>SJ>My point was that do we know that with species with similar
>>genotypes that the same degenerations could occur due to similar
>conditions. This is the explanation given for parallel evolution by
>>Darwinists. If it can work at the genotype level, why not at the
>phenotype level?
>>
>SC>I don't think that this is accurate. First, "species with similar
>>genotypes" is rather vague, so I am not sure what, if anything, this
>>qualification means.
>
>It means what it says. We are talling about primates and man.
>
>SJ>Second, it is not necessarily true that the "same
>>degenerations" (genetic changes perhaps?) occur due to similar conditions.
>
>I didn't say it was "necessarily" true.
No you didn't say "necessarily", but the point is that similar selective
pressure on "species with similar genotypes" would rarely produce
independently arising identical genetic changes. The results of genetic
alterations (i.e., phenotype) in such species under such conditions may be
identical, but the responsible genotype is not likely to be identical. This
is shown repeatedly in microevolutionary models.
This was my point.
>>SC>On the other hand, if identical 'defects' in the gene were shared
>>by different primate species, here, I should have added, "and not
>>shared by guinea pigs, it would almost certainly be due to common
>>inheritance.
>>
>>SJ>I disagree with the "almost certainly" bit. It could equally be by
>>common design. Even if it was by "common inheritance", this does not
>>prove that Darwinist mechanisms were the cause. These need to be
>>proved in their own right.
>>
>SC>Prove common inheritance "in its own right".
>
>No. I said prove *Darwinian mechanisms* in their own right.
>
>SC>This is in part, why logical
>>positivism failed. They demanded direct sensory evidence as the only
>>credible way to know something. Thus, they discarded the atomic model as
>>false. No one can see atoms. Amazingly, science still proceeds onward.
>
>I never said anything about "direct sensoty evidence". You try to put
>a lot of words into my mouth, Steven.
Then please explain what you mean by "in its own right". It sounds very
positivistic to me, and positivism relies on sensory evidence. But perhaps
I miss your meaning.
>
>SC>It's interesting that you seem to require the same level of "proof"
>>as the positivists.
>
>This is your own straw man, Steven. I suspect you are still working on
>a YEC stereotype of me.
No, I understand that you are not in the YEC school, but read on and I'll
try to explain further.
>SC>Your rhetoric is also one sided in that you
>>demand more proof than you are willing to offer yourself.
>
>First it is not "rhetoric". Second, it is *you* that are trying to
>propound a common ancestry theory. I don't need to provide
>*prrof* that it isn't true.
>
>SC>You can accept "truth" on the basis of a human understanding of the
>>scriptures, but not of a human understanding of the creation. You
>>demand visible proof for knowledge of the creation
>>that comes from studying it directly, yet do not require such positivistic
>>evidence for knowledge of the creation that may come from bibilical
>>interpretation.
>
>It is you who are building this "positivist" straw man, Steven. Have
>fun knowcking it down! <g>
This certainly sounds like rhetoric.
First, I really haven't propounded anything in this debate. I have tried to
explain how different information that might be obtained from examining the
molecular genetics of the vitamin C defect might be used in this debate, and
to point some misconceptions you seemed to have about molecular genetics and
mutation and phenotypes.
Second, there is no "proof" of evolution. If you, rightly, consider
evolution to only be a theory, then it is important to remember that
theories, by definition, have not been proven. There are data that are both
consistent and inconsistent with evolution, neither are sufficient to
"prove" or "disprove" the model.
Remember, I am more interested in the nature of the debate, than in its
outcome, so I am reluctant to defend evolution. In fact I don't know enough
about it to mount a credible defense or offense. In this debate, however, I
find that your philosophy of science, NOT the science itself, that appears
to be very similar to that of YEC's. Both of you demand "proof for
evolution in its own right". This sounds positivistic to me and positivism
places emphasis on sensory data. This is my understanding and this is what
rhetorically refer to as "putting words in your mouth".
Further, as I mentioned above, evolution is not proven, and perhaps not
provable, but that alone doesn't distinguish it from any other theory. It
is, therefore, unfair to demand definitive proof for evolution theory. It
would, however, be fair to demand proof from someone who claims evolution is
true, but I've never said that.
Another similarity between both YEC and PC critiques of evolution is the way
you treat the anomalies between the empirical data and the theory. Science
has long operated by not automatically discarding a theory for this reason
(this is Kuhn's view of paradigm shifts). As I posted in another
discussion, when presented with anomalous data, one has several choices: 1.
collect more data; 2. invoke an alternative theory; 3. discard the theory.
There are no rules for knowing which route to pursue or when to change
approaches.
Finally, it is true that any collection of data will support several
alternative theories. This fact says nothing about the validity of the
different theories.
So, in summary, I have two comments to your demand to "prove evolution in
its own right". First, currently it can't be done. Second, it is unfair to
require this level of proof for evolution and not for progressive creation.
If you agree on this, then I have to point out that PC also cannot yet be
proven and that I have not heard you ask for it to be proven "in its own right".
>>SC>The genetic data I postulated above would be consistent with the
>>proposed mechanism of evolution by common descent, and would provide
>>no reason to discard the evolutionary hypothesis (which is the best
>>claim that any experiment can legitimately make). You are correct
>>that the data would also be compatible with common design, but also
>>with martians molding us out of clay, firing us in ovens and
>>sprinkling us with magic dust to become animate.... The problem with
>>the last two explanations, is that they are only metaphysical and not
>>mechanistic.
>>
>>Agreed. But then so is Darwinism "metaphysical", at least according
>>to Popper.
>>
>SC>Darwinism, the interpretation, is metaphysical. Evolution is still
>>a legitimate scientific concept. The two are not automatically
>>inclusive.
>
>I disagree. Fossils are facts. Evolution is a metaphysical theory to
>account for the facts.
This is incorrect. Evolution and natural selection represent valid
scientific hypotheses to explain how the different species arose, just as
much as the theory of design does. However, to make conclusions about the
existence or character of a creator based either on the empirical evidence
or as part of the scientific theory itself, is metaphysics.
Anti-evolutionists may disagree on this with regard to evolution theory, and
anti-creationists may disagree on this with regard to design theory, but
both theories can be presented without invoking metaphysical constraints.
If you insist that evolution theory is not separable from metaphysics and is
not a legitimate scientific concept, then you have to accept that design
thoery also is unseparable from metaphysics and is also not legitimate
science. I must clarify that my position does not exclude so-called world
views from science. World-views can affect which of several theories one
prefers, or the interpretation of the theory.
>SJ If science can address "descent" (which is unobservable,
>>unrepeatable and untestable), why can it not address "design" which
>>has the same characteristics?
>>
>SJ>This is the positivistic argument again.
>
>No its not. It is anti-positivist.
It sounds as if you are criticizing evolution for being unobservable, that
is positivism.
I have not claimed that science can or cannot address design.
>SC>I go back to the atomic theory model. Atoms and their components
>>cannot be directly observed either, yet
>>the model is widely accepted and useful because certain predictions can be
>>made and tested. Since it would likely be difficult to observe a 15 million
>>year evolution of whales or whatever, one relies on indirect
investigation. >>It is legitimate science. Demand the same thing from design.
SJ
>The same thing applies to design.
Then you must realize that the criticisms you lay on evolution science apply
to design science, and if you insist that evolution be proven "in its own
right", then design must meet a similar criterion, which I don't believe
either can yet do. If you don't want to throw out design because no one
rises to the challenge to "prove" it on its own merits, then don't expect to
be able to so readily dismiss evolution because no one rises to a similar
challenge.
>SC>If you agree that data collection and interpretation are different,
>>separate your rhetoric.
>
>I am not using "rhetoric" Steven. I do not rule out common ancestry
>in primates, since they could have been a "basic kind" under a
>Progressive Creation model. However, I would like more convincing
>evdidence that the common vitamin C deficiency was not due to a common
>design or common degeneration from an existing design.
>
>For example, I have read that not all primates have this vitamin C
>deficiency and at least one non-primate has it. Is this true?
I have tried to point out that molecular information regarding the cause of
the vitamin C defect might be informative. If all primates are not able to
synthesize vitamin C, that alone may be interesting and informative. I
don't know anything about the genetics of Vitamin C and have not found
anything about this in my textbooks. I believe that whoever started this
discussion mentioned that guinea pigs do not make vitamin C. this, I think,
was attributed to a defect in the same gene as found defective in primates.
I hope your surgery was a success and you are mending rapidly. Now that you
have a good deal of time on your hands, please be gentle with those of us
whose lives are not so leisurely.
Shalom
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "It is the glory of God to conceal a
Madison, WI 53792 matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter."
____________________________________________________________________________