Re: Predictions
From: Brian Harper (harper.10@osu.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 15:00:31 EDT
Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: Wells and Molecular Phylogenies"
At 08:03 PM 10/14/2003 -0400, Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
[...]
On the other hand, trying to
minimize the number
of parameters as much as possible does help me see how one might be
able
to test this at least semi-analytically. But the complexity of the
problem is and
remains challenging to show clearly.
Yes this is certainly the case. But let me elaborate a little more. I am
assuming that the structure itself is not changing rapidly with time. I'm
also only considering biomechanical type performance features. These
could be determined objectively from the structure itself. An example
would be the strength of one of Raups shells. We could now let S(W,D,T)
be the strength expressed in terms of Raup's three parameters. One could
then form an hypothesis regarding whether shapes observed in nature
are the result of natural selection. One might conclude that they are if
you see that the real shells are grouped in areas with greatest strength.
Of course, the skeptic may be saying at this point that this is a very
natural prediction of ID. Why wouldn't the designer select those shell
geometries that maximized the strength? Indeed. But the problem is (and I
have asked this several times) that I am unable to find any IDist willing
to make a prediction based on optimality of form with respect to
function.
But let me repeat again that you make a good point. Most cases are
probably too complex to analyze in this way. But this example also
provides at least a thought experiment that shows that natural selection
is not a tautology. It is possible to think of fitness parameters
(strength) that can be defined objectively in terms of the structure and
independent of survival.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 23:03:02 EST