Re: Spieceashun

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:33:13 -0700, "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"allanm" <allangmiller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:1122640895.564029.3480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> Glenn wrote:
>> > "Mark Isaak" <eciton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:9l9ie19ljnlsqs80jif9mu6c46eekc9678@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:09:57 -0700, "Glenn"
>> > > <glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >New animal species evolved in an instant
>> > > >http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7741
>> > >
>> > > Yup. More evidence for evolution. Here's the citation and abstract
>> > > of the original research article:
>> >
>> > Thanks for the abstract. What could realisticallly be perceived as
>evidence
>> > against *evolution*?
>> > >
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Molecular biological, genomic, morphological, mutational, statistical
>> or fossil evidence being something other than what it is, I guess.
>>
>> A lack of congruence between base-sequence pattern trees and
>> morphological trees in DNA sequences not involved in species
>> distinctions. The absence of a mechanism for genomic change. The
>> absence of a statistical tendency for certain characteristics to be
>> passed on while others aren't. A random stratigraphic scattering of
>> taxa. Inability to hierarchically classify.
>>
>> You must already have been convinced that such evidence exists, to
>> espouse the anti-evolution cause so vigorously; what persuaded you?
>>
>Wrong. It is not that I see contradictory evidence as such, but that the
>interpretation of insufficient knowledge does not warrant such assumptions.
>None of the examples volunteered in this thread have appeared to me to be a
>challenge to evolution, and that is another problem I see. Evolution appears
>not to be falsifiable. Some of them presume scenarios that do not exist,
>which makes them irrelevant to reality, such as your first attempt. Yes, if
>everything was something other than what it is, then evolution may not have
>even been proposed. But as to your others, such as a lack of mechanism for
>genetic change, why would that endanger theory? Evolution lacked such a
>mechanism for some time, in fact, when the theory originated would be a good
>example.

You have sort of half a valid point, Glenn. You are right that, all
too often, rather loose evidence is cited for evolution and, all too
often, evolution's defenders propose relatively weak arguments. You
are very quick to point out such deficiencies. On the other hand,
your own posts are so filled with an equal number of terribly soft
statements and plain silliness -- chiding John Wilkins for using an
indefinite number "many" and Walter Bushell for saying "will not"
instead of "have not been observed"; The "one person giving rise to
cancer" was a real winner! And you fail to recognize informal
language and argument being used in informal discussion (as in news
groups) as opposed to fussy and formalistic and often very obscure and
difficult language and lengthy and tedious arguments (as in research
papers). There is a reason for writing research papers using that
language and there is a reason to avoid using that language for
informal discussions.

The main difficulty, the origin of this thread, is your failure to
recognize what biologists have long known -- the species concept is
absolutely crystal clear in so many instances but is very vague and
gray in so many others. Speciation has the same problem; there are
stages and steps and intermediate situations -- call them
"transitional forms" if you will. The definition of species in terms
of reproductive isolation is filled with hedges -- "normally" do not
interbreed "to any significant extent" "under natural conditions".
There are good reasons for that. Still, even if you allow gray areas
drawn around every species, or use fuzzy logic (which is a very valid
technical term for a clearly defined subject, not just a word for
sloppy argument), evolution is still valid.

If the set of nested hierarchies obtained by different techniques --
morphological vs. developmental vs. physiological vs. biochemical vs.
molecular biological (protein and gene sequencing) were totally
incompatible, then evolution would be disproved. This does not count
reorganizing tentative phylogenies on the basis of new evidence -- it
is real conflict. If the genetic code were not universal, but was
independent and essentially randomly distributed for each "kind" of
organism, evolution would be disproved. If the biochemical basis for
life (carbohydrate - protein - nucleic acid, basic biochemistry) were
not virtually universal but was independent and essentially randomly
distributed for each "kind" of organism, evolution would be disproved.
If new scientific developments that completely overhaul and
revolutionize biology conflict with evolution then evolution would
have to be rejected. I mean events like the discovery of cell
division and Mendelian genetics, like the discovery of biochemistry
and metabolic pathways, like the discovery of the structure of
proteins and nucleic acids, like the discovery of the biochemical and
biophysical mechanisms of cell physiology, like the discovery of the
genetic code and genome sequencing, like the discovery of control and
regulatory mechanisms on gene expression. All of these completely
revolutionized the subject matter of biology providing an ever richer
insight into the machinery of living things. Yet nothing has ever
overturned the basic principles of Darwinian evolution. They have been
supplemented by concepts such as drift, punc ec, evo-devo but not
overturned. And I haven't even got to ecology, biogeography,
paleontology.

The fact that all these enormously diverse subjects all support and
confirm evolution make the subject enormously difficult to disprove.
I don't know of any other science where the newest findings have not
really totally revolutionized the foundations of that science.
Biology is an exception.

If there were a competing theory with solid objective evidence then
there would be some interest in more closely examining the one
explanation that has any supporting evidence. And I mean real
evidence, independent of anything that derives from the words in a
single set of writings of questionable origin. However, that
competing theory would have to explain the molecular biology, the
biochemistry, the cell biology, the physiology, the developmental
biology, the morphology, the behavior, and the ecology as well as
evolution does to garner any real support.

Mere disbelief in the power of natural process to produce complexity
is not enough to overturn the one mechanism proposed which has been
observed and demonstrated in sufficient details to support its
application universally. What is needed to falsify evolution is an
alternative with as much supporting evidence. Or even an alternative
with supporting evidence in a set of crucially important test cases.
Barring the alternative, we keep with what we know has always worked
so far.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... >>> evolution has grown increasingly tepid, ... >> Unless someone comes up with evidence that the syntax of genetic coding ... gene scenario would be but a part. ... molecular biology, cellular biology, paleontology, evidence DIRELY NEEDED ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Okay then: Set your own criteria for what represents a scientific argument
    ... Because all the evidence supports it and all the scientists have ... biological evolution." ... to the field and as far as I can tell, you don't know any biology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Spieceashun
    ... >>> or fossil evidence being something other than what it is, ... >>challenge to evolution, and that is another problem I see. ... >revolutionized the subject matter of biology providing an ever richer ... >biology, the morphology, the behavior, and the ecology as well as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard Dawkins on Specified Complexity
    ... > surviving life forms on this planet. ... The theory of evolution is no more 'excrement' than 'christianity', ... there is no evidence that Dawkins will need to move away from the ... Evolutionary biology is expressed through DNA. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Epigenetic Determination of Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
    ... evidence to support it. ... not affect morphology, ... example of a gene mutation, or a mutation in a number of genes led ... evolution of some morphological changes in nature. ...
    (talk.origins)