Hierarchy for, against T0E?
david ford
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of evolution.
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of evolution.
A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
Eros
news:b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com...
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
>
> #1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you think
there is, please provide it!
This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY* scientific evidence
that does *NOT* conform
with the fact of evolution? If so, please provide it here!
> #2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
..... Just about every aspect of the narural world. Again, if you can think
of *ANY* evidence...
scientific or otherwise, that does *NOT* conform with the fact of
evolution...please provide it here!
Your turn....
EROS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
"Religous dogma has no chance against simple logic... in a normal universe!"
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 9/01/2004
John Harshman
david ford wrote:
This is, I believe, a setup for Michael Denton's argument as presented
in The Biotic Message. Here's an analogy that might clarify things a bit:
The Parable
A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a tree
stump. Near it, flat on the ground, was a tree missing its bottom
portions, with a truncated lower end that seemed to match the stump
exactly. Lying on the stump was a chain saw, its engine still warm and
its teeth covered with fresh sawdust. "Aha," I said, "Someone has just
cut down a tree here."
"You poor, naive fool," said my creationist friend. "Sure, this is
compatible with the tree-cutting theory. But so is anything else we
might see. Suppose we came here and found nothing but a grassy meadow.
Isn't it possible that there had been a tree here, but someone came
along and cut it down, hauled away the lumber, pried out the stump,
filled in the hole, and laid down fresh sod? So since a grassy meadow is
as compatible with the tree-cutting theory as this stump and so forth
is, the tree-cutting theory is vacuous, and nothing can be evidence in
its favor.
"It's preferable to believe, as I do, that the stump, etc., were created
in their present form by an omnipotent being, just a few minutes before
we arrived. In fact, I have a book that says just that, written by the
omnipotent being himself. So it must be true. And the existence of sod
farms is proof of such creation, since the deity created them so the
world would resist a tree-cutting explanation."
A bit farther on, we ran into a man in a plaid shirt, his arms covered
with fresh sawdust, having a smoke, and I marveled at the completeness
of the creator's message.
Nathan Baum
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
>
> #1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
> a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
> hierarchy. Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of
> evolution.
What's wrong with this is the lack of evidence for this world.
> #2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
> a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
> hierarchy. Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of
> evolution.
This is fine. The evidence does support the existance of this world.
mel turner
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
>
>What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
>
>#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
>a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
>Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of evolution.
A biological world without nested hierarchies of groups within groups
within groups [i.e., one very unlike the one we do see] would indeed
be a refutation of the current theory of branching common descent.
Nevertheless, it's still possible that some other, very different
evolutionary model could be found to fit your hypothetical situation
[say, descent allowing amazingly wide reticulations between lineages?
Wacky stuff, like mammals crossing with birds and fish?].
>#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
>a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
a hypothetical puzzle. Fortunately, it doesn't have to in the
real world as we know it.
>Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of evolution.
Nope. But there might still be possible explanations
besides "creationism", which isn't an explanation at all.
>A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
And the current understanding of evolution is that lateral transfer
hasn't been rampant in most groups [but likely important among modern
bacteria and the early lineages of life]. So, data showing that it was
rampant would indeed require overturning much of the present model
of evolution. Your point? Are you on some bogus "evolution is
unfalsifiable" kick?
cheers
John Harshman
mel turner wrote:
Yes. He's parroting the argument of "The Biotic Message", which through
a perversion of logic argues that the earth's biota is specifically
constructed to resist evolutionary explanations. The supposed
compatibility of evolution with any conceivable set of data is one
element of this argument. Do look at my little parable, in this thread,
whose logic closely follows "Message".
mel turner
[John Harshman] wrote...
>mel turner wrote:
[snip]
>> And the current understanding of evolution is that lateral transfer
>> hasn't been rampant in most groups [but likely important among modern
>> bacteria and the early lineages of life]. So, data showing that it was
>> rampant would indeed require overturning much of the present model
>> of evolution. Your point? Are you on some bogus "evolution is
>> unfalsifiable" kick?
>Yes. He's parroting the argument of "The Biotic Message", which through
>a perversion of logic argues that the earth's biota is specifically
>constructed to resist evolutionary explanations.
Shhh, you'll somehow wind up misrepresenting him...
It's utterly ludicrous, of course. It's very easy to imagine
hypothetical findings or imaginary biotas that would be much less
compatible with evolution and common descent than the nested groups
and patterns of homologous traits that we do see. It so happens
that few or none of those hypotheticals apply to real cases.
>The supposed
>compatibility of evolution with any conceivable set of data is one
>element of this argument.
Which makes sense in a way that's not very sensible.
Do look at my little parable, in this thread,
>whose logic closely follows "Message".
Yes, I enjoyed it enough to think aloud "POTM!"
cheers
Geoff
news:4006B794...@pacbell.net...
snipples...is this a Harshman original?
John Harshman
Geoff wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:4006B794...@pacbell.net...
>
> snipples...is this a Harshman original?
[modest shuffle, eyes averted]
It is.
Ferrous Patella
<geb...@yahoo.nospam.com>:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:4006B794...@pacbell.net...
>
> snipples...is this a Harshman original?
>
>> The Parable
>>
>> A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a tree
>> stump. [...]
Yeah. At this point, I am wondering what the upper limit is on how many
votes I personally can cast as the doorman of Chez Watt.
--
Ferrous Patella
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
--John Adams, letter to Abigail, 1797
PeteM
>
>The Parable
>
>A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a tree
>stump. Near it, flat on the ground, was a tree missing its bottom
>portions, with a truncated lower end that seemed to match the stump
>exactly. Lying on the stump was a chain saw, its engine still warm and
>its teeth covered with fresh sawdust. "Aha," I said, "Someone has just
>cut down a tree here."
>
>"You poor, naive fool," said my creationist friend. "Sure, this is
>compatible with the tree-cutting theory. But so is anything else we
>might see. Suppose we came here and found nothing but a grassy meadow.
>Isn't it possible that there had been a tree here, but someone came
>along and cut it down, hauled away the lumber, pried out the stump,
>filled in the hole, and laid down fresh sod? So since a grassy meadow is
>as compatible with the tree-cutting theory as this stump and so forth
>is, the tree-cutting theory is vacuous, and nothing can be evidence in
>its favor.
>
Presumably this means "Some creationists point out that the theory of
evolution is compatible with both the flora and fauna we see today and
with many other different sets of flora and fauna that we don't see.
Therefore, they argue, the theory of evolution is empty."
Do they? I don't know. But anyway, how would this bear on the original
post?
--
PeteM
John Harshman
PeteM wrote:
Not many creationists use this argument, at least so far. It was
advanced first by Walter ReMine in "The Biotic Message". And you
mischaracterize it a bit: it's not about different flora or fauna, it's
about different features of the data. What Ford is hinting at is this,
for example: if we see a nested hierarchy, we infer common descent. But
you can have common descent without observing a nested hierarchy, i.e.
in cases of lateral transfer. Because there are possible evolutionary
mechanisms to explain cases in which a nested hierarchy does not appear,
that nested hierarchy is not evidence for common descent. Or so ReMine
and Ford are trying to argue. That's what the original post was about,
whether you guessed that or not from his subtle hints, and that's what
my parable was addressing.
John Wilkins
> news:0ZSNb.79987$xy6.137911@attbi_s02 by "Geoff"
> <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com>:
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:4006B794...@pacbell.net...
> >
> > snipples...is this a Harshman original?
> >
> >> The Parable
> >>
> >> A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a tree
> >> stump. [...]
>
> Yeah. At this point, I am wondering what the upper limit is on how many
> votes I personally can cast as the doorman of Chez Watt.
As many as you let yourself cast, I suppose, since there are no tellers.
However, I suspect I too shall vote for this one. A lovely little
parable.
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Andrew Criddle
> PeteM wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> >
> > Presumably this means "Some creationists point out that the theory of
> > evolution is compatible with both the flora and fauna we see today and
> > with many other different sets of flora and fauna that we don't see.
> > Therefore, they argue, the theory of evolution is empty."
> >
> > Do they? I don't know. But anyway, how would this bear on the original
> > post?
>
>
> Not many creationists use this argument, at least so far. It was
> advanced first by Walter ReMine in "The Biotic Message". And you
> mischaracterize it a bit: it's not about different flora or fauna, it's
> about different features of the data. What Ford is hinting at is this,
> for example: if we see a nested hierarchy, we infer common descent. But
> you can have common descent without observing a nested hierarchy, i.e.
> in cases of lateral transfer. Because there are possible evolutionary
> mechanisms to explain cases in which a nested hierarchy does not appear,
> that nested hierarchy is not evidence for common descent. Or so ReMine
> and Ford are trying to argue. That's what the original post was about,
> whether you guessed that or not from his subtle hints, and that's what
> my parable was addressing.
It's an interesting argument.
I would tentatively respond that it would be very very difficult
for the TOE to invoke, for complex organisms, levels of lateral
transfer anywhere near the levels of genetic change from other
causes. Hence nested hierarchies in complex organisms (and maybe
only in complex organisms) are strong evidence of common descent.
Andrew Criddle
Ferrous Patella
john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins):
> Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote:
>
>> news:0ZSNb.79987$xy6.137911@attbi_s02 by "Geoff"
>> <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com>:
>>
>> > "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> > news:4006B794...@pacbell.net...
>> >
>> > snipples...is this a Harshman original?
>> >
>> >> The Parable
>> >>
>> >> A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a
>> >> tree stump. [...]
>>
>> Yeah. At this point, I am wondering what the upper limit is on how
>> many votes I personally can cast as the doorman of Chez Watt.
>
> As many as you let yourself cast, I suppose, since there are no
> tellers. However, I suspect I too shall vote for this one. A lovely
> little parable.
Yep! Might as well give your witty bone a rest this month.
Matt Silberstein
<jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
>
>
>Geoff wrote:
>
>> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:4006B794...@pacbell.net...
>>
>> snipples...is this a Harshman original?
>
>
>[modest shuffle, eyes averted]
>
>It is.
Wonderful, the last line is a delight. Out of the killfile for
you. (Ok, so you were never in the killfile nor have I ever
thought of such. But if I ever killfile you I won't do it.)
david ford
david ford:
> > What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
> >
> > #1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
>
> There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you think
> there is, please provide it!
> This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY* scientific evidence
> that does *NOT* conform with the fact of evolution? If so,
> please provide it here!
>
> > #2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
>
> ..... Just about every aspect of the narural world.
I might have to agree with you.
Also, note that Marxist theory can account extremely well for just
about every aspect of the world of economics.
In addition, Freudian psychology can account extremely well for just
about every aspect of the world of human behavior.
If you can think of _any_ evidence that does _not_ conform with
Marxist economic theory or Freudian behavioral psychology, feel free
to provide it.
david ford
david ford:
> >What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
> >
> >#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
> >a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
> >Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of evolution.
>
> A biological world without nested hierarchies of groups within groups
> within groups [i.e., one very unlike the one we do see] would indeed
> be a refutation of the current theory of branching common descent.
> Nevertheless, it's still possible that some other, very different
> evolutionary model could be found to fit your hypothetical situation
> [say, descent allowing amazingly wide reticulations between lineages?
> Wacky stuff, like mammals crossing with birds and fish?].
>
> >#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
> >a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
> >hierarchy.
>
> No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
> a hypothetical puzzle.
Though, as you observed, [mt]"it's still possible that some other,
very different evolutionary model could be found to fit your [df's]
hypothetical situation."
> Fortunately, it doesn't have to in the
> real world as we know it.
>
> >Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of evolution.
>
> Nope. But there might still be possible explanations
> besides "creationism", which isn't an explanation at all.
>
> >A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
>
> And the current understanding of evolution is that lateral transfer
> hasn't been rampant in most groups [but likely important among modern
> bacteria and the early lineages of life]. So, data showing that it was
> rampant would indeed require overturning much of the present model
> of evolution.
I don't understand how the discovery that lateral transfer of genetic
material was actually far more widespread than evolutionists currently
maintain would overturn the theory of evolution.
> Your point? Are you on some bogus "evolution is
> unfalsifiable" kick?
I am advancing an "evolution hypothesis is unfalsifiable" line of
thought.
If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct, would that falsify the
T0E?
Rodjk
> Eros (Eros_Tal...@hotmail.com) on 2004-01-15:
> david ford:
>
> > > What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
> > >
> > > #1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
> >
> > There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you think
> > there is, please provide it!
> > This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY* scientific evidence
> > that does *NOT* conform with the fact of evolution? If so,
> > please provide it here!
I note that David did not answer this...
> >
> > > #2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
> >
> > ..... Just about every aspect of the narural world.
>
> I might have to agree with you.
> Also, note that Marxist theory can account extremely well for just
> about every aspect of the world of economics.
> In addition, Freudian psychology can account extremely well for just
> about every aspect of the world of human behavior.
> If you can think of _any_ evidence that does _not_ conform with
> Marxist economic theory or Freudian behavioral psychology, feel free
> to provide it.
The observation that it did not work? See the former Soviet Union. (I
am currently in one of its former "states".)
As for Freud, the notion that it does not answer much of the
observations of chemical imbalances that Freud knew nothing about...
Rodjk #613
Frank J
> david ford:
>
> > >What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
> > >
> > >#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
> > >a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
> > >Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of evolution.
> >
> > A biological world without nested hierarchies of groups within groups
> > within groups [i.e., one very unlike the one we do see] would indeed
> > be a refutation of the current theory of branching common descent.
> > Nevertheless, it's still possible that some other, very different
> > evolutionary model could be found to fit your hypothetical situation
> > [say, descent allowing amazingly wide reticulations between lineages?
> > Wacky stuff, like mammals crossing with birds and fish?].
> >
> > >#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
> > >a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
> > >hierarchy.
> >
> > No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
> > a hypothetical puzzle.
>
> Though, as you observed, [mt]"it's still possible that some other,
> very different evolutionary model could be found to fit your [df's]
> hypothetical situation."
Some scientists are, in fact, resarching them. Though amazingly none
of the pseudoscientific evolution misrepresenters of the Discovery
Institute or creationist organizations are. How about you?
>
> > Fortunately, it doesn't have to in the
> > real world as we know it.
> >
> > >Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of evolution.
> >
> > Nope. But there might still be possible explanations
> > besides "creationism", which isn't an explanation at all.
> >
> > >A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
> >
> > And the current understanding of evolution is that lateral transfer
> > hasn't been rampant in most groups [but likely important among modern
> > bacteria and the early lineages of life]. So, data showing that it was
> > rampant would indeed require overturning much of the present model
> > of evolution.
>
> I don't understand how the discovery that lateral transfer of genetic
> material was actually far more widespread than evolutionists currently
> maintain would overturn the theory of evolution.
>
> > Your point? Are you on some bogus "evolution is
> > unfalsifiable" kick?
>
> I am advancing an "evolution hypothesis is unfalsifiable" line of
> thought.
What do you mean by "evolution hypothesis?"
>
> If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct, would that falsify the
> T0E?
It would certainly falsify the Darwinian TOE. It would not falsify
common descent, if that's what you mean. What might, though, are one
of these:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof58.htm
That the DI is not pusuing one of these approaches, or even Behe's
"front-loading" model (which doesn't falsify common descent) speaks
volumes.
david ford
david ford:
Eros (Eros_Tal...@hotmail.com) on 2004-01-15:
david ford:
>>>> What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
>>>>
>>>> #1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
>>>
>>> There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you
>>> think there is, please provide it!
>>> This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY*
scientific
>>> evidence that does *NOT* conform with the fact of evolution? If
so,
>>> please provide it here!
>
> I note that David did not answer this...
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution. Should you care to disagree, feel free to present
hypothetical states of affairs that, if true, would conflict with the
fact of evolution, and I will attempt to provide explanations
utilizing evolutionary thought that account for those hypothetical
states of affairs.
I do hope, however, that you present something more interesting than
the likes of "if biology didn't exist, the fact of evolution would be
overthrown," or "if the universe didn't exist, we would have to
discard the fact of evolution."
>>>> #2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
>>>
>>> ..... Just about every aspect of the narural world.
>>
>> I might have to agree with you.
>> Also, note that Marxist theory can account extremely well for just
>> about every aspect of the world of economics.
>> In addition, Freudian psychology can account extremely well for
just
>> about every aspect of the world of human behavior.
>> If you can think of _any_ evidence that does _not_ conform with
>> Marxist economic theory or Freudian behavioral psychology, feel
free
>> to provide it.
>
> The observation that it did not work? See the former Soviet Union. (I
> am currently in one of its former "states".)
I concede that Marxist thought didn't work in the Soviet Union.
However, Marxist thought wasn't tried there for a long enough amount
of time. Really, you cannot conclude from a failed 100-year long
experiment that Marxist ideas are incorrect-- 100 years is not a long
enough amount of time. Utopia _would_ have been achieved eventually
if there had been enough time to implement Marxist thought.
> As for Freud, the notion that it does not answer much of the
> observations of chemical imbalances that Freud knew nothing about...
Those chemical imbalances arose because parents made their children
eat vegetables the children did not want to eat. Freud was more right
than he could have imagined.
The same is true of Darwin. Darwin knew nothing about the immense
complexity present within even the "simplest" cell, yet his theory of
natural selection explains quite well our current observations of the
immense complexity that Darwin knew nothing about. 1859 Darwin was
more right than he could have imagined.
John Baker
> rjk...@yahoo.com (Rodjk) on 25 Jan 2004:
> david ford:
> Eros (Eros_Tal...@hotmail.com) on 2004-01-15:
> david ford:
>
> >>>> What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
> >>>>
> >>>> #1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
> >>>
> >>> There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you
> >>> think there is, please provide it!
> >>> This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY*
> scientific
> >>> evidence that does *NOT* conform with the fact of evolution? If
> so,
> >>> please provide it here!
> >
> > I note that David did not answer this...
>
> There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
> evolution.
Of course there can. It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is*
falsifiable. However, contrary to the claims of some prominent creationists,
it has never *been* falsified. Not even close.
> Should you care to disagree, feel free to present
> hypothetical states of affairs that, if true, would conflict with the
> fact of evolution, and I will attempt to provide explanations
> utilizing evolutionary thought that account for those hypothetical
> states of affairs.
David, how could you possibly "utilize evolutionary thought" when it's so
glaringly obvious that you're totally unfamiliar with it?
> I do hope, however, that you present something more interesting than
> the likes of "if biology didn't exist, the fact of evolution would be
> overthrown," or "if the universe didn't exist, we would have to
> discard the fact of evolution."
>
You know what sort of event could falsify the TOE, David? Just about any of
the ridiculous strawman fallacies creationists often claim would be required
to *prove* it. If, for example, a bird ever *did* hatch from a lizard egg,
or a dog ever *did* give birth to a cat, that, my friend, would blow
evolutionary theory out of the water. But since such a thing will never
happen without human intervention, and since evolutionary theory does not
claim that it will, I think the theory is safe for now. :-)
But just for the sake of argument, let's postulate that, for example, a
peacock did hatch from a Komodo dragon egg. How would you "utilize
evolutionary thought" to explain that?
(This should be *very* amusing...<G>)
--
Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof.
~ Ashleigh Montague ~
aa #1898
BAAWA Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade
Al Klein
ford) posted in alt.atheism:
>I am advancing an "evolution hypothesis is unfalsifiable" line of
>thought.
As far as which hypothesis?
>If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct, would that falsify the
>T0E?
Since Lamarck was proven incorrect, that's moot. But, even if he were
proven correct, that wouldn't negate the fact that allele frequencies
DO change.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
david ford
david ford:
>>>> a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
>>>> hierarchy.
>>>
>>> No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
>>> a hypothetical puzzle.
>>
>> Though, as you observed, [mt]"it's still possible that some other,
>> very different evolutionary model could be found to fit your [df's]
>> hypothetical situation."
>
> Some scientists are, in fact, resarching them. Though amazingly none
> of the pseudoscientific evolution misrepresenters of the Discovery
> Institute or creationist organizations are. How about you?
I'm not a scientist, and any research I do involves writings by
others.
I like your use of [FJ]"pseudoscientific," for it makes your comments
have the weight of the world of science behind them.
>> I am advancing an "evolution hypothesis is unfalsifiable" line of
>> thought.
>
> What do you mean by "evolution hypothesis?"
The [df]"evolution hypothesis" is equivalent to the
[df]"blindwatchmaking hypothesis," which is the hypothesis that
intelligence/mind wasn't responsible for the appearance of the world
of biology. For further details, see
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://tinyurl.com/2ko4m
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
to which John W. replied in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1g7i6bc.m1z0nj1i4xijkN%25john.wilkins%40bigpond.com
>> If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct,
>> would that falsify the T0E?
>
> It would certainly falsify the Darwinian TOE.
And replace it with a Goldschmidtian T0E, or a Lamarckian T0E.
IOW, the T0E would survive unscathed.
> It would not falsify
> common descent, if that's what you mean. What might, though, are one
> of these:
>
> http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
> http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof58.htm
>
> That the DI is not pusuing one of these approaches, or even Behe's
> "front-loading" model (which doesn't falsify common descent) speaks
> volumes.
Such as what, exactly? That Discovery Institute individuals are going
down a road that ends in a dead end? That Discovery Institute
individuals are Bad People?
david ford
david ford:
> > There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
> > evolution.
>
> Of course there can. It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is*
> falsifiable. However, contrary to the claims of some prominent creationists,
> it has never *been* falsified. Not even close.
>
> > Should you care to disagree, feel free to present
> > hypothetical states of affairs that, if true, would conflict with the
> > fact of evolution, and I will attempt to provide explanations
> > utilizing evolutionary thought that account for those hypothetical
> > states of affairs.
>
> David, how could you possibly "utilize evolutionary thought" when it's so
> glaringly obvious that you're totally unfamiliar with it?
I dare say I am far more familiar with evolutionary thought than are
you, as demonstrated by the fact that you presented triumphantly a
hypothetical scenario that you should have known plays right into my
hand.
> > I do hope, however, that you present something more interesting than
> > the likes of "if biology didn't exist, the fact of evolution would be
> > overthrown," or "if the universe didn't exist, we would have to
> > discard the fact of evolution."
>
> You know what sort of event could falsify the TOE, David? Just about any of
> the ridiculous strawman fallacies creationists often claim would be required
> to *prove* it. If, for example, a bird ever *did* hatch from a lizard egg,
> or a dog ever *did* give birth to a cat, that, my friend, would blow
> evolutionary theory out of the water. But since such a thing will never
> happen without human intervention, and since evolutionary theory does not
> claim that it will, I think the theory is safe for now. :-)
The lack of rigid, precise predictions goes a long way toward
guaranteeing the safety of the T0E. The same situation is had with
Freudian psychology and Marxist theory.
> But just for the sake of argument, let's postulate that, for example, a
> peacock did hatch from a Komodo dragon egg. How would you "utilize
> evolutionary thought" to explain that?
>
> (This should be *very* amusing...<G>)
Observation of the event you postulated for the sake of argument would
lend credence to the position of the evolutionists Goldschmidt and
Schindewolf, according to whom saltation occurs and hopeful monsters
appear.
Imagine a situation in which a Komodo dragon lays two
eggs, out of which a male and a female peacock hatch. In this
instance of extreme saltation, the blindwatchmaking rate has been
very fast, and natural-selection-as-creator played no role in the
rise of the biological-novelty-filled peacocks from a Komodo dragon.
Lest someone charge me with having presented a scenario no
saltationist would endorse, I present a German
blindwatchmakingist, paleontologist, and saltationist, Otto
Schindewolf, advocating the possibility of just such a situation:
Each of the typal sets of characters of these higher units,
however, has formed abruptly and discontinuously in a single
step of greater or lesser scope, all of a piece,
independently of speciation. _Correspondingly, there is a
deep gulf between the first representative of a new type and
its parents_, which belong to the ancestral type and,
therefore, perhaps to another order. Consequently,
Garstang's radical way of putting it, namely, that the first
bird was hatched from a (modified) reptile's egg, which I
have often quoted in the past, is correct. To say, _Natura
__facit__ saltus_ is absolutely valid; nature does indeed
take leaps![Schindewolf, Otto H. 1950, 1993. _Basic Questions
in Paleontology: Geologic Time, Organic Evolution, and
Biological Systematics_, 235]
This Schindewolf quotation is in
Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://tinyurl.com/yiwv
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Next hypothetical circumstance, please.
> --
> Science has proof without any certainty.
> Creationists have certainty without any proof.
>
> ~ Ashleigh Montague ~
Did you mean "Ashley Montagu"? If "yes," for how long have you been
butchering his name?
Al Klein
<nu...@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>news:b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com...
>> There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
>> evolution.
>Of course there can.
There can not be "evidence" which contradicts fact.
> It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is* falsifiable.
But evolution itself isn't.
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
Glenn
> david ford:
>
> > > There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
> > > evolution.
> >
> > Of course there can. It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is*
> > falsifiable. However, contrary to the claims of some prominent creationists,
> > it has never *been* falsified. Not even close.
> >
> > > Should you care to disagree, feel free to present
> > > hypothetical states of affairs that, if true, would conflict with the
> > > fact of evolution, and I will attempt to provide explanations
> > > utilizing evolutionary thought that account for those hypothetical
> > > states of affairs.
> >
> > David, how could you possibly "utilize evolutionary thought" when it's so
> > glaringly obvious that you're totally unfamiliar with it?
>
> I dare say I am far more familiar with evolutionary thought than are
> you, as demonstrated by the fact that you presented triumphantly a
> hypothetical scenario that you should have known plays right into my
> hand.
Evolutionists believe evolution, such as common descent, to be a fact,
derived by observation. The Theory of Evolution is only a collection
of explanations of how evolution from a common ancestor took place -
some even believe that the theory is not even required, so strong is their
belief in the "fact" of macroevolution and common descent.
Evolutionary theory is falsifiable, true, yet falsifying the "how" would
likely make no impact on their belief in the "fact". If a bird did hatch
from a lizard egg, it would simply be treated as another fact, and might
collapse one or more theories of evolution that concerned a mechanism,
but would not alter their belief.
>
> > > I do hope, however, that you present something more interesting than
> > > the likes of "if biology didn't exist, the fact of evolution would be
> > > overthrown," or "if the universe didn't exist, we would have to
> > > discard the fact of evolution."
> >
> > You know what sort of event could falsify the TOE, David? Just about any of
> > the ridiculous strawman fallacies creationists often claim would be required
> > to *prove* it. If, for example, a bird ever *did* hatch from a lizard egg,
> > or a dog ever *did* give birth to a cat, that, my friend, would blow
> > evolutionary theory out of the water. But since such a thing will never
> > happen without human intervention, and since evolutionary theory does not
> > claim that it will, I think the theory is safe for now. :-)
John seems to have a way to go in understanding evolution and
evolutionary theory.
>
> The lack of rigid, precise predictions goes a long way toward
> guaranteeing the safety of the T0E.
But you can argue against any method or mechanism of evolution
you want, the evolutionist will continue to stand on evolution as
fact. The problem I have is with the fact, and the abundance of
inference and interpretation it takes to claim evolution as fact.
Remember, the word evolution has two commonly understood
meanings, microevolution and common descent.
>The same situation is had with
> Freudian psychology and Marxist theory.
>
> > But just for the sake of argument, let's postulate that, for example, a
> > peacock did hatch from a Komodo dragon egg. How would you "utilize
> > evolutionary thought" to explain that?
> >
> > (This should be *very* amusing...<G>)
>
> Observation of the event you postulated for the sake of argument would
> lend credence to the position of the evolutionists Goldschmidt and
> Schindewolf, according to whom saltation occurs and hopeful monsters
> appear.
If not that, a new explanation would spring up.
John Baker
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0239105joa4cu5k4o...@Pern.rk...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
> <nu...@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> >news:b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
> >> There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
> >> evolution.
>
> >Of course there can.
>
> There can not be "evidence" which contradicts fact.
>
> > It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is* falsifiable.
>
> But evolution itself isn't.
True enough. But when cretinis...oops, sorry....creationists... say
"evolution", they mean the theory, not the fact.
Glenn
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:RE1Rb.57856$f97....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0239105joa4cu5k4o...@Pern.rk...
> > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
> > <nu...@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > >> There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
> > >> evolution.
> >
> > >Of course there can.
> >
> > There can not be "evidence" which contradicts fact.
> >
> > > It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is* falsifiable.
> >
> > But evolution itself isn't.
>
> True enough. But when cretinis...oops, sorry....creationists... say
> "evolution", they mean the theory, not the fact.
>
to evolutionists, is not a theory, but a fact. The "Theory of Evolution"
is really (again, to evolutionists) a collection of explanations of how
evolution has occured over millenia, not a statement that it did occur
or the evidence that it did, such as geological, paleontological and
genetic evidence.
"The change in allele frequencies in a population over time" is not
disputed by many, and in reality even if that were to prove untrue,
evolutionists would still believe common descent to be true, as they
regard it as fact. I think creationists mostly take issue with the
inferred and interpreted evidences of this supposed fact.
David Sienkiewicz
> "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
> news:RE1Rb.57856$f97....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:0239105joa4cu5k4o...@Pern.rk...
> > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
> > > <nu...@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
> > >
> > > >"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
> > > >news:b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > >> There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
> > > >> evolution.
>
> > > >Of course there can.
> > >
> > > There can not be "evidence" which contradicts fact.
> > >
> > > > It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is* falsifiable.
> > >
> > > But evolution itself isn't.
> >
> > True enough. But when cretinis...oops, sorry....creationists... say
> > "evolution", they mean the theory, not the fact.
>
> No, they commonly mean the theory of common descent, which
> to evolutionists, is not a theory, but a fact.
sheldon, for whom do you presume to speak? Here you are telling us
what both creationists and evolutionists "mean."
> The "Theory of Evolution"
> is really (again, to evolutionists) a collection of explanations of how
> evolution has occured over millenia,
Then it's not a single theory, is it, sheldon?
> not a statement that it did occur
> or the evidence that it did,
Theories take the evidence into account, sheldon. That's part of what
defines a theory in a scientific sense.
> such as geological, paleontological and
> genetic evidence.
None of which you ever seem to want to address, sheldon. Why is that?
> "The change in allele frequencies in a population over time" is not
> disputed by many,
Who disputes it at all, sheldon?
In fact, I'd wonder if you even understand the statement.
> and in reality even if that were to prove untrue,
> evolutionists would still believe common descent to be true, as they
> regard it as fact.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why that's a
problem, sheldon, though I am inclined to point out that if "change in
allele frequency" were to actually "prove untrue," you wouldn't have
much common descent.
> I think creationists mostly take issue with the
> inferred and interpreted evidences of this supposed fact.
Specifically which evidences, sheldon, so what we can see if the
inferences and the interpretations are valid?
John Wilkins
So, you have read it. Are we discussing now? Have you any comments or
arguments to make against my claim that your term is sheer rubbish?
>
> >> If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct,
> >> would that falsify the T0E?
> >
> > It would certainly falsify the Darwinian TOE.
>
> And replace it with a Goldschmidtian T0E, or a Lamarckian T0E.
> IOW, the T0E would survive unscathed.
Each of which is a singular theory. Transmutation is the denial of
species immutability, but not all theories of transmutation are the
same, or even much related. Lamarck's theory is more like Bonnet's
immutability than Darwin's transmutation. This is a verbal trick you are
trying to play here.
>
> > It would not falsify
> > common descent, if that's what you mean. What might, though, are one
> > of these:
> >
> > http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
> > http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof58.htm
> >
> > That the DI is not pusuing one of these approaches, or even Behe's
> > "front-loading" model (which doesn't falsify common descent) speaks
> > volumes.
>
> Such as what, exactly? That Discovery Institute individuals are going
> down a road that ends in a dead end? That Discovery Institute
> individuals are Bad People?
That they, too, are trying a verbal trick.
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Frank J
"The" TOE would not survive unscathed, only the conclusion of common
descent. I know that scientists are sometimes sloppy with their
terminology, and anti-evolutionists exploit it to the fullest, but one
should be clear that falsifying Darwinian evolution in no way
falsifies common descent. In fact, the Goldschmidtian hypothesis is
one of "revolution" not "evolution."
>
> > It would not falsify
> > common descent, if that's what you mean. What might, though, are one
> > of these:
> >
> > http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
> > http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof58.htm
> >
> > That the DI is not pusuing one of these approaches, or even Behe's
> > "front-loading" model (which doesn't falsify common descent) speaks
> > volumes.
>
> Such as what, exactly? That Discovery Institute individuals are going
> down a road that ends in a dead end? That Discovery Institute
> individuals are Bad People?
While God only knows who's bad and who's just deceived, the fact is
that they claim that they have an alternate "theory," but are not
following it up in the least. Even if they, like you, are not the
researchers, one would think that they would have an active interest
in those conducting or proposing the research. For example, H. Allen
Orr suggested that a human pseudogene for chlorophyll would be
powerful evidence for Behe's hypothesis. Why on earth isn't' Behe
looking for one? An excuse may be that he is a biochemist, not a
molecular biolgist. But surely he could at least strongly recommend
that such research be conducted.
Although Dembski refuses to admit it like Behe, it is likely that he
also accepts common descent. But other DI fellows, like Wells,
apparently do not. So why not have a healthy internal debate, and
acknowledge some hypotheses that actually challenge common descent,
instead of avoiding it or conflating it with evolution?
Since the DI has not had a novel idea in 8 years, in one respect they
are at a dead end. But, you know what Barnum said. As long as they can
sell their false dichotomy of design v. "Darwinism," and their
"fairness" in education to new audiences, they will prosper.
Frank J
Give them a break. Without verbal tricks, anti-evolutionists would
have nothing at all.
mel turner
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
>rjk...@yahoo.com (Rodjk) on 25 Jan 2004:
>david ford:
>Eros (Eros_Tal...@hotmail.com) on 2004-01-15:
>david ford:
>>>>There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you
>>>>think there is, please provide it!
>>>>This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY* scientific
>>>>evidence that does *NOT* conform with the fact of evolution? If so,
>>>>please provide it here!
>> I note that David did not answer this...
>
>There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
>evolution.
Of course there could be such evidence. It just so happens
there isn't. It's unfalsified, not unfalsifiable in principle.
Lots of easily-imaginable findings would have called for the
outright rejection of evolutionary biology as we currently know it.
Should you care to disagree, feel free to present
>hypothetical states of affairs that, if true, would conflict with the
>fact of evolution, and I will attempt to provide explanations
>utilizing evolutionary thought that account for those hypothetical
>states of affairs.
From an earlier reply to you:
"There have been many past posts suggesting hypothethical findings that
would refute hypotheses of common descent; here are some of mine:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7eprga%24rr6%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6msvaf%24o5d%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9a2af7%24oe3%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8s8m7h%248m2%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8ha6sd%24pnm%242%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7lak5o%24gf0%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7l524k%24hlv%241%40news.duke.edu "
>I do hope, however, that you present something more interesting than
>the likes of "if biology didn't exist, the fact of evolution would be
>overthrown," or "if the universe didn't exist, we would have to
>discard the fact of evolution."
Those were your strawmen. Going back to my list of suggestions, I
see much better suggestions, like:
1] If new genetic variation is somehow found to be impossible.
Mutations either can't occur, or if they do, DNA repair mechanisms are
perfect and no heritable changes ever get incorporated into an
organism's genetic makeup and passed on to their descendents. No
evolution would be possible.
2] If there is no nested hierarchy of groups. Branching common descent
both explains and requires that organisms fall into a nested hierarchy
of groups-within-groups-within-groups, such as we do seem to see
everywhere we look [e.g., Primates within placental mammals, within
mammals, within synapsids, within amniotes, within tetrapods, within
sarcopterygians, within osteicthyans, within gnathostomes, within
vertebrates...]. There are lots of other conceivable arrangements that
would be completely incompatible with an evolutionary explanation:
-- There might be no discrete, recognizable higher groups. In a
creationist world without common descent, why should there be any
clear above-"kind" groups at all? [e.g., why don't some 'mammals' have
feathers?].
-- Evident 'natural' higher groups might still exist, but they could
show relationships to other groups in other than hierarchically-nested
ways. Perhaps they'd show a complex system of interconnections in
multiple directions at once [say, some mammals showing links with
synapsid "reptiles", but other mammals variously connecting directly
with birds or turtles or amphibians or insects or daffodils].
Branching common descent wouldn't & couldn't produce these sorts of
patterns, and if they were indeed the case it would be unlikely that
the idea of evolutionary common descent would ever have been proposed
in the first place.
3] If there was no "twin nested hierarchy". It happens that, as we'd
expect, the nested groupings and the phylogenetic interpretations
based on analyses of fundamentally independent data sets [like
morphology & anatomy vs. DNA sequences of different genes] are
generally compatible with one another. If instead of thus supporting
one another the results of different analyses were all grossly
incompatible, there would be severe problems for common descent.
4] If there were no biotic changes in the fossil record. Although
creationists & the public generally tend to overemphasize the role of
the fossil record as support for evolution [the neontological evidence
for common descent would still be overwhelming even if geological
conditions somehow prevented any fossils ever being preserved], a good
fossil record without evidence of changes and with strictly modern
species in even the earliest strata would be a very big problem
indeed.
5] If some organisms were found to have completely alien biochemistry;
such as not using any typical proteins, or having something other than
nucleic acids as genetic material, or having a different handedness of
all its biomolecules. This would tend to suggest it had an independent
origin from the rest of life on earth, although this wouldn't falsify
the common descent of all the other organisms that do fit in with the
rest.
Perhaps there might be some "normal" looking species among us that
look as though they should belong to life-as-we-know-it, but instead
have a totally different cell structure [if any] and biochemistry
[e.g., one that is apparently a typical primate, but with
prokaryote-like cells that don't even contain DNA...]
6] If it were found that the young-earth creationists were right after
all, and geologists show that the world is actually very young. If the
world were found to be only a few thousand or even a few million years
old, there simply wouldn't have been enough time for much evolution to
have occurred.
Any of the above would conflict with an evolutionary explanation.
[snip]
cheers
ima pseudonym
>> >#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
>> >a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
>> >hierarchy.
>>
>> No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
>> a hypothetical puzzle.
>
>Though, as you observed, [mt]"it's still possible that some other,
>very different evolutionary model could be found to fit your [df's]
>hypothetical situation."
Yes, but that would still require an outright rejection of
the current model. QED.
[snip]
>> >A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
>>
>> And the current understanding of evolution is that lateral transfer
>> hasn't been rampant in most groups [but likely important among modern
>> bacteria and the early lineages of life]. So, data showing that it was
>> rampant would indeed require overturning much of the present model
>> of evolution.
>
>I don't understand how the discovery that lateral transfer of genetic
>material was actually far more widespread than evolutionists currently
>maintain would overturn the theory of evolution.
It would require a very different model than the one we currently have,
in which such lateral transfer is relatively minimal in most groups. If
extensive enough, it might require abandoning the idea of separately
evolving lineages and groups. That'd be a pretty major "falsification"
of the current view.
>> Your point? Are you on some bogus "evolution is
>> unfalsifiable" kick?
>
>I am advancing an "evolution hypothesis is unfalsifiable" line of
>thought.
As I said.
It's observed to occur, so it's hardly a hypothesis. And plenty of
hypothetical findings would have falsified it completely or in part.
They just happen to not apply to the real biological world.
>If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct, would that falsify the
>T0E?
Yes, both hypothetical findings would have required rejecting the
current versions of the TOE. IIRC, Lamarck's views may even falsify
the common-descent aspects of the theory.
Are you unhappy that any replacement for the currently-accepted
TOEs would undoubtedly have to be some new and improved TOE? New
theories have to explain all the data that the older theories did,
and do it better.
cheers
Al Klein
<nu...@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0239105joa4cu5k4o...@Pern.rk...
>> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
>> <nu...@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:b1c67abe.04012...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> >> There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
>> >> evolution.
>>
>> >Of course there can.
>>
>> There can not be "evidence" which contradicts fact.
>>
>> > It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is* falsifiable.
>>
>> But evolution itself isn't.
>
>True enough. But when cretinis...oops, sorry....creationists... say
>"evolution", they mean the theory, not the fact.
When I speak with someone who doesn't understand the language, I don't
learn his incorrect version of it, I teach him the correct way to
speak.
Besides, David isn't your typical ignorant fundy. He knows the truth,
he'd just rather be a troll.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
Al Klein
(David Sienkiewicz) posted in alt.atheism:
>"Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message news:<2s2Rb.122$1b3.1...@news.uswest.net>...
>> and in reality even if that were to prove untrue,
>> evolutionists would still believe common descent to be true, as they
>> regard it as fact.
>In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why that's a
>problem, sheldon, though I am inclined to point out that if "change in
>allele frequency" were to actually "prove untrue," you wouldn't have
>much common descent.
Or, most likely, any life at all by this time. Just look at how
precarious the existence of cheetahs is.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
david ford
david ford:
[snips]
> > The lack of rigid, precise predictions goes a long way toward
> > guaranteeing the safety of the T0E.
>
> But you can argue against any method or mechanism of evolution
> you want, the evolutionist will continue to stand on evolution as
> fact.
I agree.
Schutzenberger wasn't a creationist; options for the
blindwatchmakingist
http://tinyurl.com/yjau
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980527000035.6222A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
T0E is falsified, unfalsifiable; Jerry Adler & John Carey's comment
about Balkan prime ministers; Richard Milner
http://tinyurl.com/3y88g
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970724000800.22592B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://tinyurl.com/y8c2
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
david ford
david ford:
Frank J on 25 Jan 2004:
david ford:
[snip]
>>>> If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct,
>>>> would that falsify the T0E?
>>>
>>> It would certainly falsify the Darwinian TOE.
>>
>> And replace it with a Goldschmidtian T0E, or a Lamarckian
>> T0E. IOW, the T0E would survive unscathed.
>
> "The" TOE would not survive unscathed, only the conclusion
> of common descent.
I disagree with this and your comment that [FJ]"the
Goldschmidtian hypothesis is one of 'revolution' not
'evolution,'" and think Goldschmidt would, too:
Goldschmidt, Richard. January 1952. "Evolution, As
Viewed by One Geneticist" _American Scientist_, 84-98,
135. The opening paragraph:
THE evolution of the organic world, from the synthesis
of the first complex molecules endowed with the faculty
of reproducing their kind to the most advanced type of
life, must have taken place roughly within the past two
billion years on our planet. All the facts of biology,
geology, paleontology, biochemistry, and radiology not
only agree with this statement but actually prove it.
Evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by
all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no
further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century
of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in
regard to the details of the means of evolution. This
statement should not be misunderstood; all biologists
who have mastered the available facts are agreed upon
the main points, the big outlines of the explanation of
evolution.
> I know that scientists are sometimes sloppy with their
> terminology, and anti-evolutionists exploit it to the
> fullest, but one should be clear that falsifying Darwinian
> evolution in no way falsifies common descent.
[FJ]"scientists are sometimes sloppy with their terminology,
and anti-evolutionists exploit it to the fullest"
Pro-evolutionists frequently exploit sloppiness with their
terminology to the fullest. Sloppy terminology helps thwart
falsification, as does vagueness.
Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness;
1925 Osborn; 1940 Haldane on materialism; Dawkins and
1960 J. Huxley on slow rate and gradual nature of Darwinian
NS; abstract of 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper
http://tinyurl.com/34sq3
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com
[FJ]"one should be clear that falsifying Darwinian evolution
in no way falsifies common descent"
It might even bolster the hypothesis of common descent:
Goldschmidt, Richard. January 1952. "Evolution, As
Viewed by One Geneticist" _American Scientist_, 84-98,
135. Paragraphs on 91-92:
At this point it will be useful to realize the logical
situation to which extreme Neo-Darwinism leads.
Looking at the taxonomic order of animals and plants,
we see the picture represented as a pedigree or a tree of
descent. This means that a phylum consists of a number
of classes all of which are basically recognizable as
belonging to the phylum but, in addition, are different
from each other. The same principle is repeated at each
taxonomic level. All the genera of a family have in
common the traits which characterize the family; e.g.,
all genera of penguins are penguins. But among
themselves they differ from genus to genus. So it goes
on down to the level of the species. Can this mean
anything but that the type of the phylum was evolved
first and later separated into the types of the classes,
then into orders, and so on down the line? This natural,
naive interpretation of the existing hierarchy of forms
actually agrees with the historical facts furnished by
paleontology. The phyla existing today can be followed
farthest back into remote geological time. Classes are a
little younger, still younger are the orders, and so on
until we come to the recent species which appear only in
the latest geological epochs. Thus logic as well as
historical fact tells us that the big categories existed
first, and that in time they split in the form of the
genealogical tree into lower and still lower categories.
But the Neo-Darwinians teach just the opposite. By
accumulation of small genetic differences subspecies are
transformed into species; more accumulation of small
differences in a species makes it acquire generic rank;
the genera repeat the process to develop slowly into
families, and so forth until a phylum has been separated.
Thus we are presented with the following picture. As an
example, let us consider the origin of the birds. In the
evolution of reptiles, by slow accumulation of mutants,
some reptile subspecies became a species; from this
species a genus was derived in the same way, with
characters leading in a definite direction. Within this
genus the subspecies of one species diverged again in
the same way until the new type could be called the
representative of a new family. This new type now had
to form new subspecies which transformed slowly into
different species, and these again into genera, from
which by the same process maybe another family was
formed, which led still farther away in the direction of
what was to become a bird. The same process led
finally to orders, from one of which again by the same
process a representative of a new class, the birds,
derived. After this method, which 1 should like to call
the "crazy-quilt" method, had produced the first bird, the
whole story would have had to begin again in the
opposite direction. Although the first bird had evolved
by the divergence of more and more accumulated
mutants along some reptile lines this new form must
then have started to build up subspecies which diverged
into species and so on until all the orders, families,
genera, etc., of birds had been diversified. But all of
them remained birds, while formerly the same process
had made birds out of reptiles. Such are the workings of
evolution according to the Neo-Darwinian scheme!
It is hardly surprising that a number of zoologists,
botanists, and paleontologists were not convinced that
such a scheme could work. Certainly the evolutionary
steps leading from a reptile to a bird should be infinitely
more numerous than those leading from one kind of bird
to another. But neither in this nor in any other
comparable case of macroevolution has more than an
indication of these series been found.
In support of this last sentence, see
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
aka
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Gould noted in 1982 that Goldschmidt was "one of the
premier geneticists of our century." Citation in
http://tinyurl.com/2uubr
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970728093741.24782C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
> In fact, the Goldschmidtian hypothesis is
> one of "revolution" not "evolution."
>
>>> It would not falsify
>>> common descent, if that's what you mean. What might, though, are
one
>>> of these:
>>>
>>> http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
>>> http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof58.htm
>>>
>>> That the DI is not pusuing one of these approaches, or even Behe's
>>> "front-loading" model (which doesn't falsify common descent)
speaks
>>> volumes.
>>
>> Such as what, exactly? That Discovery Institute individuals are
going
>> down a road that ends in a dead end? That Discovery Institute
>> individuals are Bad People?
>
> While God only knows who's bad and who's just deceived, the fact is
> that they claim that they have an alternate "theory," but are not
> following it up in the least.
I don't know much about Discovery Institute individuals,
but Julie T. utilized ideas of intelligent design in her
investigations of biology.
Julie Thomas on biological design
http://tinyurl.com/yj6x
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0307231113280.765971-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
> Even if they, like you, are not the
> researchers, one would think that they would have an active interest
> in those conducting or proposing the research. For example, H. Allen
> Orr suggested that a human pseudogene for chlorophyll would be
> powerful evidence for Behe's hypothesis.
Was this a tongue-in-cheek suggestion?
> Why on earth isn't' Behe
> looking for one? An excuse may be that he is a biochemist, not a
> molecular biolgist. But surely he could at least strongly recommend
> that such research be conducted.
Behe has recommended that research be conducted on the
intelligent-design-of-common-descent hypothesis:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. _Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution_ (NY: The Free Press),
307pp. On 230-231, the last two paragraphs of the chapter
"Questions about Design":
Future research could take several directions. Work
could be undertaken to determine whether information
for designed systems could lie dormant for long periods
of time, or whether the information would have to be
added close to the time when the system became
operational. Since the simplest possible design scenario
posits a single cell-- formed billions of years ago-- that
already contained all information to produce descendant
organisms, other studies could test this scenario by
attempting to calculate how much DNA would be
required to code the information (keeping in mind that
much of the information might be implicit). If DNA
alone is insufficient, studies could be initiated to see if
information could be stored in the cell in other ways--
for example, as positional information. Other work
could focus on whether larger, compound systems
(containing two or more irreducibly complex systems)
could have developed gradually or whether there are
compounded irreducibilities.
The preceding are just the obvious questions that flow
from a theory of design. Undoubtedly, more and
better-formed questions will be generated as more and
more scientists grow curious about design. The theory
of intelligent design promises to reinvigorate a field of
science grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to
dead-end problems. The intellectual competition
created by the discovery of design will bring sharper
analysis to the professional scientific literature and will
require that assertions be backed by hard data. The
theory will spark experimental approaches and new
hypotheses that would otherwise be untried. A rigorous
theory of intelligent design will be a useful tool for the
advancement of science in an area that has been
moribund for decades.
> Although Dembski refuses to admit it like Behe, it is likely that he
> also accepts common descent. But other DI fellows, like Wells,
> apparently do not. So why not have a healthy internal debate, and
> acknowledge some hypotheses that actually challenge common descent,
> instead of avoiding it or conflating it with evolution?
Try some of Paul Nelson's writings on for size:
http://www.arn.org/nelson/pnhome.htm
> Since the DI has not had a novel idea in 8 years, in one respect they
> are at a dead end. But, you know what Barnum said. As long as they can
> sell their false dichotomy of design v. "Darwinism," and their
> "fairness" in education to new audiences, they will prosper.
Since the blindwatchmakingist camp has not had a novel idea
in 100 years, in one respect they are at a dead end. But, you
know what P.T. Barnum said about a sucker being born
every minute. As long as soul-catchers for Darwin can sell
their false dichotomy of
materialism
vs.
their view of what the Judeo-Christian God would and
wouldn't create and how,
and continue to peddle their application of an _a priori_
materialism filter to the set of allowable explanations of
biology,
they will prosper.
Frank J
Even more reason to wonder why some still pretend that the slightest
evidence against the Darwinian mechanism falsifies common descent.
One can quibble with definitions, but despite positive words for
Goldschmidt from Gould, their hypotheses were worlds apart.
Not at all:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR27.3/orr.html
This would be research toward a theory of abiogenesis. If such a
theory did show that the first cell would include "all information to
produce descendant organisms" then Behe would be vindicated. But as
Orr mentioned, indirect evidence from modern species could also
support his Hypothesis.
Your excerpt was from 1996, the year he wrote the book. I have not
read all of what Behe wrote since then, but nearly all that I have
read ignores his 1996 hypothesis, and concentrates on his argument
from incredulity.
>
> The preceding are just the obvious questions that flow
> from a theory of design. Undoubtedly, more and
> better-formed questions will be generated as more and
> more scientists grow curious about design. The theory
> of intelligent design promises to reinvigorate a field of
> science grown stale from a lack of viable solutions to
> dead-end problems. The intellectual competition
> created by the discovery of design will bring sharper
> analysis to the professional scientific literature and will
> require that assertions be backed by hard data. The
> theory will spark experimental approaches and new
> hypotheses that would otherwise be untried. A rigorous
> theory of intelligent design will be a useful tool for the
> advancement of science in an area that has been
> moribund for decades.
Here and in other places he seems to be hinting at an alternative
somewhat like what Stuart Kauffman proposed. Behe read "Origins of
Order," at least enough to criticize it for what Kauffman admits in
the first place, that it is merely a mathematical framework, not
biochemical research. Since reading OoO, I have been convinced that
Kauffman, more than anyone, gave Behe the idea to write "Darwin's
Black Box." Much of the detail on abiogenesis and early evolution that
Behe expects from mainstream science, but has no interest in pursuing,
will be very difficult to unravel. And in the meantime, he can sell it
to a general audience as a god-of-the-gaps approach, with some token
suggestions to his fellow scientists for good measure.
>
> > Although Dembski refuses to admit it like Behe, it is likely that he
> > also accepts common descent. But other DI fellows, like Wells,
> > apparently do not. So why not have a healthy internal debate, and
> > acknowledge some hypotheses that actually challenge common descent,
> > instead of avoiding it or conflating it with evolution?
>
> Try some of Paul Nelson's writings on for size:
> http://www.arn.org/nelson/pnhome.htm
I have admittedly just skimmed the site, so I may have missed him
challenging Behe directly. Also, I recall that Nelson is a
young-earther. Are there some heated age of the earth debates there
too?
>
> > Since the DI has not had a novel idea in 8 years, in one respect they
> > are at a dead end. But, you know what Barnum said. As long as they can
> > sell their false dichotomy of design v. "Darwinism," and their
> > "fairness" in education to new audiences, they will prosper.
>
> Since the blindwatchmakingist camp has not had a novel idea
> in 100 years, in one respect they are at a dead end. But, you
> know what P.T. Barnum said about a sucker being born
> every minute. As long as soul-catchers for Darwin can sell
> their false dichotomy of
> materialism
> vs.
> their view of what the Judeo-Christian God would and
> wouldn't create and how,
> and continue to peddle their application of an _a priori_
> materialism filter to the set of allowable explanations of
> biology,
> they will prosper.
By that definition, many if not most biologists are not at all in the
"blindwatchmakingist camp." Surely Kenneth Miller, who, unlike Behe,
identifies the designer, is not. So even if the "blindwatchmakingist
camp" has not had a novel idea in 100 years (not true), mainstream
biology certainly has, and there's much more to come. But even when
sufficient detail is obtained on abiogenesis and early evolution, it
won't matter whether it turns out to be more like the mainstream
hypotheses or Behe's alternative, it could always ultimately be
design.
Your clever rephrasing of my words points to yet another thing that
the DI is trying to fool the public on. By selectively quoting
"blindwatchmakingists" like Dawkins the public will see it only as a
closed-minded Godless establishment being challenged by these underdog
heroes. And they could have done just that - place the wedge between
Dawkins and Miller for example. Instead, ironically, they have made
Miller one of their chief critics.
And don't forget "creationist" Terry Gray:
http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html
Since they chose to sell their alternatives not as some possible novel
ideas for abiogenesis, but as "the" challenge to "Darwinism," sooner
or later the misplaced wedge will do them in.