>SJ:This is too loose. Creation could also be "the origin of novelty".
Yes, I think creation would be origin of novelty by definition. :-0
>SJ: What is the *unique*, non-circular, definition of "macro-evolution"
>
Theory or fact?
>BH>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.
>
>No. "everyone" does not "agree that the origin of novel structures,
>morphologies, body plans or whatever is macro-evolution." It is
>what evolutionists *claim* is "macro-evolution", but that is not the
>same as saying that these things *are* "macro-evolution". They could
>equally be progressive creation.
>
Please pay attention, Steve. I'm trying to explain the difference
between facts and the theories that seek to explain those facts.
>BH>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".
>
>SJ:The "fossil record" is the "fact", the evolutionists *interpretation*
>of that "fact" is "macro-evolution".
>
>BH>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.
>
>SJ:Which ones? Those we have not "directly observed"? If so, why is it
>"a fact that these organisms existed"?
>
I am talking about actual fossil remains that have been collected.
These fossil remains were once living organisms [hopefully you
agree?], most of which are now extinct and thus haven't been
observed.
>BH>If we agree on this then the facthood of macro-evolution follows
>>immediately.
>
>No. "macro-evolution" does not "follow" at all. It only "follows" if
>other alternatives (eg. creation) are apriori ignored and if gaps in
>the fossil record are filled in by imagination.
>
>BH>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.
>
>This is non-controversial. Of course there is an "origin of novelty"
>and of course "organisms change" over "time". But this is not
>necessarily "macro-evolution". It could be progressive creation, or
>even something completely unknown.
>
Again, we are looking at facts as opposed to theories. If there
is an origin of novelty and if organisms change over time then
evolution has occurred. This observation in and of itself says
nothing about whether a particular "theory" has been successful
in explaining the observation.
>BH>I know you probably want to protest vehemently against this :).
>
>SJ:I suspect Brian is aware of the question-begging nature of his
>argument.
>
It's only question begging if you confuse facts and theories.
>BH>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".
>
>SJ:Brian has just confirmed Ross' description of "evolution" as a "shell
>game"! :-) Note, I do *not* (an nor does Ross) accuse "evolutionists
>of being sneaky".
>
What are you saying then, that a person who engages in a shell game
is not being sneaky?
>BH>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.
>
>SJ:Well, since we are often assured that the majority of scientists are
>"evolutionists", that should not be surprising! :-)
>
I'm just trying to explain the terminology. I hope you aren't implying
that plasticians use this same terminology in order to help
evolutionary biologists conduct their shell game.
>SJ:Like James, I am still waiting for the "tremendous evidence that
>macro-evolution has occurred"! :-)
>
You've just admitted to it above, you just don't realize it yet ;-)
========================
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
========================