Re: Spieceashun
- From: r norman <NotMyRealEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:22:44 -0400
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:14:23 -0400, r norman
<NotMyRealEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.
>
Characteristically, Glenn, you carefully pick and choose which posts
you respond to. You claim that "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." Then when somebody produces counter evidence, the
appropriate response is something like "Oh, I see. Now I understand".
Or "Thank you" or even "OK" .
.
- References:
- Re: Spieceashun
- From: Mark Isaak
- Re: Spieceashun
- From: Glenn
- Re: Spieceashun
- From: allanm
- Re: Spieceashun
- From: Glenn
- Re: Spieceashun
- From: r norman
- Re: Spieceashun
- Prev by Date: Re: Cooked meat
- Next by Date: Re: *sigh*
- Previous by thread: Re: Spieceashun
- Next by thread: Re: Spieceashun
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
