Re: macro-evolution

Brian D. Harper (bharper@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:00:04 -0400

At 03:21 PM 4/22/96 -0400, Jim Hopper wrote:
>Brian wrote:
>
>>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'm not sure we are discussing the same thing. Obviously over time new
>organisms have arrived. I agree that is a fact. The question is how did
>they arrive? When you say they evolved you are inferring a genetic
>relationship that cannot be proven from the fossil evidence. You see this
>as evidence of macro-evolution. I see it as evidence of God's creative
>activity.

I think we're making some progress towards understanding one
another, though perhaps not obvious at first :-). I agree that
the question "... how did they arive?" is the question everyone
is interested in :), it is also the question that a *theory*
seeks to address. What I am trying to illustrate here is the
difference between theories and facts.

Recall that I earlier made the bold statement that most
PC's are going to agree with the facthood of macro-evolution
[if this is not the case, hopefully some PC's will speak up
and let me know]. The question is, is there a theory of
evolution that adequately explains these observations?
Speaking as an interested layman, it seems to me that
the answer is no, even though we can certainly say that
a lot of progress has been made.

Finally, I have to complain somewhat about your final
sentence "You see this as evidence of macro-evolution.
I see it as evidence of God's creative activity."
Macro-evolution and God's creative activity are
not mutually exclusive descriptions.

========================
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
========================