|
Author
|
Topic: Implications of Behe and Snoke paper
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 21. July 2006 02:16
quote:
Zach: Common Descent is a valid scientific conclusion that can make predictions in a wide variety of scientific fields of study. There are many unanswered questions, however, in the new data coming from genomics. There will undoubtedly be many surprises.
The predicitions that Common Descent makes are typically tautological and sometimes tend to discourage scientific inquiriry. For example, labeling organs vestigal or claiming DNA is "junk" DNA. ID posits such things have a purpose and does not label them "junk" or vestigal just because we do not understand them.
quote:
Jehu: "So the theory of evolution doesn't propose that evolution happens in small populations? Here is what Stephen J. Gould says about PE. 'A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range.'"
Zach: Can. The hypothesis makes the claim that sometimes small evolutionary changes accumulate in small, isolated populations, which then overtake the parent population. ...
There is some evidence in support of Punctuated Equilibrium, but it is not universally accepted, nor universally applicable.
That is not entirelly correct. Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory used to explain the fact that stasis and sudden appearances are the norm -not the exception. Instances in which a story of gradualism can be made from the fossil record is extremely rare and even then the story is never water tight.
quote:
Jehu: "PE was created because of the fossil record shows stasis with the sudden appearance of fully developed forms."
Zach: That is an exaggeration of the actual hypothesis. Rather, the assertion is that some species transitions are poorly represented, even though larger taxonomic groupings are well-represented. So it is only relatively minor changes that are poorly represented. The large-scale macroscopic changes are often well-represented.
It is not an exaggeration. To claim that all the transitions are there between the larger taxa is completely false also. Almost all phyla appeared suddenly at the Cambrian explosion without any transitional forms.
quote:
But I note you keep quoting Gould. Let's see what Gould has to say: Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.
Of course he believes in evolution. That is why I quoted him. He was a leading evolutionist.
quote:
And could it be you misinterpreted Patterson who said, "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull."
No, I have not misunderstood Patterson, he also was an evolutionist.
quote:
You seem to have lost your thread. However, it can be said that evolution on the genetic level is not fully understood — if that is what you were trying to say.
I am not lost, wandering from the original topic but not lost.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 21. July 2006 08:19
Jehu: "At what point would you be willing to admit that something cannot occur by chance and therefore must be the product of design or intelligence?"
When there is substantial evidence of manufacture — the same standard used in other sciences which consider aspects of artifice. Typically, this is done by discovering the mechanism of artifice, which links the artifact with the manufacturer.
And as with all science, all conclusions are considered tentative, so the more evidence the better, each new bit of evidence leading to valid hypothetical predictions and additional confirming observations. The usual.
Jehu: "The predicitions that Common Descent makes are typically tautological and sometimes tend to discourage scientific inquiriry. For example, labeling organs vestigal or claiming DNA is 'junk' DNA."
The term "junk DNA" was originated by Sosumu Ohno who considered the limited issue of pseudo-genes. He immediately suggested a plausible use of pseudo-genes, as a junkyard for spare parts during recombination. The term only later came to refer to all non-coding DNA. However, as more data has become available, regulatory functions have been found for some non-coding DNA. In any case, regardless of its origins, any conclusion or hypothesis is subject to revision in the light of new evidence. The usual.
Vestigial organs do not necessarily lack function. For instance, wings in flightless birds are often used for balance in running. Other organs have completely lost their function, such as eyes in some troglodytes. This is not a new assertion. Darwin stated, "An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other...."
Jehu: "Instances in which a story of gradualism can be made from the fossil record is extremely rare..."
Fortunate, then, that gradual transitions can be observed in process, and recent transitions can be documented by a variety of empirical techniques. As can the process of speciation.
Jehu: "the story is never water tight."
Being able to convince those that won't be convinced is not a requirement of science. Rather, a hypothesis is proposed that makes specific empirical predictions. These predictions are then tested. The hypothesis is then modified as required.
The most recent scientific findings will generally be the ones undergoing the most revision. The most ancient events will generally be the most difficult to substantiate. There will always be gaps.
Jehu: "Almost all phyla appeared suddenly at the Cambrian explosion without any transitional forms."
Many metazoan phyla do not physically appear in the fossil record until much later than the Cambrian Explosion. (Though there are valid inferences made from the Theory of Common Descent and the rarity of soft-body fossilization that they actually evolved much earlier.)
Of course, the beginnings of metazoan evolution is shrouded by the eons of intervening events. However, your statement is false. Plausible intermediates have been found between Ediacaran fauna and fauna of the early Cambrian. Not to mention that you forgot plant phyla, an entire kingdom of evolutionary adaptation that occurred after the Cambrian Explosion.
(Also, keep in mind that the designation "phyla" is somewhat arbitrary due to century old classifications.)
Let's start with mammalian transitions. You cited Patterson. He indicates that there is a substantial and verifiable record of transitions from Hyracotherium to modern Equines.
Jehu: "That is why I quoted him. He was a leading evolutionist."
I thought this was a scientific, not a political discussion. I would hope you would quote Gould because of his understanding of the relevant scientific issues. He states unequivocally that evolution is a theory and a fact.
Jehu: "No, I have not misunderstood Patterson, he also was an evolutionist."
Right then. Patterson stated you can never be sure with a particular fossil whether it is in a direct line-of-descent or a near cousin of the actual line-of-descent; — but that the line-of-descent exists and can be documented through intermediate organisms.
[ 21. July 2006, 08:22: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. July 2006 12:33
Evolution WAS a fact. There is as yet no "theory" of the "mechanism" of evolution which has always been the issue. It is now firmly established that neither the Lamarckian nor Darwinian models ever had anythimg to do with creative evolution. The error has always been the unwarranted assumption that evolution HAD an external identifiable cause. Such a cause cannot be demonstrated because it does not now and never did exist. That is what makes it possible to sign off with my usual comment.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Carry on!
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. July 2006 06:45
Let me amplify a bit. Is there a cause for mathematics? The answer is no. Mathematics has always been there and had only to be discovered. If that is true for the "Queen of the sciences" isn't it reasonable that it would be true for all of science?
It is only natural for an inquiring mind to seek causes for phenomena and that has always been a proper goal for science. Virtually all progress has come from such enterprises. In medicine for example it is the "causes" that had to be discovered before diseases could be conquered.
It is when we come to primary causes such as the "cause" of gravity that things become sticky.
I believe that both ontogeny and phylogeny have resulted from predetermined causes that are not subject to direct experimental analysis. They are intrinsic, endogenous and immune to direct analysis. While the individual features can be discovered the orgins remain obscure just as does the origin of mathematics.
This does not mean that we are at an impasse however. Once we have eliminated both Lamarckism and Darwinism, we will be free to examine phlogeny and ontogeny free of the limits imposed by the traditional scientific method of direct experiment. Such exeriments have contributed nothing to our understanding of the causes of either of these phenomena. The causes will be revealed through the time honored method of the elimination of all other alternatives, the two major ones being those proposed by Lamark and Darwin. Once we are free of these shackles, the truth can be revealed.
Otto Schindewolf commented on the problem as follows:
"Many recent authors have spoken of EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION; there is NO SUCH THING. Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way."
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 311, his emphasis.
I agree. All that has ever been established experimentally is the production of intraspecific varieties or subspecies.
I suspect that the "causes" of both ontogeny and phylogeny will prove to be just as difficult to disclose as the "cause" of gravity. Primary causes are like that.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. July 2006 03:55
I have just prepared a brief summary of a manuscript in preparation. It has the title "How has Darwinsm persisted?"
It is post number 474 the last one on my blog:
newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
I think it might prove to be interesting if it could be offered here and elsewhere for that matter. As usual, my lack of expertise in such matters requires that someone else perform that transfer, assuming of course that having read it, it is judged to have merit. I like to try out my ideas before sending them forth for journal publication.
Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic