Re: macro-evolution

Brian D. Harper (bharper@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:06:34 -0400

At 08:19 PM 4/20/96 -0400, Jim Hopper wrote:
>Brian wrote:
>
>>Since I am primarily an experimentalist I tend to view facts
>>as analogous to experimental data, or observations if you
>>will. There is tremendous evidence that macro-evolution has
>>occurred.
>

JH:==========
>Interesting claim. Could you point me to some sources which make a good
>case for this? I would be interested in reading them. What is your
>definition of macro-evolution?
>

First, I don't want to get too caught up in definitions, so I'll
loosely define macro-evolution as the origin of novelty. New
body plans, structures etc. Other things might qualify as
macro-evolution as well and there may be many gray areas to
argue about, but hopefully everyone agrees that the origin
of novel structures, morphologies, body plans or whatever
is macro-evolution.

One reason I mentioned my own view on "facthood" is that it
is undoubtedly tainted by my being an experimentalist :). I have
found in the past the it is too rigid for most people's tastes.
For example, according to my view I would have to say that the
orbital period of pluto is not a fact ;-). Nevertheless I
would take macro-evolution to be a fact because I consider
the fossil record to be part of the "data". True, we have
not directly observed most of the organisms contained in the
record but surely we can agree that it is a fact that these
organisms existed. If we agree on this then the facthood of
macro-evolution follows immediately. As we go back in time,
organisms change tremendously. There are features present in
organisms today that have not always been present. Thus we
establish the origin of novelty.

I know you probably want to protest vehemently against this :).
The motivation for my original question was to point out the
difference between fact and theory. The purpose of a theory
of evolution is try to explain these facts. There is a
tendency to start accusing evolutionists of being sneaky
with words at this point, for example I think Hugh Ross
refers to this as "the shell game of evolution". One reason
for including the plasticity analogy is to show that this
type of distinction between fact and theory is not unique
to evolutionists. I would dare say it occurs in all of science.

========================
Brian Harper | "I can't take my guesses back
Associate Professor | That I based on almost facts
Applied Mechanics | That ain't necessarily so"
Ohio State University | -- Willie Nelson
========================