Our discussion has strayed (as it always does) from the original topic -- in
this case Popper's recantation. It has strayed even from "Darwinism" as
natural selection, and into new territory -- a wider view of Darwinism and
how to test it. Loren's posts are consistently thoughtful, so I offer a
response.
Loren writes:
>1) Here's an example of a testable prediction from modern Darwinism:
>Species within the same family/order should show a high degree of homology
>in their genes. Nearly every functional gene in one species should have a
>corresponding functional gene in the other species, performing a similar
>task.
Loren claims that a high degree of genetic homology is a "testable
prediction" of Darwinism. But it is not. For example, the Darwinists at
the turn of the century would not have recognized it as a necessary
prediction of Darwinism, and would not have considered Darwinism falsified
had a genetic homology failed to materialize. If those Darwinists would not
consider it a falsification, then at what point did that notion -- or
illusion -- creep in?
As I continually point out, evolutionists do not yet grasp the full power of
their theory -- how flexible and adaptable it is. Evolutionary theory is a
structureless smorgasbord whose enormous breadth and power they scarcely
acknowledge. This flexibility and expansive power is not a good thing, it
is precisely what makes their theory untestable.
Evolutionists from Darwin onward widely embraced the notion of genetic
throwbacks, atavisms, or what I call the masking and unmasking of genetic
libraries. Modern evolutionists STILL embrace this. And that process could
(conceptually) create genetic patterns dramatically at odds with what Loren
claims is a "prediction" of Darwinism. In other words, Loren's "prediction"
is not a prediction. It is not a test of Darwinism. It never was.
In truth, evolutionists adapted their theory to fit the data as the data
slowly came into view. Now you may claim that is an okay thing to do -- but
do not claim it is a prediction or a test, it isn't.
As the data came into view, evolutionists saw several general patterns:
1) a unifying pattern that links all life indelibly together as one
(evolution does NOT predict that),
2) absence of Lamarckian inheritance,
3) absence of transposition patterns,
4) absence of a masking/unmasking pattern (such as genetic throwbacks)
5) absence of gradual biological change expected in the fossil record,
6) absence of lineages and ancestors expected in the fossil record, and
7) abundance of "convergence", that is, traits so similar that they
demand
explanation, yet which CANNOT be explained by common descent,
transposition, or as genetic throwbacks!
In other words, evolutionists were faced with a biological pattern that
could hardly look less like evolution. Nonetheless they adapted their
theory to fit that data. They could have adapted their theory to countless
other patterns (and STILL could). Instead they adapted it to fit the
available data (of course). If contrary data were yet found, they could
adapt their theory again just by altering the blend of smorgasbord
mechanisms they CHOOSE to invoke.
The homology pattern that Loren discussed is not a test of evolution, it is
a test of creation. In effect, it gains its force by seeming impossible for
creation theory to address in any coherent way. Then, if the answer isn't
creation, it must be evolution. To most people it never mattered whether
evolution really predicted homology or not, because creation didn't seem to.
That is where _The Biotic Message_ comes in. It explains all these patterns
in a seamless, testable way. Life was designed not merely for survival. It
was designed to signal its origin from ONE designer, to look like the
product of a single designer -- and to resist all other interpretations of
origin. The "homology" pattern that Loren points to is key evidence of ONE
designer, and the general absence of evolutionary patterns is by design.
Loren continues:
>Moreover, there should be a mutational pathway, which does not
>diverge too much from straightforward parsimony reconstruction, in which
>every gene along the pathway codes for properly functioning products.
>(This type of testing is possible with our current technology, and is
>already being done for a few genes in a few labs.)
That is not a test. Why? If we do not observe the experimental result
expected by Loren, then evolutionists can always claim we haven't tried hard
enough or long enough. Loren has not identified any *observation* that
could conceivably refute evolution as false. He did the reverse! He
offered a situation that might help confirm evolutionary theory as true.
This is typical of so-called "tests" of evolution. They're phony, they
don't test evolution, they don't place it at risk.
The remainder of Loren's discussion (though nicely stated) offers the usual
evolutionary run-around. The usual run-around about a "central core theory"
versus "auxiliary hypotheses"; and "natural selection" versus "sexual
selection," etcetera. Lots to confuse the ordinary mortal, but none of it
shows any testability of evolutionary theory.
I must pounce on one last point:
>Darwinists' knack for creating new auxilliary hypotheses is
>frustrating to people who want to replace the entire paradigm,
>but it is nevertheless a proper practice of science.
The Darwinist's knack for creating new auxiliary hypotheses, (and for giving
people the run-around with countless multifarious definitions -- and
mis-definitions -- of their "core theory" versus the "auxiliary hypotheses")
is frustrating to ANYONE who wants to test evolution. Loren is trying to
blame evolution's untestability onto the "people who want to replace it."
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128