Re: Evolutionary evidence (ala homology, etc.)

Kevin Wirth (kevin.wirth@accessone.com)
Wed, 5 Jul 95 19:57:55 PDT

>To: grayt@Calvin.EDU (Terry M. Gray)
>From: kevin.wirth@accessone.com (Kevin Wirth)
>Subject: Re: Evolutionary evidence (ala homology, etc.)
>
>>
>>Abstract: Most cladists believe that cladograms are the result of
>>evolution even though they don't employ evolutionary assumptions into their
>>taxonomic methods. Creationists use these disagreements among
>>evolutionists to suggest that evolution is not true.
>>_______________
>>
>Terry Grey wrote:
>>
>>Again, I see this to be a case where creationists are taking internal
>>squabbles among evolutionists and trying to convey to the general public
>>that evolutionists can agree among themselves and don't even believe their
>>own theory anymore.
>
>Well, admittedly, many creationists DO use such squabbles. However, that
was not the intent of my re-poting of Tom Bethell's note. My contention is,
and remains focused on my contention that whatever avenues open up for
imagination will be used -- and in some instances with liberality -- in the
ongoing efforts to promote evolution. In fact, I actually appreciate the
cladistic stance, for the simple purpose that it does make an attempt to
remove us at least one step away from our subjective predispositions.
Earlier posts in an ongoing exhange between myself and Glenn Morton had
touched on the issue of morphology being a good indicator of evolutionary
relatedness. That's a misnomer and it's a mistake to be even lightly
reliant upon morphology in attempting to determine lineage. For what it's
worth.
>
>>My own assessment is that cladistics is probably a useful corrective to
>>some trends in biology in the middle of the 20th century and that it does
>>seem to put systematics on a more firm foundation. I will also grant that
>>you can do cladistics on things that aren't evolutionarily related and
>>produce a cladogram, but that has always been the case. Similarity (or
>>common features) does not necessarily imply biological ancestry.
>
>Right on!
>
>>But neither does it undermine the evolutionary claims made as a result of
>>cladistic methodologies in the biological world. Evolutionary relatedness
>>is a perfectly good hypothesis to explain the nested patterns. Conversely,
>>the nested patterns are perfectly good evidence for evolution.
>
>Well Terry, we differ here. Technically, this is not perfectly good
*evidence*, it is at best *inference*. This is where we begin to part
company on this issue.
>
>Interpretation of the evidence is not *evidence* -- it is *interpretation*.
I know that many of you will take issue with me on this, however, when it
comes to evolution, we really do have a responsibility to go the extra mile
and make sure everyone fully understands the difference between the
*evidence* and whatever spin someone puts on it. Failing to do this has
and will continue to result in massive confusion and misrepresentation on
this subject among laymen and scientists alike. Because what will happen
is, people will continue to think that the speculative, interpretive,
extrapolative, and imaginative scenarios which attempt to place the evidence
in a context wind up being thought of as what we *know* rather than what we
*think* we know.
>
>I'm lobbying extra hard on this for a reason. And that is, too many people
have allowed and even promoted the thinking that evidence and speculation
are what we *know*. Because of the confusion which results, taking this
stance is irresponsible, even if it is technically justifiable scientific
protocol. So, I really hope I don't catch it from those of you who feel
inclined to give me a lesson in those technicalities. I understand that.
We need to see and admit that we have a problem which requires due diligence
on our part to make sure these distinctions between data (*evidence*) and
speculation (the *just-so stories*) remains clear at all times.
>
>Does anyone else concur here?
>
>
>Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE