Re: Co-optation Today

Treus wrote:

John Harshman wrote:


you raise
objections that to evolutionary biology that you don't raise to other
science.


Where do you get that idea?

Observation.

My case rests on the weight of evidence contained in DNA sequences. You
can't just look at those sequences and know what tree they support.
There are bits of evidence that are that simple, like presence or
absence of particular pseudogenes or retroelements. But that's not what
we were talking about.

As alluded to in my previous comments in this post, your system of
associations is one thing (which I don't dispute), inferences from
such essentially static correlations to their causal origin is
another.

But that's how all science works.

You seem to have forgotten the example of solar fusion, where
sufficient causation to account for the observed phenomenon is
observable in an experimental setting.

No, in fact, causation is never directly observable, only correlation:
if I do this, that always happens. We infer causation in such cases.

In your case, you infer a causation you cannot demonstrate (and I
don't mean the canard of recapitulating evolution in vitro). That's
the difference.

What exactly is it that I can't demonstrate?


You haven't shown for phylogenesis what physics has for (our theory
of) stellar fusion, namely an accounting of all the details attributed
to the proposed operation exclusively in terms of repeatable
observations of measurable phenomena.

That tells me nothing. Please be precise and specific about what I'm
lacking.

Let me know when you're ready to explain your alternative theory, the
one you don't have any evidence for yet but still like better than
evolution.


And go off on another off-topic? No thanks.

You don't want to reveal yourself as a creationist. I understand. And
you definitely want to avoid comparison of the evidence for competing
theories; that would be too much like science.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwinist Professor: "Michael F**king Behe" Is ..."
    ... American Science Education ... believer in evolution - how could he not rule in favor of the ACLU? ... Again, since all Atheists ... rabidly support Evolution this is invulnerable evidence supporting the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Five major misconceptions for evolution
    ... >> actually using science for once. ... >> Science students are taught the basic law of science that without ... >> philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science. ... >> Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... Your claim that Romans talks about modern evolution is one. ... The writers of the Bible had no idea about that evidence, and I don't expect them to have anticipated it. ... Ray, I've explained many times why natural evolution means nothing of the sort. ... The writers of the Bible knew nothing about science, the scientific method, or how life works. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whales are fish?
    ... A scientific interpetation of the evidence, ... Evolution is change in allele frequencies in a population ... species of Primula, Primula floribunda, from the Himalayas, and another ... It really doesn't matter to "Darwinism" what the causation is, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... If it can be shown that evolution *cannot* ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)