Posted on 01/19/2005 9:21:33 PM PST by quidnunc
My dear reader, I lied to you. I told you last Wednesday that I would not return to the subject of evolution in the near future. Whereas, I'm not finished with that ankle yet. No sooner had I filed the piece, than news came of Repenomamus gigantus. A dinosaur-eating mammal in the early Cretaceous — the sort of thing that would get anyone's attention. However, I can guarantee that I won't return to the subject through the next four Wednesdays, because I'll be on holiday after Sunday.
Now, there is no threat whatever to the evolutionary establishment in the story I mention, any more than there was a threat to the "ontological discontinuity of man" in the earlier story about Homo floresiensis, the fossil woman from remotest Indonesia just one metre high.
Today's creature, or rather creatures, were just found in China's Lianoning province. As anyone familiar with the existing evolutionary charts will know, a powerful, warm-blooded mammal has no business being found in the early Cretaceous strata, of about 130 million years ago. Especially one with a clearly organized, carnivorous set of teeth, like R. gigantus — or like his smaller cousin, R. robustus, with the trademark slightly-displaced mammalian stomach, and a little dino he just ate, ripped up inside. Mammals of that epoch are supposed to be tiny mole and shrew-like jobs, subsisting on seeds and insects. Whereas carnivores tend to inhabit the top of the food chain. One wonders therefore if our latest finds also took dinosaurs larger than themselves — say, by hunting in packs.
The Yixian field, in which the discoveries were made, promises more surprises of just that sort, including (I can just taste it) perhaps feathered birds, also entirely out of the established evolutionary sequence. It appears to have been a kind of Cretaceous Pompeii, with whole populations caught napping in a single moment by a volcanic explosion preceded by lethal gas, and then encased in an ideal plaster of sandstone and ash.
-snip-
You don't. You're arguing apples and oranges. Move on.
It wouldn't necessarily bother the "Darwinists", theoretically, if the whole evolutionary sequence were turned upside down: for the "theory" doesn't predict anything. It only explains things after the fact.
Comforting thought for Warren, I suppose, but incorrect. Every version of evolution of which I'm aware predicts that no fossil bones of a modern human will ever be discovered by digging into rock or sediment layers that are previously untouched by human activity and are older than, say, 50 million years. Should such a thing happen (and should it be shown that no hoax was involved), all current versions of evolution would immediately be falsified. And that's just one of many reasons why evolution (in any of its flavors) is a scientific theory and not an ideological (i.e., refutation-proof) belief system.
I disagree, we would find a way to explain how the fossils got there or accept that we can't explain everything, but we wouldn't junk the whole theory so quickly.
Strong word that - predicts. As someone who might even take slight credit for the recent retreat of evolutionists from one, THE Theory, to a plenitude of 'every versions', perhaps you might explain to me some of these competing versions of a theory of evolution? Do you consider them to be science? Can they be falsified? Does any one person confess the same sense of any one of these 'every versions' as anyone else, or do all just talk past each other under a vague, undisciplined, a-scientific or anti-scientific generalized religious conviction of an evolutionism?
I disagree, we would find a way to explain how the fossils got there or accept that we can't explain everything, but we wouldn't junk the whole theory so quickly.
The discovery I mentioned would be something like an experimentum crucis. At the very least, it would force a complete revision of the timeline of evolutionary history. Of course, I'm not suggesting that intelligent design would take the place of evolution, just that something quite different from what we now call evolution would be forced upon us.
But, of course, as a matter of general principle, almost nothing is ever neat or simple when dealing with comprehensive scientific theories.
Strong word that - predicts. As someone who might even take slight credit for the recent retreat of evolutionists from one, THE Theory, to a plenitude of 'every versions', perhaps you might explain to me some of these competing versions of a theory of evolution? Do you consider them to be science? Can they be falsified? Does any one person confess the same sense of any one of these 'every versions' as anyone else, or do all just talk past each other under a vague, undisciplined, a-scientific or anti-scientific generalized religious conviction of an evolutionism?
I agree that 'predicts' is a strong word—that's why I chose it. The word isn't used enough in connection with evolutionary theory.
It's a general point about theories of nature that if they don't make predictions, they're not scientific theories of nature. I mentioned in my little blurb just one prediction that an evolution theory would make (I'll concede that, since I'm neither a biologist nor a paleontologist, I'm not prepared to do much more than mention that there still appears to be room for disagreement about the rate and precise mechanisms whereby speciation takes place—although, to my knowledge, there's no serious disagreement among practicing biologists and paleontologists about whether speciation takes place). If the prediction I mentioned were to turn out to be wrong (that is, if the fossilized bones of a verifiably modern human were to be discovered in a 50-million-year-old sediment layer), that would falsify current (admittedly still tentative) accounts of the lineage of modern humans that has been built up painstakingly over the past 100 or so years. (Note that I don't expect this to happen, so, if it did, it would be a thing wondrous to behold and an opportunity for new theory-making activities to proceed.)
On the other hand, I'd be interested in finding out whether any version of intelligent design theory has made any prediction at all about the fossil record, and, if so, whether that prediction is at least in principle falsifiable. Would you know?
Best regards...
...that would falsify current (admittedly still tentative) accounts of the lineage of modern humans that has been built up painstakingly...
Subject-verb disagreement alert: 'have' for 'has', please!
The scientific term - prediction. There's probably a good reason for that.
whether speciation takes place
Well, then define it. Describe it. Tell me just to what these 'experts' agree - specifically, scientifically, evolutionally even. Your 'prediction'/test, by the way, is neither and does nothing to suggest that one might falsify the 'theory', which 'theory' you've yet to state, even in part.
intelligent design theory has made any prediction
It also used to be derisively termed by zealous evolutionistists - the teleological argument. It is in fact part of the teaching of The Church that God CAN be proven by what we observe of His Creation. It's all the same thing.
What would it predict? It would depend on how it was operationalized by formula and protocol. That would then determine what sort of predictions might be made. That's the problem I see, with evolution. That's also why I suspect you won't be able to answer my previous questions.
Well, then define [speciation]. Describe it. Tell me just to what these 'experts' agree - specifically, scientifically, evolutionally even. Your 'prediction'/test, by the way, is neither and does nothing to suggest that one might falsify the 'theory', which 'theory' you've yet to state, even in part.
As I said, I'm neither a biologist nor a paleontologist, so I'm unable to provide the details that you request. But since there is endless wrangling about these details (some of which wrangling may be seen on the web here and here), I don't feel especially bad about that. In fact, the basic argument of my initial post doesn't require anything except common sense to understand. I'll repeat it here (adding a bit more detail):
Currently, the fossil record appears to indicate that modern humans attained their present form no more than a few hundred thousand years ago (useful link). Evolutionists (i.e., almost all biologists and paleontologists) hold that modern humans did not exist before that time and in fact evolved from hominids which differ from modern humans in a variety of respects. That is, according to evolutionary accounts of the fossil record, nowhere on Earth were there to be found modern humans prior to (at most) a few hundred thousand years ago. Hence, if the fossilized bones of a modern human were to be unearthed in a previously undisturbed layer of rock or sediment that is, say, 50 million years old (obviously, the 50 million year figure is pretty arbitrary), this would imply that evolutionary accounts of the hominid fossil record are false.
I'll concede one of your points, though: it's probably correct, but not very informative, to describe this as a prediction (one could, at will, produce millions of similar predictions). Nevertheless, it's clear that what I've described is a discovery that, were it to be made, would falsify current evolutionary accounts of the hominid fossil record as regards modern humans. If advocates of creationism/intelligent design were to make such a discovery, it would certainly make for interesting press.
Finally, let me ask my earlier question in a slightly different way:
Is there any conceivable discovery that might be made about life here on Earth that would be capable of definitively falsifying the creationism/intelligent design account of what's going on here?
If the answer to that question is 'yes', I'd very much like to read a description of that discovery. But if the answer is 'no', it seems to me that one must conclude that creationism/intelligent design is not really a scientific theory, and so, while it might be a pious view to espouse, it shouldn't be mistaken for science.
Answer my question on this very point, from before, and you might have your answer. At least it would be something in the realm of science.
Answer my question on this very point, from before...
Sorry, I'm short of sleep. Precisely which question from which of your posts?
Your "principle" here
is dangerous. After all,
you might just as well
say theories "predict"
you won't find dinosaurs in
a mammal's stomach.
Now they've found a case.
Oops. But no one's gonna junk
evolution. Now
they'll just tweak some dates.
An exactly similar
thing would occur if
somebody found bones
that were human-like in old
strata -- experts would
tweak some theory of
proto-human ape-like beings
older than we thought.
Evolution is
an outlook, not a theory --
its holders won't quit.
My later take on this issue is in post #11.
That's what you get for dodging the question.
Let's say I grant you this - fact - of evolution, however you mean it, define it, imagine it. I don't care. But might there be some theory you have to help explain it? Might it involve certain words, ideas, mentioned by Darwin in Origin of the Species, such that the word, chance, is mentioned, and, mutation, and natural selection, and now something termed genetic drift? And how might these be woven together as some sort of explanation?
How can one understand you if you don't understand what you mean, yourself? What is this theory that might explain this fact, as you see it?
One such discovery would be putting a mix of chemicals in a test tube, waiting a while and seeing a human race emerge.
Earlier on the thread, you mentioned that the evolution theory predicts an absence of certain fossils in certain strata. True, -- but surely intelligent design theory predicts the same thing? Note that intelligent design does not insist on a different trajectory along which species gradually emerged, -- it merely says that the observable trajectory would not have been there if the process were entirely driven by random mutations.
If you want to dispute about this particular point, we can. But it doesn't rest on any detail about how evolution works, but rather just on the fact of evolution (as you put it).
One such discovery would be putting a mix of chemicals in a test tube, waiting a while and seeing a human race emerge.
Life didn't come to be in a test tube. And do you mean by "a while" 500 million years (or more), which is what it is likely to take? Clearly, you're joking about this. On the other hand, it could happen tomorrow that a 50-million-year-old layer of sediment is dug up that contains a fossil that falsifies current evolutionary accounts of the developmental history of life on Earth.
I told you that wouldn't prove a thing. It's irrelevant, and particularly since you have no theory against which to test it. Aha! you say. I have the proof of the theory. And here I'm saying - you don't have a theory to begin with.
Don't put the plow in front of the horse and tell the horse the pull. Proper order. Theory first. Proof second.
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.