Posted on 11/11/2005 9:27:07 PM PST by MplsSteve
Thank you for deigning to respond to your lowly servant.
Humbly,
Nothnig is considered infallible. But..
Linguistics fits your question. To explain certain regularities in the various IndoEuropean languages, Saussure hypothesized that proto-IndoEuropean had consonant sounds that had disappeared as such in all attested languages, but that had modified other sounds before disappearing. It turned out (years after Saussure's death) that Hittite had consonants where he had predicted they would be in proto-IndoEuropean. That's very simplified. Start here for more details.
It's reminiscent of the way biologists predicted the existence of a transitional series of fossils connecting reptiles and mammals, where one of the changes is the gradual change of jaw bones to ear bones. This was based, partly, on embryology (showing that Haeckel's recapitulationist theory was based on evidence, even if he generalized it too far). Later, such fossils were found. Check this out: The Gulf Coast Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. The guys who find oil for a living.
The naturalistic explaination (I assume you are refering to natural selection and mutation) provides a number of constraints, wheras alternative explainations do not. One key constraint is that a new type of animal can only be derived from one existing type. So a new species of mammal cannot be built by taking parts from bats, birds and lizard for example. If an example of such a thing was found in the fossil record it would falsify the explaination.
The constraint also produces a tree of descent. If the fossil record did not match a tree of descent then that would falsify the explaination. For example finding a modern mammal fossil in the cambrian would falsify the mammal tree of descent, and through that falsify the explaination that mammals descended via the natural mechanisms of evolution.
Also the tree of descent implies a nested heirarchy of presnet day life. If genetic comparisons of living species do not fit a nested heirarchy then that would falsify the explaination.
There are many other ways that evolution can be tested, for example the naturalistic explaination puts the constraint that new types of animal must originate in the same location as the type they derived from. So the theory would not be compatible with indigenous elephants on hawaii.
"So a specific view of the origin of life is required for evolution."
Apparently you have trouble reading.
"This article is primarily an appeal to incredulity to explain why abiogenesis is "unlikely"."
There are two things in the article:
1) Shows that there are large steps that need to be overcome
2) Shows that there is no science that provides any explanation, data, or repeatable experiment to get between the large steps.
Note that if you think that statistical arguments are arguments from incredulity, you have to throw at all science that relies on error bars. But even that is not what I'm doing. I am showing that there is no evidence for the bridges between the gaps. They could perhaps be there, but there is no data demanding that we accept that there be something to fill the gaps. It seems very silly to demand that people accept and teach what has no or slim evidence just because it makes the story work out nicer.
"One of the articles also dishonestly claims that diversity of species from common ancestry is nothing but an unfounded assumption."
One of the evolutionists favorite things to do is to claim dishonesty on a disagreement.
"You should know better than that, given the extremely long posts from Ichneumon explaining exactly the physical observations that lead so many biologists consider common descent a well-accepted premise."
Could you point me to some? If its like any others I've read here, there is nothing in any of the arguments that isn't also a hallmark of a common designer or common constraints, or presupposes a specific view of origin of life. Thus, the preference for using the data as evidence for common ancestry is based on unfounded assumptions.
"so many biologists consider common descent a well-accepted premise."
I agree that many biologists believe this, and also that the ID camp generally agrees with this. But not all secular biologists believe in Universal Common Ancestry. Dooliittle, for instance, thinks we should give up looking for the LUCA:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/phylogenetic_classification_and_.htm
And Woese doesn't even think that one exists:
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15187180
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12077305
"If an example of such a thing was found in the fossil record it would falsify the explaination."
You mean like a Duck-Billed Platypus?
"The constraint also produces a tree of descent. If the fossil record did not match a tree of descent then that would falsify the explaination."
Or they would just call it "convergent evolution". Oh wait, that's what is happening already.
"For example finding a modern mammal fossil in the cambrian would falsify the mammal tree of descent"
Or an ad-hoc explanation such as "reworking" would be invoked.
"and through that falsify the explaination that mammals descended via the natural mechanisms of evolution."
Or would you just reconstruct the tree?
"If genetic comparisons of living species do not fit a nested heirarchy then that would falsify the explaination."
That's interesting, because they don't.
"There are many other ways that evolution can be tested, for example the naturalistic explaination puts the constraint that new types of animal must originate in the same location as the type they derived from."
I'm pretty sure there are counterexamples of that, too, but I'll have to double-check.
That isn't composed of parts of many seperate species. The bill of the duck-billed platypus only appears like a ducks, it is made out of different material and performs a different function.
"The constraint also produces a tree of descent. If the fossil record did not match a tree of descent then that would falsify the explaination."
Or they would just call it "convergent evolution". Oh wait, that's what is happening already.
Convergant evolution does not violate a tree shape - it does not mean that branches on the tree converge. An example of convergent evolution is that a good hunting design favours a wolf-like shape. Both marcupial and placental mammal populations therefore independently converged on a wolf-like design that was best adapted to this niche. However even though the form of both designs is similar, they are made of different parts, and are more closely related to their placental and marcupial counterparts than one another. Hence they remain different branches on the tree.
"For example finding a modern mammal fossil in the cambrian would falsify the mammal tree of descent"
Or an ad-hoc explanation such as "reworking" would be invoked.
A modern mammal fossil in the cambrian would turn the tree on its head. It wouldn't be a tree anymore, but a warped kind of net. Evolution would therefore be falsified as a good explaination for the diversity of life.
"and through that falsify the explaination that mammals descended via the natural mechanisms of evolution."
Or would you just reconstruct the tree?
If the tree were reconstructed to accomodate a modern mammal fossil in the cambrian, it would no longer be a tree.
"If genetic comparisons of living species do not fit a nested heirarchy then that would falsify the explaination."
That's interesting, because they don't.
an example?
"There are many other ways that evolution can be tested, for example the naturalistic explaination puts the constraint that new types of animal must originate in the same location as the type they derived from."
I'm pretty sure there are counterexamples of that, too, but I'll have to double-check.
In general you will find that island species resemble species on nearby mainlands. Remote islands tend to only be populated by types animals that could get there, and since then they have diverged. The Hawaiian islands are a good example.
Define "complex adaptation." How do we distinguish a sufficently complex adaptation from a non-complex one for the purposes of your criteria?
Secondly, what qualifies as a random mutation? Does retrovirus infection count? UV damage? Changes in ploidy? Or only errors in replication? Normal sexual recombination is random to a certain extent. Does that not qualify? Why not?
What's the problem with assuming we have the ability to someday elucidate the mechanics of the universe?
Assuming we can't do something seems like an easy way to never accomplish anything.
"How do we distinguish a sufficently complex adaptation from a non-complex one for the purposes of your criteria?"
Most adaptations are complex. There are a few that aren't, mostly that only require changes within one gene of only a few amino acids.
"what qualifies as a random mutation?"
Anything that is not organism-directed (either the organism itself or other organisms).
"Does retrovirus infection count?"
Nope.
"UV damage?"
Yes.
"Changes in ploidy?"
This has not been sufficiently determined. I would lean towards "no".
"Or only errors in replication?"
Interestingly, I'm pretty sure much of what is considered "errors in replication" are processes we simply don't understand.
"Normal sexual recombination is random to a certain extent."
Are you sure about that? I would ssay that the only thing "random" about it is that we don't understand the process.
So you're defining a complex mutation by the number of base pairs that change?
How many DNA base pairs would need to change to constitute a complex adaptation as compared to a non-complex one? Does it matter where on the genome the DNA changes, considering that tweaking developmental genes leads to exponentially different characteristics whereas changing base pairs in other parts of the genome may do nothing at all?
On top of that, if you're going to define a complex mutation by the number of base pairs involved (since you effectively disregard recombination as nonrandom) and you want to see this scale of viable mutation in the last hundred years in order to demonstrate evolution in action - then you're actually asking for evidence against evolutionary theory, which indicates that random mutation causes large changes over millions of years, not hundreds.
Interestingly, I'm pretty sure much of what is considered "errors in replication" are processes we simply don't understand.
No. Errors in replication are a fundamental part of the chemistry involved in DNA polymerase activity. We understand it very well.
"Normal sexual recombination is random to a certain extent." ; Are you sure about that? I would ssay that the only thing "random" about it is that we don't understand the process.
Then you would be wrong. We understand the process very well. Segregation of chromosomes at meiosis during gamete production is a random process. It's a coin flip whether the sperm gets the maternal chromosome or the paternal one. Even genes on the same chromosome are randomly recombined due to crossing over.
Are Catholics considered Christians in your book?
If a Catholic believes that Jesus Christ died for their sins, then yes, they are Christians because they also believe in the Triune God.
Falsifying the tree of descent, not the theory of natural selection, is the key phrase above. Given that there are now competing claims as to whether dinosaurs were more reptilian or more avian, and that evolutionists are ready with explanations for either case, I am not confident that any fossil find would be accepted as falsifying Natural Evolution.
Nor does the fact that it could be falsified by a non-experimental observation make it an empirical science. There are many theories about the JFK assassination. A document found in the KGB file giving instructions and a post operation report complete with confirming film evidence would falsify the other competing theories. Prior to such conclusive evidence however the study is a forensic one, not an empirical one. Such is the case with Evolution.
My problem is not that supporters Evolution are presenting a theory but that they are insisting that it has a greater confidence of being true than it really does. It is also dishonest to suggest that competing theories must somehow be unscientific if they do not lead to a naturalistic conclusion. In science nothing should be presupposed.
But falsifiying the tree would also falsify the theory of natural selection. Natural selection cannot work with any old tree. Out of all possible trees natural selection is only compatible with a mere few.
Given that there are now competing claims as to whether dinosaurs were more reptilian or more avian, and that evolutionists are ready with explanations for either case, I am not confident that any fossil find would be accepted as falsifying Natural Evolution.
Modern mammals in the cambrian would do it. Seriously try and draw a tree of descent where modern mammals exist before early primitive mammals and their reptile-like mammal ancestors. You can't have a fossil existing before it's ancestors.
Nor does the fact that it could be falsified by a non-experimental observation make it an empirical science.
Experiments are not a requirement of empirical science.
however the study is a forensic one, not an empirical one. Such is the case with Evolution.
Forensic science is empirical. Geology is empirical. Paleontology is empirical.
My problem is not that supporters Evolution are presenting a theory but that they are insisting that it has a greater confidence of being true than it really does.
No, I don't see that at all. As a rough analogy it's like a hole which you cannot see and you can only guess it's shape by making different shaped pegs and slowly inserting them into the hole.
For almost any peg you make, it will go in part way. But it only takes one part of the peg to not fit to tell you that the hole is not the same shape as the peg.
Creationism in this analogy is a peg that will only fit a small proportion of possible holes, and on this particular hole it got stuck part way in.
Evolution in this analogy is also a peg that will only fit a small proportion of possible holes. In this case it has been slowly inserted into the hole for 150 years, and so far has not blocked.
What ID is in this analogy is a chopstick being poked into the hole. Yes it fits, but then it would fit any shaped hole, so it is useless at telling us what shape the hole might be.
It is also dishonest to suggest that competing theories must somehow be unscientific if they do not lead to a naturalistic conclusion. In science nothing should be presupposed.
What about the theory that an invisible supernatural weathermaker causes many of the rain storms around the world? Is that deserving as a competing theory to Natural Meteorology? Should it be taught in schools as a rival theory?
In science's view (and mine) of course such a theory is not a *scientific* theory at all because it is not testable, because it is not falsifiable. However while I can say it isn't a scientific theory, I don't see what grounds you have to say that Intelligent Weather is not a valid scientific theory given what you wrote above.
"Even genes on the same chromosome are randomly recombined due to crossing over."
But the points at which the recombination take place are not.
"On top of that, if you're going to define a complex mutation by the number of base pairs involved (since you effectively disregard recombination as nonrandom) and you want to see this scale of viable mutation in the last hundred years in order to demonstrate evolution in action - then you're actually asking for evidence against evolutionary theory, which indicates that random mutation causes large changes over millions of years, not hundreds."
What you seem to be saying here is that neo-Darwinism is untestable. However, there are ways to speed up frequency of mutations in the lab, without affecting their distribution.
"No. Errors in replication are a fundamental part of the chemistry involved in DNA polymerase activity. We understand it very well."
We understand _some_ of it very well. But, for instance, it seems that E. Coli can actually regulate how well DNA polymerase operates, based on stress conditions:
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=14617178
So, the regulation of the error-production/correction mechanism is controlled by the cell itself. It appears that if it senses that it needs adaptation, it will employ more error-prone methods of gene duplication.
I don't doubt that in the future, it will also be determined that _which_ genes are the subject of mutagenesis will be shown to be influenced by the cellular control system. Perhaps it already has, and I am just not yet aware of the article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.