>LH> "The final sentence:
> > This is fully consistent
> > with the scenarios developed by PCs and YECs.
> > is also true, but unhelpful, because their results are also fully
> > consistent with EC (or even naturalistic evolution). In other
> > words, the existence of reproductively isolated groups of
> > present-day species is no big surprise to anyone."
DT> Maybe this is a "paradigm effect"? Maybe it is no big surprise
> to EC and NE biologists - but I think you have got to admit that
> this avenue of investigation has not been prompted by their
> philosophy of "continuity". In my opinion, the German group are
> the first since Linnaeus to show that there are natural
> biological groupings that have the appearance of objectivity and
> which can be tested.
That's fair.
> I'm not trying to "prove" that God supernaturally created
> ancestral populations which have subsequently speciated. I'm
> saying: if we presuppose that God supernaturally created
> ancestral populations and that they subsequently speciated, how
> can scientific techniques be used to analyse the situation? Is
> it possible ever to gain an understanding of how many ancestral
> populations there were? What are the implications for taxonomy?
> and for studies of speciation?
> I accept that genetic linkages are not the ONLY valid type of
> evidence - but they are enormously important. Furthermore, they
> provide some "meat" for PC and YEC-oriented biologists to develop
> their ideas about discontinuity with some intellectual rigour.
Also fair. I knew (from your previous posts) that that's what you MEANT.
I just wanted clarification, and I figured you could say it better than
I could.
> I find this perspective very important for clarifying the issues
> between evolutionary-oriented and non-evolutionary-oriented
> biologists. Evolutionary biologists think they have reams of
> data relevant to evolutionary change - but if modern-day families
> represent their respective ancestral populations, evolutionary
> biologists have no data that cannot be reinterpreted within a
> framework of "variation within limits". I would go as far as to
> say that a recognition of this alternative explanation of these
> evidences means that evolutionary theory lacks the crucial
> "proofs" of its validity.
Yes, I would agree with this as well, with a proviso. The "variation
within limits" framework needs some auxilliary hypotheses to account for
two kinds of data (1) genetic homologies above the family level which IMO
go beyond the requirements of "common function" and (2) the morphological
similarities (seen in the fossil record) between "early" members of these
"types" and their contemporaries. Steve's proposal (supernatural genetic
engineering at strategic points --- if you'll forgive such a crude
summary) is a good example of one way to neatly cover those two points.
As long as we're just talking about biblical "kinds," there's no need to
worry about all that. If we start talkin' about levels of evidence for
competing paradigms, though, it's worth mentioning the "auxilliaries."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's nothing more exciting than science. You get |
all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing | Loren Haarsma
down numbers, paying attention. Science has it all!" | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
--Principal Skinner (_The_Simpsons_) |