>>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.
>
Then Kevin wrote:
>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.
>
Perhaps Kevin and I are not so far apart. What I am saying is that the
nested patterns observed in creation and systematized by cladistics are
consistent with evolutionary phylogenies. Now in my mind that makes them
evidence. Common ancestry may not be the only hypothesis consistent with
that evidence (e.g. common design is as well). The nested patterns are the
evidence. Surely no one will dispute that the nested patterns exist. The
question is "What is the best explanation (hypothesis, even inference) that
is made from that data?" My point is simply that the evolutionary
explanation is a perfectly good conclusion to be drawn from that data. It
may not be the best conclusion in everyone's mind, but it is supportive of
the evolutionary hypothesis.
Do we agree thus far?
In my mind, it is the preferred and even compelling conclusion given other
bits of evidence: progression of the fossil record, sequence "cladograms"
with knowledge of mechanisms of mutations and gene transmission,
pseudogenes, other biochemical arguments, biogeography, and other of the
classic arguments of evolution.
I'll briefly make the point that others have made even though Kevin asked
not to be instructed in the subtleties of the philosophy of science. I
don't think it's such a subtle issue, because I think it attributes to
other areas of science a "certainty" that they should not have. Even
atomic theory is an inference. There's lots of good evidence for it and we
all accept it, but the evidence is indirect (perhaps until the rise of AFM
or STM although even that's debatable in my opinion). The same could be
said for heliocentrism.
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt