BV>Hi Wesley, you asked:
WRE>What would be required in order for Berthajane to accept such
WRE>a claim?
BV>(that the existence of a line of common descent has been
BV>documented)
WRE>Would it require every fossil species in the lineage
WRE>being catalogued with no exceptions or gaps.
BV>All I can tell you, Wesley, is that it would take a lot more
BV>than presently exists.
Not everyone will be convinced even when sufficient evidence
is present. How do we distinguish the case where skepticism
is warranted from where inflexibility is operative if there is
no pre-formed agreement on what constitutes sufficient
evidence? In other words, how do we go about setting the
goal-posts in cement and remove them from the turbo-charged
portable platform that they currently seem to stand upon?
BV>You replied to a challenge to say something true about
BV>"evolution":
WRE>"- Patterns of differences in sequences of proteins and heritable
WRE>information support the idea that these differences have accrued
WRE>since the time of a last common ancestor."
BV>That such facts support common ancestry is certainly true. It
BV>might also support other scenarios, such as horizontal
BV>transfer, symbiosis. or the possibility that similar DNA
BV>results in similar morphology, and the genome itself has some
BV>unexplained ability to organize itself in similar, meaningful,
BV>purposeful, designs and patterns.
Horizontal transfer, if common, would tend to disrupt the
pattern of accrued differences that support the hierarchical
pattern expected from common ancestry. Symbiosis does not
affect this pattern. I don't think that the sort of
self-organization being referred to could masquerade as the
pattern specified by the expectations of common ancestry. If
Berthajane could take the cytochrome-c data that I have on
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html>
and show how, precisely, her scenario of self-organization
might fit it, then that would help me figure out what her
objection might be. Self-organization would not explain why
these patterns of differences appear to be in conformance with
common ancestry when the items being analyzed are sequences
from pseudogenes.
BV>I would also need to resolve the question of whether life
BV>is an anomaly which arose only once--on Earth-by accident.
Why?
BV>In which case, one common ancestor would be obvious. If on
BV>the other hand, life is the inevitable result of
BV>complexity, as Stuart Kauffman suggests, or as Michael
BV>Denton appears to believe, life is a natural phenomenon in
BV>the universe, life must have arisen many times. In that
BV>case one common ancestor (or even 3) would hardly be
BV>likely, would it?
Life can commonly arise without the necessity that it commonly
arise many times *in the same ecosystem*. The scenario
described conforms to a "winner-take-all" situation. Chemical
resources would exist prior to the first self-replicating
system that would thereafter be sequestered in instances of
that self-replicator. While not an absolute bar to further
novel self-replicating systems, it would certainly reduce the
likelihood of further ones arising.
BV>In your opinion, does common ancestry include an assumption
BV>that life only arose once? (or 3 times?)
I'm using "common ancestry" to refer to the situation where we
analyze data from a limited subset of organisms and infer that
they arise from a common ancestor. I use "common descent" to
refer to the theory that all life on earth is descended from
one or some limited number of ancestors. Like "special
creation", the meaning of "common descent" could be altered to
fit various scenarios. As formulated by Darwin, I would say
that "common descent" would be one or a few original forms,
and that Darwin probably meant less than ten for "a few". I
haven't seen anything to indicate that Darwin underestimated
the number of original forms.
WRE>. As it is,
WRE>creationist belief has tended more and more to resemble
WRE>evolutionary biology. In little more than a century and a
WRE>half, we have seen a change from general adherence to the
WRE>doctrine of special creation to a range of beliefs,
BV>You write in another post:
WRE>As I have discussed before, even YEC
WRE>usage of "special creation" has changed meaning such that
WRE>it has more and more come to resemble evolution, as in the
WRE>reduction over time of the number of claimed creation events
WRE>and in the definitions, where given, of "kinds". The single
WRE>common feature is that "special creation", where active,
WRE>leaves no empirical residue for examination that would
WRE>distinguish it from ordinary evolutionary biology.
BV>Yes, I believe theists have shown an ability to accommodate
BV>their beliefs to proven scientific reality. Are you
BV>disappointed that most "creationists" accept that finches'
BV>beaks change shape, moths change color, and bacteria
BV>develop immunity to antibiotics.
Berthajane is directed to
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/ea.html> for my
thoughts on who accepts what and which groups are larger or
smaller than others.
Some theists appear to be more flexible than others.
BV>The most important difference between present-day neo
BV>Darwinists and "creationists" has been the Darwinist
BV>insistence that evolutionary processes must be without
BV>plan, purpose or design.
Some, but not all, proponents of the modern synthesis do make
these claims. So far as science can tell, though, plan,
purpose, or design in biological phenomena is notable for not
being distinguishable on the evidence.
BV>wTo most people "design" in nature is obvious. However, it
BV>doesn't seem to be design to which most Darwinist object.
BV>Most of them object to the possibility of the existence of
BV>a designer.
Really? I'll have to ask Berthajane if she has any statistics
to support this last assertion. If so, how were the data
obtained? I'll accept 51% or better as substantiating the
"most" in that claim.
BV>The question of whether a designer exists should be
BV>irrelevant to science.
That isn't the line that Behe, Dembski, and the rest of the
Discovery Institute's Fellows of the Center for the Renewal of
Science and Culture have been pushing. They've been arguing
that biology is stymied by lack of a theory of design.
BV>Without that stumbling block, "creationism" and "evolution
BV>could closely resemble each other. I'm not sure the
BV>Darwinists will be as flexible as theists have proven to be.
I don't think that resemblance of concepts is affected by the
fact that not everyone subscribes to one or the other version.
Just because Richard Dawkins promotes Darwinian explanation
as an apologetic for atheism doesn't mean that the Pope does
not accept evolutionary explanations for the physical side of
biology.
As for flexibility, well, that will be decided upon by
history. The history that I've read of biological thought
over the past couple of centuries certainly doesn't lead
me to the conclusion that "Darwinists" are inflexible.
Your mileage may, and probably does, vary.
WRE>I think it devalues the term "critic" to apply it to any
WRE>opponent of a concept regardless of their knowledge or lack
WRE>of same concerning the concept in question.
BV>You shouldn't reply to "critics" you don't consider worthy
BV>of the term. I try not to.
I've been cutting back lately on my responses to the utterly
clueless. I have a few tens of gigabytes of acoustic data
awaiting analysis and people awaiting the results. This will
tend to limit my participation for the next few months. But
whether I consider someone "worthy" to receive the title of
"critic" or not does not make their activity less damaging to
science education. Where I can I will make time to intervene
so as to promote keeping science in science classrooms and
keeping pseudoscience out.
Wesley