>(Minor point: Walter also suggested that other hypotheses belong in the
>central core --- e.g. Lamarckian inheritance, genetic throwbacks,
>atavisms, transposition, convergence, sexual selection, "evolutionary
>progress." I did not include those in the "central core" because the
>relative importance of each of them has been debated. Some versions of
>evolution relied heavily on one or more of them, some versions only
>slightly, and some versions excluded some of them altogether. Since their
>relative importance has historically been a subject of debate, I think
>they properly belong in "auxilliary hypotheses" category.)
That is a central issue right there. Loren created a fictitious "central
core" of evolutionary theory, dramatically downsized from the real thing. A
transposition process was within Empeocles theory, a very ancient
evolutionary theory of origin. Other processes -- such as Lamarckian
inheritance, genetic throwbacks, atavisms, convergence, sexual selection --
were explicitly embraced by Darwin. Loren chooses to arbitrarily jettison
these from the central core "because the relative importance of each of them
has been debated." He overlooks that the "relative importance" is
determined by how a process matches (and therefore "explains") the data.
Let me describe it this way. The true "central core" of evolutionary theory
is a humungeous structureless smorgasbord. Evolutionists "make progress" by
comparing this smorgasbord with reality and throwing out those mechanisms
that don't fit. As they go along, they "learn more" and throw out more.
They call that "scientific progress", I look at ***the exact same thing***
and call it one, long retreat.
It's the same everywhere in evolutionary theory. How do we 'know' what we
know about the origin of life? Well, evolutionists know what doesn't work,
and what has been eliminated. And what is left is shaped into the current
vision of life's origin. When we discovered that an oxygenizing atmosphere
destroys organic compounds, evolutionists immediately suggested a different
atmostphere for the primitive earth. When that atmosphere and the
Miller-style pre-biotic experiments were made irrelevant, evolutionists
moved on to "crystalline clay" life, and to Crick's life-from-space --
directed panspermia. Or they moved to vague, almost mystical notions of
"self-organization". Evolutionists call that progress, I call it retreat.
I call it a rout.
>This is a serious point, and deserves a careful answer. I would suggest
>these four points:
>
> 1. An "historical" scientific theory cannot have greater empirical
> content than the observational and experimental sciences upon which
> it depends.
>
>Cosmology's predictive power is limited by the empirical accuaracy of
>particle theory and general relativity. "Historical" geology's predictive
>power is limited by knowledge of exact rates for various processes
>(erosion, uplift, drift, etc.)
Once again the usual diversions -- discuss anything except the testability
of evolution.
>In the past, evolution's auxilliary hypotheses (e.g. the elements of
>genetic information, the inter-relatedness of genetic information in
>determining morphology, the source of genetic variation, the frequency of
>mutations, mechanisms for reproductive isolation) have been very flexible
>BECAUSE OF the relatively weak empirical content of molecular biology,
>cellular biology, developmental biology, and ecology / population
>dynamics. This is changing, however, because the empirical content of
>those disciplines is starting to grow by leaps and bounds. As it does,
>the empirical content of evolutionary theory -- its ability to make
>testable predictions -- will also grow.
Loren makes an admission there, or starts to. I interpret him as admitting
that evolution never made serious testable predictions "BECAUSE OF the
relatively weak empirical content of molecular biology, [etc.]" But *that*
never stopped evolutionists from claiming (falsely) that their theory was
testable science. On the other hand, they consistently used testability as
a weapon against creation, and they used a double standard by not applying
it to their own theory. Loren appeals to the present, but that doesn't
allow evolutionists to escape their past. And evolutionists should own up
to it.
Molecular biology is growing in empirical content, and Loren therefore says
evolution's "ability to make testable predictions -- will also grow."
Well, I suppose it couldn't get any less. ... But Loren STILL hasn't
identified a test.
> 2. When an "historical" scientific theory lacks strong empirical
> bounds, it is proper to adjust its auxilliary hypotheses to match
> the available data.
>
>As new data became available, evolutionists PROPERLY selected certain
>natural mechanisms as being primarily important, while de-emphasizing or
>discarding certain others.
Still no test.
>Given these first two points, we could only test (and falsify) certain
>_specific_ versions of evolutionary theory. But can we test (and falsify)
>evolutionary theory _generally?_ That's were these points come into play:
>
>
> 3. The increasing empirical content of experimental sciences and the
> increasing amount of "historical" data (e.g. fossils, genetic homology
> information) both work to gradually decrease the flexibility of the
> auxilliary hypotheses.
Right. As naturalism retreats there is 'less' flexibility. But there is
still a whopping lot of flexibility. And still no test.
> 4. An "historical" scientific theory is tested insofar as the
> auxilliary hypotheses required to fit the "historical" data must
> not contradict the bounds set from the experimental sciences.
If Loren were serious about that, then evolution is already falsified. For
the evolutionary assumptions required to fit the historical data (e.g. the
wide gaps between fossil life forms) systematically contradicts the bounds
set from the experimental sciences.
But Loren already knew that, and by the time he is done re-interpreting his
statement there is no test whatever, it's a farce. Evolution -- as practiced
by its proponents -- is not at risk, there is no test.
>In practice, scientists do not wait for experimental science to set
>precise limits on auxilliary hypotheses before constructing "historical"
>theories. Predictions and constraints flow in both directions. For
>example, cosmological data sets a strong limit on the number of
>"generations" of quarks and leptons which can exist. If experimental
>particle physics finds more than 4 generations, the hypotheses of big-bang
>cosmology will have to be re-examined.
That's more diversion. No test of evolution there.
Finally Loren gets to discussing evolution:
>Frequently, data from "historical" observations PRECEDES experimental
>science in setting limits on auxilliary hypotheses. For example,
>consider a possible set of auxilliary hypotheses for evolution:
>
>Aa:
> 1) Morphologically significant non-lethal
> mutations are infrequent. (Say, less than 1 per 10^9 individuals
> per generation. Please note, I'm out of my expertise here, so the
> numbers I choose could be off by a few orders of magnitude.)
> 2) All such mutations affect at most one or two morphological
> characteristics.
> 3) Selection pressures operate to introduce a majority (>50%) of
> such non-lethal mutations into the general population.
> 4) Modern speciation almost always occurs within geographically united
> populations.
>
>Set (Aa) would, I believe, predict lots of evidence for
>morphologically _gradual_ evolution. Now consider another set:
>
>Ab:
> 1) Morphologically significant non-lethal
> mutations are frequent. (Say, greater than 1 per 10^6 individuals
> per generation.)
> 2) Most (>90%) such mutations affect more than two morphological
> characteristics.
> 3) Selection pressures operate to delete all but a small minority
> (<.01%) of such non-lethal mutations from large populations (>1000
> individuals).
> 4) Modern speciation almost always occurs within populations isolated
> geographically from the original population.
>
>Set (Ab) would, I believe, strongly favor a pattern of punc. eek.
>fossilization.
>
>Walter raised a very good point: Punc. eek. was not offered as a
>prediction on the basis of discovering (Ab) to be true. Punc. eek. was
>proposed _post_hoc_ to "explain" the fossil data. In effect, Punc. eek.
>"forced" (Ab) rather than being predicted by (Ab).
I have to disagree somewhat with Loren on a small point. Punc eek was
originated (was invented) to 'explain away' serious difficulties with the
fossil record. (1) The systematic large gaps between fossil life forms.
(Gould and Eldredge focused most on fossil "species", but examples in their
original paper indicates the life forms are far more disparate than mere
species level differences.) (2) The systematic absence of clear ancestors
and lineages. (3) The growing recognition that this could not be passed
off as merely the result of an incomplete fossil record.
Those three fossil facts, together with unwavering commitment to evolution,
I say, are enough to derive the postulates of punc eek. You could sit in a
room, with no other information, and derive the key postulates of punc eek.
(See my book for details.)
At any rate, punc eek is not a theory of genetic mechanism, and does not
force the set of four genetic postulates that Loren identified. They are
not essential to punc eek. They are window dressing. (Whenever
evolutionists want to show their theory is scientific, they gravitate to
population genetics. Curiously, population genetics offers no coherent
model that solves evolution's problems. Ask an evolutionary geneticist some
questions and you will get a huge run-around. Ah, but that is discussion
for another day.)
>But even though punc.
>eek was offered post-hoc, it serves to limit the empirical bounds of
>auxilliary hypotheses. Thus, it is "progressive" rather than
>"degenerative."
Punc eek is based on systematic fossil observations that could hardly look
LESS like evolution. In that sense it is completely degenerative.
>....
>Another way to refute punc. eek. is to show that the empirical data from
>molecular, cellular, developmental biology and observed cases of
>microevolution FAVOR set "Aa" (or something close to it) rather than "Ab."
That is a phony test on several counts. First, as I pointed out above, punc
eek is NOT tied indelibly to the four postulates "Ab", and can be viewed as
substantially (perhaps even completely) compatible with the postulates "Aa".
As I said before, punc eek is not primarily a genetic theory. I also point
out that many evolutionists today claim that punc eek is completely
compatible with gradualism ("Aa").
Second, Loren overlooks the historical facts about evolutionists themselves.
Evolutionists embrace ANY mechanism that seems to match (and therefore
"explain") the data -- genetic throwbacks, recapitulation (with its obscure
embryological processes of "terminal addition" and "acceleration"), and
large-scale convergence, to name a few. Evolutionists never have been
seriously impeded by their inability to demonstrate their mechanisms. The
PATTERN of the data itself becomes their main evidence for their smorgasbord
mechanisms. Likewise, the main evidence for punc eek is the three
anti-evolutionary patterns I identified above. Are evolutionists likely to
drop punc eek because they can't demonstrate it? Not likely ... so long as
the pattern remains. Evolutionists have demonstrated that with their own
history.
Third, Loren suggests that we might refute punc eek by showing that
microevolution "favors" gradualism (i.e. set "Aa"). Has punc eek ALREADY
failed that test? Yes. Or is Loren's "test" in reality so flexible as to
not be a test? Yes. ... We are immediately in never-never land. Is it
falsified? Or unfalsifiable? It's the same old run-around. Loren STILL
hasn't identified a test, certainly not even one that other evolutionists
would agree to. What genetic observation could we conceivably make to
falsify punc eek (that hasn't already falsified punc eek)?
>If the experimental/observational sciences eventually favor "Aa" while the
>fossil record / genetic homology data favor "Ab," evolutionary theory will
>be in serious danger. Whether or not it could be rescued would depend on
>whether or not additional progressive hypotheses could be constructed.
>
>Am I giving you a "run-around" again? No, I'm being realistic about how,
>in practice, scientific theories are ACTUALLY tested.
Yes, that's more run-around. (Especially Loren's placement of "genetic
homology", which doesn't favor "Ab" any more than "Aa".)
>But I do disagree with your characterization, "There is no coherent
>theory." I would rather say that natural selection is a coherent theory
>which still has frighteningly wide empirical bounds.
Natural selection ESPECIALLY is an incoherent theory. It incorporates any
and all things that affect survival (be they helpful, neutral, OR HARMFUL),
at many levels (genes, individuals, kin, groups, demes, and species), with
complex interactions between levels, and including many (ad hoc) mechanisms
that warp and deform the fitness terrain. It is a whirlwind of conflicting
and contradictory processes. Natural selection makes no predictions
whatever. It doesn't predict adaptations are inevitable, nor even possible.
It is evolutionists who shape and form this theory to the needs of the
situation.
>....
>I suppose I could make my "functional parsimony reconstruction test" more
>specific. I could dig into the molecular biology of calcium channels.
>I could list all the known homologies and divergences of the same channel
>type (and subunits) between different species, known pseudogenes (if any),
>all the known mutations and their functional consequences. I could
>specify a range over which parsimony reconstruction should be done and
>what the resulting electrophysiological/functional properties should
>be. I could specify a region of reconstructed genomic phase space which
>(IMO) MUST code for functional channels (function specified by certain
>criteria) in order for evolution to be true.
>
>But that's a lot of work. Let me first ask this: Would such a test
>fit your testability criteria?
Loren offers the usual 'scientific' sounding references to molecular
biology. I suspect there are thousands of outs and excuses, for
disconfirming results there, and I have challenged Loren on this very point
previously. He now says "that's a lot of work" to come up with a test. ...
But he still hasn't given one.
>....
>Your frequent use of one-sentence (mis)characterizations hinders
>communication.
At first hearing my one-sentence characterizations might sound, to
evolutionists, like nails on a chalkboard. Perhaps they feel that "hinders"
communication? I often introduce a broad central theme, then hammer it home
repeatedly with examples. It takes many examples before it really starts to
sink in. Take my claim that evolutionists give us the "run-around" on
testability. After many posts, still no evolutionist here has identified
any serious observational risks for evolution, any tests. It's been a huge
run-around, and this thread proves it.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128