Jim Acker
> jac...@gl.umbc.edu
--
L.P.#0000000001
John Wilkins
II" <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
|Adam Noel Harris wrote:
|>
|> Michael Suttkus, II <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
|> :Ken Cox wrote:
|> :>
|> :> Michael Suttkus, II wrote:
|> :> > Get thee to a madhouse, RAVE about DECENCY where no one can hear you.
|> :> >
|> :> > (Wondering if anyone will know what that is a misquote of.)
|> :>
|> :> It's from that Mel Gibson movie, right? Kenneth Branagh did a
|> :> remake of it just a year or two ago.
|> :
|> :Actually, it's not from Hamlet, although now that you mention it, it is
|> :similar to something the prince said to Ophelia.
|>
|> Get thee to a nunnery?
|
|Yep. Of course, nunnery, in addition to the obvious meaning, was Elizabethan
|slang for whorehouse...
|
This is why I inhabit t.o. You learn all kinds of *really* interesting things.
Richard Harter
>In article <3774423F...@nowhere.in.particular>, "Michael Suttkus,
>II" <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
>
> |Adam Noel Harris wrote:
> |>
> |> Michael Suttkus, II <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
> |> :Ken Cox wrote:
> |> :>
> |> :> Michael Suttkus, II wrote:
> |> :> > Get thee to a madhouse, RAVE about DECENCY where no one can hear you.
> |> :> >
> |> :> > (Wondering if anyone will know what that is a misquote of.)
> |> :>
> |> :> It's from that Mel Gibson movie, right? Kenneth Branagh did a
> |> :> remake of it just a year or two ago.
> |> :
> |> :Actually, it's not from Hamlet, although now that you mention it, it is
> |> :similar to something the prince said to Ophelia.
> |>
> |> Get thee to a nunnery?
> |
> |Yep. Of course, nunnery, in addition to the obvious meaning, was Elizabethan
> |slang for whorehouse...
> |
>This is why I inhabit t.o. You learn all kinds of *really* interesting things.
The usage ran into the 19'th century; it was regency slang as well. The
woman who ran the house was an abbess.
acker james
: On 25 Jun 1999 14:31:30 -0400, jac...@umbc.edu (acker james) wrote:
: [snip]
: >http://140.142.3.7/newsroom/news/1998archive/08-98archive/k083198.html
: >
: > (This 28 Mya date pins down Fordyce's reference to the first
: >toothless baleen whales occurring "about 30 Mya".)
: >
: > I hope this will be somewhat helpful. Can anyone spare
: >$120 so I can buy "The Emergence of Whales" by Hans Thewissen? ;-)
: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0306458535/
**** I guess that's for the benefit of the anonymous
benevolent philanthropist that's going to buy the book for me.
Contact me when you want my mailing address.
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
david ford
John Savard <jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca> on 21 Jun 1999:
JS david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote the post with this title.
JS
JS Of course, while it is true that quite a bit can be accommodated by
JS evolution, it certainly _is_ falsifiable.
JS
JS If there were no relations between the genetic code of creatures of
JS different species,
How many times has life arisen in the universe? on planet earth? If
life arose on the earth 10 times, would the ToE be falsified? If 9
genetic systems existed today in addition to the DNA-RNA-protein system,
would the ToE be falsified?
JS if there were no structures in animals and plants that, instead of
JS being optimally designed for their present purpose, are instead
JS slightly altered versions of structures used for other purposes in
JS other creatures,
JS
JS if the fossil record showed modern forms of life even in the earliest
JS strata, with any forms that became extinct not showing any trend
JS towards current creatures,
What does [JS]"the earliest strata" refer to?
Please define and list 3 examples of [JS]"modern forms of life." If
whales, lobsters, snakes, mosquitoes, ferns, apple trees, fruit flies,
and bats were found in Cambrian strata, which of them would you call
[JS]"modern forms of life"?
If a bear were found in pre-Cambrian strata, would the ToE be falsified?
In your mind, morph a bacterium into a bear in 20 steps. If that exact
morph sequence were found in pre-Cambrian strata, with the bacterium
fossil the oldest and the bear fossil the youngest, would the ToE be
falsified?
JS I'd say we would have to consider the idea of intelligent design.
JS
JS Now, if one wants a non-falsifiable alternative to Genesis, one could
JS try the hypothesis that space aliens (who evolved on *their* planet)
JS engineered life on earth...
Which of the following statements are falsifiable?
1 Space aliens evolved on another planet.
2 The life on earth developed via non-intelligence-directed processes
that have been discovered and/or have-yet-to-be discovered.
3 Space aliens engineered the life on earth.
4 One or more intelligent entities engineered the life on earth.
mel turner <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> on 24 Jun 1999,
speaking of John S.'s list:
[snips]
mt If the above list of hypothetical findings had all happened
mt to be the case, the evolutionary common descent of life on earth
mt would clearly have had to be rejected as false.
mt [That's a pretty good list of imaginable
mt evolution-falsifying data; a few more were mentioned in
mt <http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465057867>, most notably a
mt general lack of nested hierarchies of groups of organisms; a lack
mt of mutations; a much-too-young earth...]
[mt]"a much-too-young earth" Does the ToE predict how old the earth is?
If "yes," what age does it predict?
Does the ToE predict how hold the universe is? If "yes," what age does
it predict?
Would the ToE be falsified if the organisms that appeared during the
"Cambrian explosion" were discovered to have arisen within:
20 million years?
10 million years?
5 million years?
1 million years?
500,000 years?
100,000 years?
50,000 years?
6,000 years?
200 years?
[mt]"mutations" Does the ToE predict the existence of genomes? of
mutations in genomes?
If the genomes of the very different organisms A, B, and C consisted of
a particular DNA sequence in triplicate, in duplicate, and in singlet,
respectively, would it be impossible to say with a straight face that:
A evolved into B which evolved into C?
C evolved into B which evolved into A?
B evolved into both A and C?
A, B, and C evolved from a common ancestor?
Saunders, P.T. and M.W. Ho. 1982. "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable?--And
Does It Matter?" _Nature and System_ 4: 179-96. A paragraph on 185:
Perhaps the first sign that should alert the reader to the
possibility that the synthetic theory is not falsifiable is that
there are no standard tests, no neo-Darwinist equivalents of the
bending of light around the sun. Different authors generally put
forward different potential falsifiers, almost as though each was
as unconvinced by the others' suggestions as we are. In this
section we consider in detail a number of tests of the theory that
have been proposed, and we shall see how each of them fails. It is
not just a question of lack of imagination on the part of
neo-Darwinists. By its very nature, theory does not allow itself
to be tested.
Do you agree that there are [Saunders & Ho]"no neo-Darwinist equivalents
of the bending of light around the sun"?
mel turner on 27 Jun 1999:
[snips]
mt Evolutionary theory [branching
mt common descent] does indeed predict [and explain] nested
mt hierarchies, even if the initial recognition that such hierarchies
mt can be identified predated evolutionary theory.
[mt]"branching common descent... does indeed predict... nested
hierarchies." References to the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
please.
If a ship from the planet Xeron landed on earth in 1999, and the life
aboard did not fit a nested hierarchy, would the idea of [mt]"branching
common descent" be falsified?
How many times has life arisen in the universe? on planet earth?
What's the maximum number of times life could have arisen in the
universe? on earth?
If a ship from the planet Xeron landed on earth 3.5 billion years ago,
and the life aboard did not fit a nested hierarchy, would the idea of
[mt]"branching common descent" be falsified?
John Wilkins
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
|Replies to John S. and mel t.
|
|John Savard <jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca> on 21 Jun 1999:
|
|JS david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote the post with this title.
|JS
|JS Of course, while it is true that quite a bit can be accommodated by
|JS evolution, it certainly _is_ falsifiable.
|JS
|JS If there were no relations between the genetic code of creatures of
|JS different species,
|
|How many times has life arisen in the universe? on planet earth? If
|life arose on the earth 10 times, would the ToE be falsified? If 9
|genetic systems existed today in addition to the DNA-RNA-protein system,
|would the ToE be falsified?
That depends. An evolutionary theory doesn't predict the actual genetic
code, but it predicts that there will be genetic codes, and suggests that
unless they are in entirely distinct ecologies, one will tend to dominate.
And in fact that is what we find. There is one main genetic code, with
some 13 subvariants in different phylogenies.
Perhaps life *did* arise 10 times on earth. If so, we would expect that
one of two things would happen - either one lineage would outcompete the
others, or they would end up merging. Myself, I think that if it happened,
it happened the second way, but others think it happened the first way.
Why genetic similarity of code represents explans for evolution and not
explananda is that this pattern fits in well with common ancestry of all
living things. But it should not be overstressed - there is considerable
horizontal transfer that muddies the nestedness of biological traits, and
that includes the genetic code. Woese thinks that in the very early
history of life there were no single ancestors but a pool of
cross-transferring "progenotes".
|
|JS if there were no structures in animals and plants that, instead of
|JS being optimally designed for their present purpose, are instead
|JS slightly altered versions of structures used for other purposes in
|JS other creatures,
|JS
|JS if the fossil record showed modern forms of life even in the earliest
|JS strata, with any forms that became extinct not showing any trend
|JS towards current creatures,
|
|What does [JS]"the earliest strata" refer to?
It will refer to the earliest strata we can find, of course -
pre-Cambrian. The reason why this would be a *philosophical* problem for
evolution is that it would at the one time shorten the phylogenetic time
available for such organisms to evolve (thereby reducing the viability of
evolution sensu phyletic relations as an explanation) and it would
introduce major anomalies of similarity of modern organisms.
Since on an evolutionary account greatly similar organisms must be closely
related phyletically, finding a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian would (apart
from its obvious ability to breath a different atmosphere :-) mean that it
could not be related by common ancestry to greatly similar forms. This
does not mean that some forms today are greatly different to forms of old,
but it does mean that we expect forms when they appear to do so in the
fossil record close in time and space to related forms.
|Please define and list 3 examples of [JS]"modern forms of life." If
|whales, lobsters, snakes, mosquitoes, ferns, apple trees, fruit flies,
|and bats were found in Cambrian strata, which of them would you call
|[JS]"modern forms of life"?
Perhaps apple trees, whales and and fruit flies. The more inclusive the
group, the more artificial it gets. Bats may be derived from two distinct
ancestors, although I understand they are now thought to be monophyletic
again.
|
|If a bear were found in pre-Cambrian strata, would the ToE be falsified?
|In your mind, morph a bacterium into a bear in 20 steps. If that exact
|morph sequence were found in pre-Cambrian strata, with the bacterium
|fossil the oldest and the bear fossil the youngest, would the ToE be
|falsified?
The current one, yes. We might have another developed to account for it.
If you are saying that some theories in their most broad and general
philosophical outlooks cannot be shot down once and for all, then I would
disagree with you - *all* theories are like that. If it's a vice for
evolution, it's a vice for physics and everything else, so as an objection
to evolution thinking it loses a lot of its effect.
But specific theories - that mammals are the descendent clade of some
earlier reptile-like animal, can be falsified. You are trading, perhaps
unknowingly, on this slide from one kind of falsification to another.
|
|JS I'd say we would have to consider the idea of intelligent design.
|JS
|JS Now, if one wants a non-falsifiable alternative to Genesis, one could
|JS try the hypothesis that space aliens (who evolved on *their* planet)
|JS engineered life on earth...
|
|Which of the following statements are falsifiable?
|1 Space aliens evolved on another planet.
Tautological, but not empirically vacuous if we have a specimen.
|2 The life on earth developed via non-intelligence-directed processes
| that have been discovered and/or have-yet-to-be discovered.
Confirmable if we have candidate reactions and processes that explain how
it could have developed (eg, a process in the lab does something very much
like it in a plausible manner), falsifiable only to the extent that it
contradicts some deep theoretical principles of the rest of science. Also,
irrelevant to the question of evolution in general, because *that* only
addresses the development of biodiversity.
|3 Space aliens engineered the life on earth.
Disconfirmable if it adds processes that do not need to be invoked,
because we have scenarios that do not require such hypothetical
elaborations, and there are good scientific reasons to think it did not
happen (eg, Einsteinian constraints).
|4 One or more intelligent entities engineered the life on earth.
Ditto as for 3.
|
|
|mel turner <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> on 24 Jun 1999,
| speaking of John S.'s list:
|
|[snips]
|
|mt If the above list of hypothetical findings had all happened
|mt to be the case, the evolutionary common descent of life on earth
|mt would clearly have had to be rejected as false.
|
|mt [That's a pretty good list of imaginable
|mt evolution-falsifying data; a few more were mentioned in
|mt <http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465057867>, most notably a
|mt general lack of nested hierarchies of groups of organisms; a lack
|mt of mutations; a much-too-young earth...]
|
|[mt]"a much-too-young earth" Does the ToE predict how old the earth is?
|If "yes," what age does it predict?
It requires some duration for the processes to occur. Darwin's prediction
was 300 million years or more. Kelvin's rebuttal was that there had been
only 20 million years. We now have a duration in excess of 10 times
Darwin's estimate, although to be fair this creates a difficulty for his
account, since we now have to explain why we don't see *more* diversity.
The answer is, of course, balancing selection, stasis and carrying
capacity, all of which are post-Darwinian developments.
|Does the ToE predict how hold the universe is? If "yes," what age does
|it predict?
No. That's done by physics and astronomy.
|
|Would the ToE be falsified if the organisms that appeared during the
|"Cambrian explosion" were discovered to have arisen within:
|20 million years?
No
|10 million years?
| 5 million years?
| 1 million years?
| 500,000 years?
to here, No
| 100,000 years?
Perhaps - now it's getting hard to account for the evolution of diverse forms.
| 50,000 years?
| 6,000 years?
| 200 years?
Have you heard of the Sorites paradox? If you remove a grain of sand from
a pile of sand one grain at a time, when is it not a pile of sand? Answer,
when it gets too hard to say "that is a pile of sand". We deal with these
sorts of sliding scales all the time in science and life. There's no hard
and fast boundary here, nor should we expect one.
|
|[mt]"mutations" Does the ToE predict the existence of genomes? of
|mutations in genomes?
It predicts the existence of hereditary material that varies.
|
|If the genomes of the very different organisms A, B, and C consisted of
|a particular DNA sequence in triplicate, in duplicate, and in singlet,
|respectively, would it be impossible to say with a straight face that:
|A evolved into B which evolved into C?
|C evolved into B which evolved into A?
|B evolved into both A and C?
|A, B, and C evolved from a common ancestor?
For simple cases no. But the more complex, the harder it is to assert that
they did not and the easier it gets to see that they did and in what
order.
|
|Saunders, P.T. and M.W. Ho. 1982. "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable?--And
|Does It Matter?" _Nature and System_ 4: 179-96. A paragraph on 185:
| Perhaps the first sign that should alert the reader to the
| possibility that the synthetic theory is not falsifiable is that
| there are no standard tests, no neo-Darwinist equivalents of the
| bending of light around the sun. Different authors generally put
| forward different potential falsifiers, almost as though each was
| as unconvinced by the others' suggestions as we are. In this
| section we consider in detail a number of tests of the theory that
| have been proposed, and we shall see how each of them fails. It is
| not just a question of lack of imagination on the part of
| neo-Darwinists. By its very nature, theory does not allow itself
| to be tested.
|Do you agree that there are [Saunders & Ho]"no neo-Darwinist equivalents
|of the bending of light around the sun"?
Perhaps one should note that there are no crucial experimentals in physics
either - the light around the sun was a good psychological impetus to
Einstein's theory, but not a formal one. There are (infinitely many) other
explanations. Saunders and Ho are just wrong here.
|
|
|mel turner on 27 Jun 1999:
|
|[snips]
|
|mt Evolutionary theory [branching
|mt common descent] does indeed predict [and explain] nested
|mt hierarchies, even if the initial recognition that such hierarchies
|mt can be identified predated evolutionary theory.
|
|[mt]"branching common descent... does indeed predict... nested
|hierarchies." References to the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
|please.
This is so old that your request must be disingenuous at any level. Darwin
himself mentions that nested hierarchies are to be expected and explained
on his account of common ancestry. In fact, the opposite problem arises -
homoplasies. Homoplasy means that there are *false* nested sets.
|
|If a ship from the planet Xeron landed on earth in 1999, and the life
|aboard did not fit a nested hierarchy, would the idea of [mt]"branching
|common descent" be falsified?
Yes. The inhabitants of Xeron would be excluded from an evolutionary
account of common ancestry with all other living things on earth.
|
|How many times has life arisen in the universe? on planet earth?
|What's the maximum number of times life could have arisen in the
|universe? on earth?
Who knows. See above.
|
|If a ship from the planet Xeron landed on earth 3.5 billion years ago,
|and the life aboard did not fit a nested hierarchy, would the idea of
|[mt]"branching common descent" be falsified?
What are you asking here? If all life on earth is (a) in a nested hierachy
sensu lato, and (b) is compatible with Xeron biology as being the
ancestor, then an evolutionary theory would not be falsified. Neither
would it if they were not compatible (but they'd be excluded from being
our common ancestors - perhaps they were just there to record the
process).
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia <m
mel turner
<Pine.SGI.3.96A.9906282...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
>Replies to John S. and mel t.
>John Savard <jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca> on 21 Jun 1999:
>JS david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote the post with this title.
>JS
>JS Of course, while it is true that quite a bit can be accommodated by
>JS evolution, it certainly _is_ falsifiable.
>JS
>JS If there were no relations between the genetic code of creatures of
>JS different species,
>
>How many times has life arisen in the universe? on planet earth? If
>life arose on the earth 10 times, would the ToE be falsified? If 9
>genetic systems existed today in addition to the DNA-RNA-protein
system,
>would the ToE be falsified?
No, why should it? Still, if morphologically related-looking organisms
did not share biochemistrys and genetic codes, the hypotheses of their
common evolutionary origin would clearly have to be rejected. That's a
falsification of the evolutionary explantation for the resemblance.
>JS if there were no structures in animals and plants that, instead of
>JS being optimally designed for their present purpose, are instead
>JS slightly altered versions of structures used for other purposes in
>JS other creatures,
>JS
>JS if the fossil record showed modern forms of life even in the
earliest
>JS strata, with any forms that became extinct not showing any trend
>JS towards current creatures,
>
>What does [JS]"the earliest strata" refer to?
The lowest strata in the geological column.
>Please define and list 3 examples of [JS]"modern forms of life." If
>whales, lobsters, snakes, mosquitoes, ferns, apple trees, fruit flies,
>and bats were found in Cambrian strata, which of them would you call
>[JS]"modern forms of life"?
All of them. Some you mention do have known Cambrian relatives that are
recognizable as such [just as arthropods or as Crustacea]. I saw JS's
point as being that if all known fossil biotas were essentially
identical to the modern one, the idea that species have changed over
time would be in serious trouble.
>If a bear were found in pre-Cambrian strata, would the ToE be
falsified?
One bear? It would be convincing evidence for the utility of time
machines... An entirely modern flora and fauna? The 'ToE' would be
badly stubbed...
>In your mind, morph a bacterium into a bear in 20 steps. If that exact
>morph sequence were found in pre-Cambrian strata, with the bacterium
>fossil the oldest and the bear fossil the youngest, would the ToE be
>falsified?
Just bears? Or all the sister clades? That'd amount to pushing the
entire history of the vertebrates [up to at least the Miocene] back into
the Precambrian, with an inexplicable stasis ever since... Doesn't sound
like evolutionary theory as we now know it could explain that.
[snip of alien stuff]
>mel turner <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> on 24 Jun 1999,
> speaking of John S.'s list:
>mt If the above list of hypothetical findings had all happened
>mt to be the case, the evolutionary common descent of life on earth
>mt would clearly have had to be rejected as false.
>
>mt [That's a pretty good list of imaginable
>mt evolution-falsifying data; a few more were mentioned in
>mt <http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465057867>, most notably a
>mt general lack of nested hierarchies of groups of organisms; a lack
>mt of mutations; a much-too-young earth...]
>
>[mt]"a much-too-young earth" Does the ToE predict how old the earth
is?
Specifically? No, but a 6K years old YEC biosphere wouldn't have had
time to do much evolving. Hypothetical findings that would refute the
evolutionary model are therefore possible to imagine. QED.
>If "yes," what age does it predict?
"Long enough", of course.
>Does the ToE predict how hold the universe is? If "yes," what age does
>it predict?
Evolution is biology, not cosmology, but the universe probably would
have to be at least as old as the biosphere...
>Would the ToE be falsified if the organisms that appeared during the
>"Cambrian explosion"
Probably there's a faulty assumption here that they actually arose
during this 'explosion'?
>were discovered to have arisen within:
>20 million years? 10 million years? 5 million years? 1 million years?
>500,000 years? 100,000 years? 50,000 years? 6,000 years? 200 years?
15 minutes? 0.000000009 nanoseconds? A New York minute? [yawn]
Groups can diversify relatively rapidly [cf. Lake Victoria cichlids]
>[mt]"mutations" Does the ToE predict the existence of genomes? of
>mutations in genomes?
Heredity and the capacity for new heritable variations, yes.
>If the genomes of the very different organisms
How very?
> A, B, and C consisted of a particular DNA sequence
How particular? Is it clearly homologous?
>in triplicate, in duplicate, and in singlet,
>respectively, would it be impossible to say with a straight face that:
>A evolved into B which evolved into C? C evolved into B which evolved
>into A? B evolved into both A and C? A, B, and C evolved from a common
>ancestor?
We won't have such DNA data for any actual ancestral species, barring
the use of time machines [and they're currently tied up delivering bears
to the Precambrian]. If any three extant species were characterized as
you describe, the correct answer would be the last [common ancestry].
One likely hypothesis would be two duplication events: 1 --> 2 --> 3
copies, so the idea that the 2-copies and the 3-copies species shared a
more recent common ancestor than they did with the 1-copy species might
well be examined.
[snip mined quote]
>Do you agree that there are [Saunders & Ho]"no neo-Darwinist
equivalents
>of the bending of light around the sun"?
Things of that basic level are already much too well established as
facts. The factors causing evolution by natural selection are readily
shown to exist: heritability, variations/mutations, differential
reproductive success among individuals in populations, evolutionary
changes within populations. The early studies that could have refuted
the existence of these basic requirements and their effects might be
your "light-bending" test.
>mel turner on 27 Jun 1999:
>mt Evolutionary theory [branching
>mt common descent] does indeed predict [and explain] nested
>mt hierarchies, even if the initial recognition that such hierarchies
>mt can be identified predated evolutionary theory.
>
>[mt]"branching common descent... does indeed predict... nested
>hierarchies." References to the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
>please.
>If a ship from the planet Xeron landed on earth in 1999, and the life
>aboard did not fit a nested hierarchy,
You mean, did not fit a common hierarchy with that of life on earth? Or
do you mean that Xeronian biology shows no nested hierarchies?
> would the idea of [mt]"branching common descent" be falsified?
It could be, for that life that does not fit. It wouldn't falsify a
common origin of the life that does show a hierarchical pattern of
relationships. As with the earlier hypothetical example of 10 separate
origins of life on earth: we'd expect 10 separate hierarchically nested
sets. Hypotheses of a single common ancestry of all 10 would be
falsified by the data, but the common descent of each of the 10 would be
corroborated.
>How many times has life arisen in the universe?
Insufficient data. At least once.
> on planet earth?
At least once [and the genetic code data suggests that only one lineage
now survives]
>What's the maximum number of times life could have arisen in the
>universe? on earth?
Pi to the 6th power times the number of angels square-dancing on a
pinhead...? [Gotta point for this seeming non sequitur?]
>If a ship from the planet Xeron landed on earth 3.5 billion years ago,
>and the life aboard did not fit a nested hierarchy, would the idea of
>[mt]"branching common descent" be falsified?
No, why should it? It would be falsified only if no terrestrial life had
undergone any branching common descent since that time. Even if earthly
life had had several unrelated Xeronian ancestors, the descendants of
each "kind" presumably evolved and speciated and radiated ever since. An
earthly common ancestor for the different Xeronian "kinds" would be
false, however.
cheers
david ford
<http://www.best.com/~dlindsay/creation/quote_popper.html>:
DL Quote: Karl Popper
DL
DL Sir Karl R. Popper is the philosopher of science who championed the
DL idea of falsification.
DL
DL Many Creationists have pointed to this quote:
DL
DL "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable
DL scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible
DL framework for testable
scientific
DL theories."
You didn't italicize "metaphysical research programme," as it should be.
Where'd you get the quote?
DL _Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography_ 1976, La Salle, IN:
DL Open Court Press
DL
DL If you read the book, Popper is actually raising the famous "natural
DL selection is a tautology" objection.
[DL]"If you read the book, Popper is actually...." No, he's not.
I infer that you haven't read the book.
Popper, Karl. 1974, 1982. _Unended Quest: An Intellectual
Autobiography_ (La Salle and London: Open Court). On 169-70:
As for Darwinian theory itself, I must now explain that I am using
the term "Darwinism" for the modern forms of this theory, called by
various names, such as "neo-Darwinism" or (by Julian Huxley) "The
Modern Synthesis". It consists essentially of the following
assumptions or conjectures, to which I will refer later.
(1) The great variety of the forms of life on earth originates from
very few forms, perhaps even from a single organism: there is an
evolutionary tree, an evolutionary history.
(2) There is an evolutionary theory which explains this. It
consists in the main of the following [4] hypotheses. (a)
Heredity.... (b) Variation.... (c) Natural selection.... (d)
Variability....
On 171, two paragraphs and part of a third:
I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as
metaphysical, and as a research programme.
It is metaphysical because it is not testable. One might think
that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we
find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will
come into play and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct
forms. Darwinism, however, does not assert as much as this. For
assume that we find life on Mars consisting of exactly three
species of bacteria with a genetic outfit similar to that of three
terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no means. We shall
say that these three species were the only forms among the many
mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we
shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus
Darwinism does not really _predict_ the evolution of variety. It
therefore cannot really _explain_ it. At best, it can predict the
evolution of variety under "favourable conditions". But it is
hardly possible to describe in general terms what favourable
conditions are--except that, in their presence, a variety of forms
will emerge.
And yet I believe I have taken the theory almost at its
best--almost in its most testable form. One might say that it
"almost predicts" a great variety of forms of life. In other
fields, its predictive or explanatory power is still more
disappointing. ....
DL Popper recanted two years later:
DL
DL "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of
DL the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity
DL to make a recantation. ...
DL
DL The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far
DL from tautological."
DL
DL Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, _Dialectica_ 32:339-355,
DL 1978. See 344-346 for this quote.
Um, [Popper]"the theory of natural selection" isn't the same as
[Popper]"Darwinism"/ neo-Darwinism/ The Modern Synthesis.
DL and he repeated the recantation three years after that:
DL
DL "It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific
DL character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the
DL history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I
DL here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my
DL opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be
DL tested."
DL
DL Letter to _New Scientist_ 87:611, 1981
This is a really botched quote. Where'd you get it?
Lenny F., what have you to say about this?
Popper's _New Scientist_ letter
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=386674486
Peters, Robert Henry. 1976. "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology" _The
American Naturalist_ 110: 1-12. Peters was/is with the department of
biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. On the 1st page:
In this essay, I argue that the "theory of evolution" does not make
predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a
logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and
to show the relationships which such a classification implies.
Similar criticisms are then made of several ecological concepts.
The essence of the argument is that these "theories" are actually
tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable
predictions. They are not scientific theories at all.
Sounds like it'll be an interesting read, don'cha think?
Donald C. Lindsay
In article <Pine.SGI.3.96A.990701...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>DL Many Creationists have pointed to this quote:
<snip>
>You didn't italicize "metaphysical research programme," as it should be.
>Where'd you get the quote?
From the Creationist literature.
>DL Letter to _New Scientist_ 87:611, 1981
>
>This is a really botched quote. Where'd you get it?
From Jim Lippard. I'll check it the next time I'm looking at old New
Scientist-s, but I would be surprised if it's far off.
>Peters, Robert Henry. 1976. "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology" _The
>American Naturalist_ 110: 1-12. Peters was/is with the department of
>biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. On the 1st page:
> In this essay, I argue that the "theory of evolution" does not make
> predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a
> logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and
> to show the relationships which such a classification implies.
> Similar criticisms are then made of several ecological concepts.
> The essence of the argument is that these "theories" are actually
> tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable
> predictions. They are not scientific theories at all.
>Sounds like it'll be an interesting read, don'cha think?
No, actually. It sounds like it was written by someone who is
impressed by expansive generalizations. Generalizations about science
are much more interesting when they are informed by scientific
successes or failures at dealing with specific cases. Claiming that
evolution should make predictions in some sort of vaccuum (or as
Popper did, about life on hypothesized other planets) is somewhere
between dull and dim.
"Don't LOOK into anything in a physics lab.
Don't TASTE anything in a chemistry lab.
Don't SMELL anything in a biology lab.
Don't TOUCH anything in a medical lab.
and, most importantly,
Don't LISTEN to anything in a philosophy department."
(Sorry about that, Jim.)
Newton's Law of Gravitation does _not_ predict that an apple falls
from a tree, unless I first tell you that the tree is attached to a
massive body. That context is what we are used to, so it is easy to
forget that it is a required context for the apple "falling". Now, we
could waste time talking about apples on an asteroid. And we could
waste time talking about evolution on hypothetical planets. But as a
scientist, I'd rather talk about actual historical or current
situations. And in those situations, predictions are often possible.
And often interesting. And often right.
That's a generalization, of course. But it's a much more interesting
one, because it is grounded.
--
Don
Donald C. Lindsay www.best.com/~dlindsay
david ford
david ford:
df You didn't italicize "metaphysical research programme," as it
df should be. Where'd you get the quote?
DL From the Creationist literature.
DL> Letter to _New Scientist_ 87:611, 1981
df This is a really botched quote. Where'd you get it?
DL From Jim Lippard. I'll check it the next time I'm looking at old New
DL Scientist-s, but I would be surprised if it's far off.
df Peters, Robert Henry. 1976. "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology" _The
df American Naturalist_ 110: 1-12. Peters was/is with the department of
df biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. On the 1st page:
df In this essay, I argue that the "theory of evolution" does not make
df predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a
df logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and
df to show the relationships which such a classification implies.
df Similar criticisms are then made of several ecological concepts.
df The essence of the argument is that these "theories" are actually
df tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable
df predictions. They are not scientific theories at all.
df Sounds like it'll be an interesting read, don'cha think?
DL No, actually.
Well, I thought it was. McGill University borrowed Peters from Novara,
Italy's Instituto Italiano di Idrobiologia. From Peters's paper, the
entire section "The Theory of Evolution":
It is extremely difficult to find a clear and precise statement of
the theory of evolution. Consequently, I advance the following brief
summary: Evolution is the process through which the variety of
organisms inhabiting the earth emerged; it is achieved through the
natural selection of organisms based on the differences among them.
Undoubtedly, this short statement will be deemed insufficient;
however, it is enough to support the following attack which, I
believe, could be applied equally well to fuller formulations.
The evolutionary history of an organism, its phylogeny, is limited to
speculation as opposed to experimentation by its setting in the past
(Ehrlich and Holm 1962). Furthermore, the imperfections of the
geological record make it relatively easy to explain away anomalies.
The randomness of mutation coupled with the unpredictability of
environmental changes makes prediction impracticable. Scriven (1959)
maintains that the chief value of the theory of evolution is not in
prediction but in explanation of the past, but Reichenbach (1951)
argues that only predictive capability indicates knowledge. Thus a
purely explanatory device is not knowledge and, I would suggest,
cannot be called a scientific theory.
If phylogenetic history cannot be predicted from the theory of
evolution, we must turn to those aspects of the theory which are
current and so are subject to experimental analysis--the operation of
natural selection on variations among organisms.
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Richard W. Holm. 1962. "Patterns and Populations"
_Science_ 137: 652-7.
Scriven, M. 1959. "Explanation and prediction in evolutionary theory"
_Science_ 130: 477-82.
Reichenbach, H. 1951. _The Rise of Scientific Philosophy_ (Berkeley:
University of California Press), 333pp.
Do you agree that [Peters]"phylogenetic history cannot be predicted from
the theory of evolution"? If "no," please list 4 phylogenetic-history
predictions made by the ToE.
Do you agree that [Peters]"the randomness of mutation coupled with the
unpredictability of environmental changes makes prediction
impracticable"?
Do you agree that [Peters]"a purely explanatory device... cannot be
called a scientific theory"?
science is about describing, _not_ explaining
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=268551259
DL It sounds like it was written by someone who is
DL impressed by expansive generalizations. Generalizations about science
DL are much more interesting when they are informed by scientific
DL successes or failures at dealing with specific cases. Claiming that
DL evolution should make predictions in some sort of vacuum (or as
DL Popper did, about life on hypothesized other planets) is somewhere
DL between dull and dim.
DL
DL "Don't LOOK into anything in a physics lab.
DL Don't TASTE anything in a chemistry lab.
DL Don't SMELL anything in a biology lab.
DL Don't TOUCH anything in a medical lab.
DL and, most importantly,
DL Don't LISTEN to anything in a philosophy department."
DL
DL (Sorry about that, Jim.)
DL
DL Newton's Law of Gravitation does _not_ predict that an apple falls
DL from a tree, unless I first tell you that the tree is attached to a
DL massive body. That context is what we are used to, so it is easy to
DL forget that it is a required context for the apple "falling". Now, we
DL could waste time talking about apples on an asteroid. And we could
DL waste time talking about evolution on hypothetical planets.
We just might discuss [DL]"evolution on hypothetical planets" when
attempting to come up with states of affairs that would falsify the
allegedly-falsifiable ToE.
DL But as a
DL scientist, I'd rather talk about actual historical or current
DL situations. And in those situations, predictions are often possible.
DL And often interesting. And often right.
DL
DL That's a generalization, of course. But it's a much more interesting
DL one, because it is grounded.
lip...@discord.org
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Donald C. Lindsay <lin...@best.com> on 2 Jul 1999:
> david ford:
>
> df You didn't italicize "metaphysical research programme," as it
> df should be. Where'd you get the quote?
>
> DL From the Creationist literature.
>
> DL> Letter to _New Scientist_ 87:611, 1981
>
> df This is a really botched quote. Where'd you get it?
>
> DL From Jim Lippard. I'll check it the next time I'm looking at old New
> DL Scientist-s, but I would be surprised if it's far off.
The New Scientist quote on that page should be something like this:
It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific
character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology,
or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is
a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other
historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character;
their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.
A good source of Popper quotes on evolution, and his retraction
of his claim that natural selection is not testable, may be found
in Frank J. Sonleitner, "What Did Karl Popper Really Say About
Evolution?" in _Creation/Evolution_ XVIII, Summer 1986, pp. 9-14,
which is no doubt the source of the above reference.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
lip...@discord.org
don.l...@acm.org wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.96A.990701...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,> <snip>
>
> >You didn't italicize "metaphysical research programme," as it should be.
> >Where'd you get the quote?
>
>
> >DL Letter to _New Scientist_ 87:611, 1981
> >
> >This is a really botched quote. Where'd you get it?
>
I believe the citation you are looking for is Popper's
_Unended Quest_, 1976, either p. 151 or 168. E.g., on
p. 168 he wrote "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism
is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
research programme--a possible framework for testable scientific
theories."
Donald C. Lindsay
In article <Pine.SGI.3.96A.99070...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>Donald C. Lindsay <lin...@best.com> on 2 Jul 1999:
>david ford:
>Do you agree that [Peters]"the randomness of mutation coupled with the
> unpredictability of environmental changes makes prediction
> impracticable"?
Determinism is dead. It has been since before you were born. Nor can
Newtonian mechanics predict the motions of the planets in the long
term. No one should expect biology to be better-behaved than Newtonian
mechanics.
But, there is this thing called "statistics". Only the innumerate
think that randomness and uncertainty forbids useful, quantitative and
even accurate science. Whether science is "impracticable" depends on
the details of specific situations. As I've said before.
And your quoted argument holds no power over retrodiction.
> If "no," please list 4 phylogenetic-history
> predictions made by the ToE.
Four? I really do wonder about this debating style of yours, where you
insist that other people do more work than you do. You've read my web
page of predictions. Let's discuss _one_ of them.
call...@eden.rutgers.edu
On 5 Jul 1999 22:39:03 -0400, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
quoting
>df American Naturalist_ 110: 1-12. Peters was/is with the department of
>df biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
> The randomness of mutation coupled with the unpredictability of
> environmental changes makes prediction impracticable.
Yes, prediction of how organisms will evolve in the future is not
likely to be very successfull. However, prediction of future
evolution is not the only possible kind of prediction that one could
make in the process of testing evolutionary theory. Predictions can
involve anything you don't know yet. They don't have to be about
things that haven't happened yet.
One might predict future discoveries about existing organisms, based
on what is already known about other organisms that you propose are
phylogenetically related to the ones you are making the prediction
about. What you would really be testing is a specific evolutionary
hypothesis: that a particular phylogenetic relationship exists
between certain species. Donald Lindsay has already given you a long
list of such successful predictions, but you didn't seem to understand
the point.
>
>Do you agree that [Peters]"phylogenetic history cannot be predicted from
> the theory of evolution"?
What do you mean by this?
> If "no," please list 4 phylogenetic-history predictions made by the ToE.
Nobody in their right mind would waste their time digging up hard data
for you after the way you responded to Donald Lindsay's answers. A
general paraphrase follows:
DL: Evolutionary theory predicts that given known fact X, we should
expect to discover that Y is also true. When we looked, we discovered
that Y is in fact true.
You: Does the ToE predict Y? Does the ToE predict not Y? Does the ToE
predict Z? Please dig up four more pieces of hard data so I can ask
these same assinine questions about them.
Me: Are you on drugs? Or are you *off* your drugs? Or perhaps the
geological strata of the thread have been inverted. Normally, the
question comes before the answer.
>Do you agree that [Peters]"the randomness of mutation coupled with the
> unpredictability of environmental changes makes prediction
> impracticable"?
Yes, prediction of future evolution is impracticable.
>
>Do you agree that [Peters]"a purely explanatory device... cannot be
> called a scientific theory"?
>science is about describing, _not_ explaining
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=268551259
Please explain the difference between a scientific explanation of
reality and a scientific description of reality.
Or, alternatively, please describe the difference between a scientific
explanation of reality and a scientific description of reality.