Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Wednesday, March 3 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1322
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:22:39 -0700
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1321
The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Tuesday, March 2 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1321
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 06:44:56 -0500
From: Steven Schimmrich <sschimmr@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
Tim Ikeda wrote, in reply to Jason Bodester, that:
>
>> Just one question regarding what is considered true science. I saw
>> this statement in a recent posting:
>> "Bottom line - it ain't science without the numbers"
>
> Ernst Mayr might suggest that this is "physics"-centric view of science.
> One can "do science" without numbers. That depends on the nature of the
> question. Numbers and quantification can be nice to have, but they're not
> everything. I'd say "it ain't science without the method".
That statement was made in response of armchair theorizing by some people
regarding the flood. Whenever a difficulty was broght up with their flood
model, they would start proposing ad hoc explanations as to how their model
could still be saved.
Geological explanations for data may not always look like they're supported
by "numbers" but they are in the sense that geological explanations for data
must not violate known physical laws and principles. The statement "it ain't
science without the numbers" was not proposed as a literal statement (I guess
some on this list can't help interpreting everything literally :) but as a claim
that "numbers" support geological explanations because geological explanations
rely upon more quantitative work done in physics, chemistry, etc.
An example. We see deformed rocks in some particular region. The standard
geological explanation for the formation of these rocks involves large-scale
horizontal tectonic forces acting on deeply-buried rocks over long periods of
tme. The "flood geologist" proposal is large-scale unspecified forces acting
on soft sediments over a very short period of time. Why is one explanation
scientific and the other is not? Because the scientific explanation of rock
deformation, among other things, is supported by tons of data on rock mechanics
- - -- work done by thousands of geologists and engineers in laboratories around
the world on the strength and rheological behavior of rocks. On the other hand,
the "flood geology" model is unsupported by this type of data because we know
that soft sediments physically can't deform in such ways as we see rocks
deformed
in the field. They have to resort to proposing "unknown or yet-undiscovered
processes." That's why I suggest the standard geological explanation is
supported
ultimately by numbers (even if you don't directly see the numbers in the
geological
explanation -- they're there in the foundation of physics, chemistry, etc. that
the geologist relies upon).
- - - Steve.
- - --
Steven H. Schimmrich Assistant professor of geology
Department of Geology and Geography sschimmr@calvin.edu (office)
Calvin College schimmri@earthlink.net (home)
3201 Burton Street SE 616-957-7053, 616-957-6501 (fax)
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/
- ------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:38:58 -0700
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1320
The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Monday, March 1 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1320
- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:07:24 -0600
From: "Jeffrey W. Zents" <jzents@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Flood Model, batholiths, and science
Karen,
I have been trying to follow your interesting discussion with Steve as time
permits. I was reviewing the exchanges and saw something here that I wanted
to get your response to. You mention certain "unknown" factors that would
affect the ocean boiling/not boiling while certain heat processes were going
on. Are these natural factors? Or are they divine intervention? Since you
defend a YEC view (please forgive me if I misunderstand your position) why
are you trying to find natural factors to explain dinosaur deposits (they
way they are sorted etc). Given the model that you hold why not chalk it up
to God and have done?
My concern is twofold. If you are able to give explanations of the sorting
and deposits within a YEC flood model would that not result in this: we now
have a fully understandable cataclysm. A natural one to boot. Is that what
YEC wants? If we have a flood that is completely understandable in terms of
natural processes, would not have simple done nothing more than a paradgm
shift in science. How would that assert the reality of God's judgement on a
sinful world? And if you allow divine intervention to get you over the
gaps, how do you control that so that the appeal to divine intervention is
principled ? In other words, how does one allow the divine into a theory of
history (natural or otherwise) and still be assured that appealing to divine
action is not used simply to overcome theory weaknesses? I understand that
many defenders of ID or YEC say that this problem has an answer, but I have
yet to find it. Can you point me to what you think is a good response to
the problem.
- - - -----Original Message-----
From: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
[mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Karen G. Jensen
Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 5:51 PM
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Flood Model, batholiths, and science
Dear Steve,
You wrote:
>>> 2. The occurrence of igneous plutons and batholiths within Phanerozoic
>>> sedimentary strata of such a size as to require, using standard
>>> thermodynamic calculations, that the bodies would take tens of
>>>millions
>>> of years to cool (depending upon their size, of course). How does
>>> one have rapid sedimentation with a thick gabbroic sill in the
middle
>>> of the package of sedimentary rocks?
>>
>> Glenn has shared some of his calculation on this, and others have offered
>> alternative viewpoints. I am no geophysicist, but I know that water
>> conducts heat well, and there are many earth processes that require
>> tremendous amounts of heat. Clearly the oceans have not boiled away in
>> the past. The marine environment has been stable enough to maintain
life,
>> despite extensive extinctions. And land areas (if they took tens of
>> millions of years to cool, would they be devoid of life all that time?)
>> have supported its biota as well. I don't think we have all the
answers
>> about heat balance.
>
> You can't address this. Fair enough but it HAS to be addressed. Where
are
>the young-earth creationist or flood model creationist igneous
petrologists?
>This is a real (and fatal, in my opinion) problem with your idea about a
>global
>flood. Bottom line - it ain't science without the numbers.
>
True, I don't have the answers. But does lack of answers mean no science?
To me, it means research opportunities. The position I hold leads me to
suggest that calculations indicating that the oceans would boil away, etc.
are missing some major factors. At this point I don't know what those
factors are, but I am open to finding them. This is no more unscientific
(and possibly less unscientific) than paleontologists looking for missing
links, or astronomers looking for "dark matter". I have a different
paradigm of science, but that doesn't mean it is non-science.
Karen
- - ------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:39:52 -0500
From: "Bodester" <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Def'n of Science
Just one question regarding what is considered true science. I saw this
statement in a recent posting:
"Bottom line - it ain't science without the numbers"
What exactly is science defined as? As I understand the scientific method,
in order to establish something indisputably, it must be replicable. Where
does this leave much of the investigation into the distant past with issues
such as evolution/creation?
Don't get me wrong, I am not against examining the evidence we have now, but
I sometimes wonder 'just how much can we actually establish?' I hear people
assume evolution has been proven, and others saying it's been disproven: is
either statement valid? CAN either be?
I'm just looking for your reactions.
Jason
- - ------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 08:48:20 +1100
From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
Greeting Jason
Bodester wrote:
> Just one question regarding what is considered true science. I saw this
> statement in a recent posting:
> "Bottom line - it ain't science without the numbers"
Numbers by themselves are not science. What matters is how they are used and
the conclusions drawn from them. Mathematics is more important in some sciences
than others.
> What exactly is science defined as? As I understand the scientific method,
> in order to establish something indisputably, it must be replicable. Where
> does this leave much of the investigation into the distant past with issues
> such as evolution/creation?
Science is a very difficult thing to define. It is hard to get a definition
that pleases everybody because of the diversity of things we call science.
Trying to avoid amusing but unhelpful definitions like "science is what I do", I
have erected the following taxonomy.
There are several major complementary ways of knowing: aesthetic, theological,
philosophical, and scientific, for example. Within science I see five major
families: theoretical (mathematics), experimental (physics, chemistry),
observational (ecology, astronomy), historical (geology, archaeology), and human
(sociology, anthropology). These families are not exclusive, there are
overlaps, such as theoretical physics (theoretical and experimental), radar
astronomy (observational and experimental), and history (human and historical).
Much of the "scientific method" of each family is specific to it, but there are
some common themes. These include the fundamental assumptions that the universe
is both real and intelligible, recognition that speculation must be constrained
by observation (or mathematical proof) a commitment to reasoned investigation,
communication of results, methods, and interpretation to the scientific
community, and the verifiability of results.
Within my field of historical science, these principles work out as follows.
To do geology we must assume that the past is real and can be understood through
its material relics. Rocks are not ink blots into which we can read what we
will, but have particular characteristics which constrain our interpretation.
Our work must be rational and communicated to the geological community, and must
be in principle by verifiable by others. If we have done our work well other
geologists must be able to make the same observations and draw the same
conclusions.
> Don't get me wrong, I am not against examining the evidence we have now, but
> I sometimes wonder 'just how much can we actually establish?' I hear people
> assume evolution has been proven, and others saying it's been disproven: is
> either statement valid? CAN either be?
I believe there is a hierarchy of "proof" in the historical science. For
example, there are many Tertiary limestones in southern Australia. A great deal
of work was done on them in the 50's and 60's. Their stratigraphy and lithology
was described and their fossil content and chemistry documented. They were
generally interpreted as being deposited at shelf depths in a large embayment
with little terrigenous sediment supply. Overall the environment was thought
to have been warm and tropical the Bahamas or Persian Gulf. These were the
main modern limestone environments generally known at that time. More recently
(in the last 15 years) geologists have recongised that limestones are also
deposited in cool water, such as the modern southern Australian continental
margin. The Tertiary limestones of the region reflect the characteristics of
these cool-water carbonates much more closely than they do those of tropical
regions. Thus the proof that water temperatures of southern Australia were
tropical has been disproved, based as it was on an inadequate model. Other
aspects of the model - shelf depths, deposition in an embayment, low sediment
supply etc., were not effected by this interpretation.
The situation is much the same with organic evolution. The fundamental basic
observation of evolution - common descent with modification, is well established
by a range of independent data. There are several plausible mechanisms,
including Darwinian evolution. The degree to which each of the mechanisms is
responsible for the pattern is a matter for exploration and discussion. Some
aspects, such as Proterozoic evolution are inherently difficult to determine,
because of limited data. Satisfactory models for biochemical complexity are
another problem. Such questions provide the agenda for future research. For
example, more than 3000 papers have been published on biochemical evolution
since 1965, compared with only 1000 before.
>
>
> I'm just looking for your reactions.
>
Hope this helps
> Jason
God Bless
Jonathan
- - ------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:55:18 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Def'n of Science
You wrote: What exactly is science defined as? As I understand the scientific
method,
in order to establish something indisputably, it must be replicable. Where
does this leave much of the investigation into the distant past with issues
such as evolution/creation?
Science does not say that the actual events are replicable but that the
observations are replicable.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against examining the evidence we have now, but
I sometimes wonder 'just how much can we actually establish?' I hear people
assume evolution has been proven, and others saying it's been disproven: is
either statement valid? CAN either be?
Science does not deal in absolute proof. But I would be interested in the
evidence that disproved evolution.
- - ------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:23:46 -0500
From: "Bodester" <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
>>Don't get me wrong, I am not against examining the evidence we have now,
but
>>I sometimes wonder 'just how much can we actually establish?' I hear
people
>>assume evolution has been proven, and others saying it's been disproven:
is
>>either statement valid? CAN either be?
>Science does not deal in absolute proof. But I would be interested in the
evidence that disproved evolution.
So would I in fact. I do think scientists, although not dealing with
absolutes, should be very careful in what they proclaim as truth. With the
issue of the list especially, there are many counterexamples to go with the
examples given by either side of these debates, and unless many or most of
these are accounted for I would say it shouldn't be called truth, possible
or probable maybe, but not truth. I understand how science points to the
past and what happened, but I also understand that we are quite fallible and
our interpretations may easily be off-base.
If you disagree, please speak up. I love being challenged in my beliefs!
Jason
- - ------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:30:22 -0500
From: Tim Ikeda <tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
Bodester (jbode77@ursa.calvin.edu)
Jason:
> Just one question regarding what is considered true science. I saw
> this statement in a recent posting:
> "Bottom line - it ain't science without the numbers"
Ernst Mayr might suggest that this is "physics"-centric view of science.
One can "do science" without numbers. That depends on the nature of the
question. Numbers and quantification can be nice to have, but they're not
everything. I'd say "it ain't science without the method".
> What exactly is science defined as? As I understand the scientific
> method, in order to establish something indisputably, it must be
> replicable.
Can we imagine no event or outcome which cannot be replicated and yet
can be established indisputably? I've performed experiments for which
the outcomes were difficult if not impossible to replicate. However,
I was able to determine the steps which lead to the result.
> Where does this leave much of the investigation into the distant
> past with issues such as evolution/creation?
Everything happens in the past, at least by the time one notices.
What distinguishes the near past from the distant past? Perhaps
the quality of physical evidence. I suspect that the evidence
for common descent can be quite good at times.
> Don't get me wrong, I am not against examining the evidence we
> have now, but I sometimes wonder 'just how much can we actually
> establish?' I hear people assume evolution has been proven, and
> others saying it's been disproven: is either statement valid?
> CAN either be?
See Ernst Mayr's "The Growth of Biological Thought", or Elliot Sober's
"Philosophy of Biology". And try working it out for yourself.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com
- - ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1320
********************************
- ------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 14:12:12 -0600
From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
At 06:23 PM 2/28/99 -0500, Bodester wrote:
>So would I in fact. I do think scientists, although not dealing with
>absolutes, should be very careful in what they proclaim as truth. With the
>issue of the list especially, there are many counterexamples to go with the
>examples given by either side of these debates, and unless many or most of
>these are accounted for I would say it shouldn't be called truth, possible
>or probable maybe, but not truth. I understand how science points to the
>past and what happened, but I also understand that we are quite fallible and
>our interpretations may easily be off-base.
This view, that there are inherent limitations behind historical knowledge,
sounds like something from the Scottish philosopher, David Hume. Hume used
this to caution against the historical claims of the Bible.
Being from Calvin College, Jason, how do you reconcile your caution
regarding the historical claims of evolution science and the historical
claims of the Bible?
Steve
- ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1321
********************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:05:17 -0600
From: nroys@district125.k12.il.us (Neal K. Roys)
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
Jonathan Clarke wrote:
>Science is a very difficult thing to define.
>I have erected the following taxonomy.
[....]
>and the verifiability of results.
The two glaring omissions in Jonathan's taxonomy are the words
"testability" and "falsifiability."
Marxism and Freudianism, which came out about the same time as Darwinism,
were originally thought to be sciences. But when it was realized that they
weren't testable, they were relegated to the realm of philosophy.
You can know if something is testable or not by checking to see if *both* a
verification scenario *and* and falsification scenario exist.
Generally evolution education intoxicates students with verification
scenarios and never even defines what the falsification scenario looks
like. Consequently, no test could ever falsify evolution because
falsification is undefined.
Does anyone here have a *falsification* scenario for the following claim?
"The cambrian explosion was caused by ____________(fill in here your
naturalistic mechanism of choice)"
If no falsification scenario exists then instead of being categorized as
science, Punctuated Equillibrium is an untestable philosophical claim.
A speculation.
Neal Roys
Math Teacher
Stevenson High School
Lincolnshire, IL
Youth Pastor
Vineyard Community Church
Mundelein, IL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:12:50 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
At 07:05 AM 3/2/99 -0600, Neal wrote:
>Jonathan Clarke wrote:
>
>>Science is a very difficult thing to define.
>
>>I have erected the following taxonomy.
>
>[....]
>
>>and the verifiability of results.
>
>The two glaring omissions in Jonathan's taxonomy are the words
>"testability" and "falsifiability."
>
>Marxism and Freudianism, which came out about the same time as Darwinism,
>were originally thought to be sciences. But when it was realized that they
>weren't testable, they were relegated to the realm of philosophy.
>
But Darwinism was not. Really, what's your point?
>You can know if something is testable or not by checking to see if *both* a
>verification scenario *and* and falsification scenario exist.
>
>Generally evolution education intoxicates students with verification
>scenarios and never even defines what the falsification scenario looks
>like. Consequently, no test could ever falsify evolution because
>falsification is undefined.
>
This is illogical. Even if one granted the intoxication bit of
rhetoric, it doesn't follow that evolution cannot be falsified.
Many attempts to falsify evolution were made in the past.
Refer to a history of science book for details.
>Does anyone here have a *falsification* scenario for the following claim?
>
>"The cambrian explosion was caused by ____________(fill in here your
>naturalistic mechanism of choice)"
>
>If no falsification scenario exists then instead of being categorized as
>science, Punctuated Equillibrium is an untestable philosophical claim.
>
I'm curious why the switch to PE? Is this an anticipated "naturalistic
mechanism of choice" to fill in the blank? If so, then this may be
a source of confusion. PE itself is not a mechanism but a pattern.
Mechanisms would be proposed in an attempt to explain this pattern.
The way to test PE is just to go and look for the pattern. If its
not there then PE has been falsified.
>A speculation.
>
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"He who establishes his arguments
by noise and command shows that
reason is weak" -- Montaigne
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 08:34:12 +1100
From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
Hi Neal
I don't recall seeing you before, so if you are new, welcome.
Neal K. Roys wrote:
> Jonathan Clarke wrote:
>
> >Science is a very difficult thing to define.
>
> >I have erected the following taxonomy.
>
> [....]
>
> >and the verifiability of results.
>
> The two glaring omissions in Jonathan's taxonomy are the words
> "testability" and "falsifiability."
You are quite right. However I was trying to encapsulate these two useful
concepts in the term "verifiability". If this was clumsy of me, I apologise.
I plead writing before breakfast in a state of hypocaffeinaemia and
hypoglycemia (as I am now).
> Marxism and Freudianism, which came out about the same time as Darwinism,
> were originally thought to be sciences. But when it was realized that they
> weren't testable, they were relegated to the realm of philosophy.
These may be philosophical systems but I think philosophers would be somewhat
irate at the thought that the criteria for something being "only" a
philosophical system was that it was not testable!
> You can know if something is testable or not by checking to see if *both* a
> verification scenario *and* and falsification scenario exist.
We must be very careful with falsification. Explanatory power is of equal or
greater importance. Omnipotent explanatory theories are to be avoided,
however. They explain everything and thereby nothing. It is very easy to use
Popper naively, and its utility declines as the scope of the theory increases.
For example:
hypothesis: this rock is a limestone
test: does it fizz when you put 10% HCl on it?
answer: yes (it is a limestone) OR no (it is not a limestone)
At this level Popper works superbly is falsifiability is a vital winnowing
tool.
More complex theories are pose greater difficulties.
hypothesis: The XYZ formation is a lacustrine shale (based on sythesising a
wide range of evidence)
test: certain marine fossils (sharks, forams) are then found in the XYZ
formation.
Does this falsify the lacustrine hypothesis? In theory yes, in practice on
possibly. The lacustrine hypothesis was formulated (in this case) because of a
considerable body of evidence, there might be ways of getting marine sharks and
forams in lacustrine sediments (bull sharks, a marine species, live in central
american fresh water lakes, a marine foram lives in Lake Eyre in central
Australia). The explanatory power of the lacustrine hypothesis is such that a
certain amount of inconsistencies can be accepted. Only to a point of course.
If more and more evidence for non-lacustrine conditions turn up in the XYZ
Formation then alternative explanations must be sort.
A real example is Newtonian gravity. I understand this was falsified quite
early on by its inability to account for the motions of Mercury. Newtonian
gravitation persisted for several reasons, lack of an alternative (until
Einstein) and it's explanatory power. It explained so much that it had to be
a good approximation and the motions of Mercury were aberrations that needed
further research. Should Newtonian gravity been rejected when the motion of
Mercury falsified it? No. Should it provided an agenda for further research?
Yes. The motion of Mercury was one of the problems that led to relativity and
the success of relativity in explaining it was a major demonstration of it's
success.
> Generally evolution education intoxicates students with verification
> scenarios and never even defines what the falsification scenario looks
> like. Consequently, no test could ever falsify evolution because
> falsification is undefined.
>
> Does anyone here have a *falsification* scenario for the following claim?
>
> "The cambrian explosion was caused by ____________(fill in here your
> naturalistic mechanism of choice)"
>
Easy! "The cambrian explosion was caused by mass extinction of the proceeding
vendobionts, leaving vacant niches". This is testable by looking at the
stratigraphic distribution of vendobionts (Ediacara fauna) and the Cambrian
fauna (I believe this hypothesis has been falsified). or "The cambrian
explosion was caused by changes in global ocean chemistry allowing
biomineralisation". This is more difficult to establish a casual link, but you
would look to see if there are any changes in global ocean chemistry from the
Late Neoproterozoic into the Cambrian, as reflected by its proxies (abundance
of chert, , ironstones, phosphorites, carbonates, carbonate mineralogy and
chemistry, carbon, oxygen isotopes, etc.) etc., etc. etc.
> If no falsification scenario exists then instead of being categorized as
> science, Punctuated Equillibrium is an untestable philosophical claim.
>
> A speculation.
Punctuated equilibrium is a methodologically easily, though labour intensive,
to falsify. You just have to collect enough case studies of the duration of
speciation events vs longevity of the species. As I recall, in the punctuated
equilibrium model, speciation events generally last for only 1-2% of the
species duration. claim. It can also be tested experimentally by ecological
studies of the rate of evolutionary change over successive generations it
takes to adapt to a new niche. I recall reading recently (in New Scientist I
think) that in such studies something like 90% of adaptation occurs within a
1000 generations, followed by very slow and decreasing change thereafter, until
a new niche presents itself.
> Neal Roys
> Math Teacher
> Stevenson High School
> Lincolnshire, IL
> Youth Pastor
> Vineyard Community Church
> Mundelein, IL
God Bless
Jonathan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:14:26 -0600
From: nroys@district125.k12.il.us (Neal K. Roys)
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 at 11:12:50 -0800 Brian D Harper wrote:
>>[NR] Marxism and Freudianism, which came out about the same time as
>>>>Darwinism,were originally thought to be sciences. But when it was
>>realized that they weren't testable, they were relegated to the realm of
>>philosophy.
>>
>
>[BH] But Darwinism was not. Really, what's your point?
>
My point is that since the discovery of
1)the pattern of punctuated equilibrium
and
2)several biological examples of irreducible complexity, including that of
the bacteria's flagellum, which requires 50 proteins to form it's rotary
motor--any fewer and you have a broken flagellum, not a reduced function
flagellum
the conditions of Darwin's falsification scenario have been met. Therefore
*gradual* Darwinian macro-evolution should also be taught only in
philosophy classes along with Marxism.
>>[NR]You can know if something is testable or not by checking to see if
>>*both* >>a verification scenario *and* and falsification scenario exist.
>>
>>Generally evolution education intoxicates students with verification
>>scenarios and never even defines what the falsification scenario looks
>>like. Consequently, no test could ever falsify evolution because
>>falsification is undefined.
>>
>
>[BH] This is illogical. Even if one granted the intoxication bit of
>rhetoric, it doesn't follow that evolution cannot be falsified.
>
>Many attempts to falsify evolution were made in the past.
>Refer to a history of science book for details.
>
>>[NR] Does anyone here have a *falsification* scenario for the following claim?
>>
>>"The Cambrian explosion was caused by ____________(fill in here your
>>naturalistic mechanism of choice)"
>>
>>If no falsification scenario exists then instead of being categorized as
>>science, Punctuated Equilibrium is an untestable philosophical claim.
>>
>
>[BH] I'm curious why the switch to PE? Is this an anticipated "naturalistic
>mechanism of choice" to fill in the blank? If so, then this may be
>a source of confusion. PE itself is not a mechanism but a pattern.
>Mechanisms would be proposed in an attempt to explain this pattern.
>The way to test PE is just to go and look for the pattern. If its
>not there then PE has been falsified.
>
Punctuated Equilibrium *is* a pattern. But to date there is not even one
proposal for a testable mechanism that could have caused the PE pattern.
So without a testable mechanism, PE, and the macro-evolution it implies,
does not qualify as science. Give me a testable mechanism by which the PE
pattern occurred (please include the falsification scenario) and then we
can agree that macro-evolution is part of science.
Neal Roys
Math Teacher
Stevenson High School
Lincolnshire, IL
Youth Pastor
Vineyard Community Church
Mundelein, IL
Neal Roys
Math Teacher
Stevenson High School
Lincolnshire, IL
Youth Pastor
Vineyard Community Church
Mundelein, IL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 13:10:49 -0800
From: Cliff Lundberg <cliff@noevalley.com>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
Neal K. Roys wrote:
>Does anyone here have a *falsification* scenario for the following claim?
>
>"The cambrian explosion was caused by ____________(fill in here your
>naturalistic mechanism of choice)"
>
>If no falsification scenario exists then instead of being categorized as
>science, Punctuated Equillibrium is an untestable philosophical claim.
Any claim about the physical world, past or present, is testable,
in the general sense I think you mean. The *difficulty* of testing
or of observing is irrelevant; that you would need a time machine
is irrelevant. We might find that light waves from long ago had
somehow been recorded out in space etc; the point is that just
because something happened long ago does not mean it is in principle
not verifiable or falsifiable. The passage of time does not convert
a statment from physical fact (true or false) to philosophy.
Cliff Lundberg
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 23:32:47 -0500
From: Tim Ikeda <tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
Hello Neal, you wrote...
>>>[NR] Marxism and Freudianism, which came out about the same time as
>>>Darwinism,were originally thought to be sciences. But when it was
>>>realized that they weren't testable, they were relegated to the realm
>>>of philosophy.
Brian Harper replied:
>>[BH] But Darwinism was not. Really, what's your point?
>
>
> My point is that since the discovery of
>
> 1)the pattern of punctuated equilibrium
>
> and
>
> 2)several biological examples of irreducible complexity, including
> that of the bacteria's flagellum, which requires 50 proteins to
> form it's rotary motor--any fewer and you have a broken flagellum,
> not a reduced function flagellum
>
> the conditions of Darwin's falsification scenario have been met.
> Therefore *gradual* Darwinian macro-evolution should also be
> taught only in philosophy classes along with Marxism.
[Aside: PE and phyletic gradualism are not mutually exclusive...]
Hmmm. Observation #1 does not appear to imply any falsification
of Darwin's scenario. For example, that some organisms evolved via
a PE-like manner does not imply that *no intermediates* should be
found, only that such examples should be relatively rare. Again,
that's "rare", not non-existent.
Observation #2, irreducible complexity, is interesting but generally
not seen as a falsification of evolution (An aside: Even if some
"extranatural" agent did tinker with the early organisms on earth,
this does not rule out the possibility of subsequent "macro-evolution").
The fact is, irreducibly complex systems certainly can evolve, and
many of the parts found in the irreducibly complex systems cited by
your source show structural and sequence similarities to components
found elsewhere in the cell which perform different functions (FWIW,
If you investigate further, you'll find your source did not spend
much time discussing these particular observations). So in many cases,
there is evidence of ancestry even in irreducibly complex systems.
Whether the bacterial flagellum could have evolved remains an open,
& not shut question.
[...Brian Harper's comments deleted...]
> Punctuated Equilibrium *is* a pattern. But to date there is not
> even one proposal for a testable mechanism that could have caused
> the PE pattern.
Personally, I'm very skeptical about that claim. Perhaps you mean
something other than the "Punctuated Equilibria" which evolutionary
biologists talk about.
> So without a testable mechanism, PE, and the macro-evolution it
> implies, does not qualify as science.
Be careful about using the term, "puncuated evolution". I do not
think it implies the "macro-evolutionary", high levels of change
which I think you are trying to address.
> Give me a testable mechanism
> by which the PE pattern occurred (please include the falsification
> scenario) and then we can agree that macro-evolution is part of
> science.
Peripatric speciation?
See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html by Wesley Elsberry.
Again, I worry that discussions about PE are not necessarily relevant
to the questions you seem to have about "macro-evolution". For example,
let us propose that species-A shares a much more recent common ancestor
with species-B than with species-C. How might we test this macro-
evolutionary proposition? We could compare DNA or protein sequences.
We could examine the fossil record for the relative position and
timing of species emergence in the record. We could examine the
behavoir and ecological niches in which the species are found. In
short there can be many ways to examine "macro-evolutionary"
propositions which have little to do with the mechanisms of PE.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
"Evolutionary theory seems so simple almost anyone can misunderstand it"
- David Hull
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1322
********************************