Reflectorites
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 10:01:15 -0700, Tedd Hadley wrote:
This is my first response to Tedd, so a belated welcome to the Reflector to
him from me.
Maybe Tedd could tell us a bit about himself?
[...]
>SJ>Of course, since Maynard Smith is a very clever person and has all the vast
>>resources of modern science at his disposal, he does manage to suggest
>>some `just-so' stories which might explain why sex originated.
TH>So he doesn't believe its an insourmountable problem for evolution,
>either, eh? I guess he's using "problem" differently from the
>way you're using it.
Not really. What Tedd is here trying (maybe unconsciously) is the old
evolutionist trick of attempting to shift the burden of proof onto the critic.
If the switch is not detected, it no longer becomes the evolutionist's job to
shown how sex originated naturalistically, it becomes the critic's job to
show how sex could *not* have originated naturalistically!
I don't say that the origin of sex is "an *insurmountable* problem for
evolution". In fact I don't say that *anything* is an "*insurmountable*
problem for evolution." I don't rule out in advance that even
Darwinian `blind watchmaker' evolution, could be 100% true.
Indeed, I have come to realise that even if fully naturalistic Darwinian
evolution was 100% true, it would not, by its own admission, be able to
predict (and therefore explain) from its basic principles, the range of living
things that we actually have on Earth today:
"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical,
and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not testable.
One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we
find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play
and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism,
however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on
Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit
similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no
means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the
many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we
shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism
does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really
explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable
conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what
favourable conditions are except that, in their presence, a variety of forms
will emerge." (Popper K., "Unended Quest," 1982, p171).
Moreover, 100% naturalistic Darwinian evolution cannot predict (and
therefore explain), from its basic principles, the origin of humans:
PD: ... The question that we have to ask is if the earth was hit by an
asteroid tomorrow and everything but simple microbes were destroyed and
we came back in another 3 or 4 billion years, would we expect to find
homo sapiens here again. Well, of course not.
RD: Of course we wouldn't!
PD: No, of course not. But the question is would we expect to find any
intelligent life and I think most biologists would say no.
McK: Richard Dawkins, I know you're bursting to say something there.
RD: Yes. It is not in my view sensible to invoke fundamental laws of
physical improvement for the biological improvement of complexity or
running speed or anything else. If you wiped our life and started again-no,
you would not get homo sapiens. I tell you what you would get, you would
probably get a great diversity of living form . You'd probably get plants,
animals, you'd probably get parasites, you'd probably get predators, you'd
probably get large predators, small predators. You might well get flight,
you might well get sight. There are all sorts of things that you can guess
that you might get. You would certainly not get a re-run of what we've
got."
(McKew M., "The Origin of the Universe", Interview with Richard
Dawkins & Paul Davies, "Lateline," Australian Broadcasting Commission,
19 June 1996, in Australian Rationalist, No. 41, Spring 1996, pp.72-73).
So Darwinian evolution could not even defintitely predict *anything*,
in particular. But Dawkins is very definite that it cannot predict human
beings.
In fact Ernst Mayr regards the emergence of man as a "miracle":
"Looking at the SETI project from a biologist's point of view in Essay 4, I
demonstrate that each step leading to the evolution of intelligent life on
earth was highly improbable and that the evolution of the human species
was the result of a sequence of thousands of these highly improbable steps.
It is a miracle that man ever happened, and it would be an even greater
miracle if such a sequence of improbabilities had been repeated anywhere
else." (Mayr E., "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology," 1988, p.5)
So, my position is that fully naturalistic evolution *could* be true, but I don't
assume apriori that it *is* true. To me the real question is, what does the
*data* look like, when looked at without a naturalistic bias:
"I have no metaphysical necessity driving me to propose the miraculous
action of the evident finger of God as a scientific hypothesis. In my world
view, all natural forces and events are fully contingent on the free choice of
the sovereign God. Thus, neither an adequate nor an inadequate
"neoDarwinism (as mechanism) holds any terrors. But that is not what the
data looks like. And I feel no metaphysical necessity to exclude the evident
finger of God." (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism:
Science or Philosophy?" 1994, p.215.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter13b.html)
And the data looks to me like Progressive (Mediate) *Creation*!
TH>I think Stephen misrepresents the "problem" of sex ...
Not really. It *is* still a problem for Darwinian evolution. Only in 1993
Dawkins wrote in the foreword to Maynard Smith's "The Theory of
Evolution" that the origin of sex was "probably the most baffling topic in
modern evolutionary theory":
"He [Maynard Smith] is in the forefront of the study of sex, probably the
most baffling topic in modern evolutionary theory. Indeed he was largely
responsible for recognizing that sex constituted a problem in the first place,
the problem now universally known by his phrase, 'the twofold cost of
sex'." (Dawkins R., "Foreword to the Canto Edition", in Smith J.M., "The
Theory of Evolution," 1993, p.xiv).
I have Maynard Smith's "The Major Transitions in Evolution" (1995)
where he devotes a whole chapter to the origin of sex, and he still calls it a
problem there. Although he gives some possible scenarios, he definitely
does not say that the problem has been solved.
So, if there has been a change in that area since 1993-95, such that the
origin of sex is no longer "probably the most baffling topic in modern
evolutionary theory," I would appreciate Tedd citing the scientific
journal(s) article(s) which carried the news of that change.
TH>...and especially
>current research on the topic. Here's an excellent summary
>from http://coldfusion.discover.com/output.cfm?ID=67
I thank Tedd for this reference.
But Tedd appears to think that "research" into a problem is equivalent to
actually *solving* the problem?
That is probably because to the convinced evolutionist like Tedd, evolution
is a fact, and therefore there can be no *real* problems, only *apparent*
problems. So all that is needed to a convinced evolutionist is to cite some
examples of research that is going on into the problem, and the problem
magically becomes a non-problem!
That the origin of sex (or any other major event in the history of life) may
not have happened fully naturalistically, and therefore *no* naturalistic
scenario may ever be fully satisfactory, never occurs to convinced
evolutionists.
[...]
TH>One of the arguments currently dominating the competition is championed
>by Michael Rose ...
So all that is required to satisfy Tedd is for the argument which is
"currently dominating the competition ..." There is no requirement that it
actually be *true*, in the sense of what really happened!
This is an example of what Macbeth calls "the best-in-field fallacy":
"[modern Darwinians] are not greatly troubled by their failure to explain
the adaptations because they are sustained and soothed by the best-in-field
fallacy. Darwinism has had to compete with various rival theories, each of
which aimed to be a more or less complete explanation. The most famous
rivals were vitalism, fundamentalism, Lamarckism, and the hopeful-monster
suggestion of Goldschmidt. The Darwinians have shown that none of these
theories are any good. Simpson can shoot down each and every one of
them with ease. Thus the Darwinians are able to say that Darwin made a
better try than anyone else, and they find real comfort in this. Does this
mean that Darwinism is correct? No. ... only that Darwinism is better than
the others. But when the others are no good, this is faint praise. Is there
any glory in outrunning a cripple in a foot race? Being best-in-field means
nothing if the field is made up of fumblers. ... It seems that the standards of
the evolutionary theorists are relative or comparative rather than absolute.
If such a theorist makes a suggestion that is better than other suggestions,
or better than nothing, he feels that he has accomplished something even if
his suggestion will obviously not hold water. He does not believe that he
must meet any objective standards of logic, reason, or probability. This is a
curious state of affairs..." (Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried,", 1971, pp.77-78)
TH>...Along with many others in their field, they believe...could
>account for...they theorize...could then...How
>widely accepted is this scenario? ...people admit that it's
>possible, but they insist that it's trivial." ...
And this is the *best* argument which is "currently dominating the
competition"?
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 09 2000 - 18:10:54 EDT