Re: What goes around comes around

David:

I think we're mostly agreeing, but I'll clarify a few things. Preston
suggested that the SINE data are compelling evidence for evolution. This is
not true because a reasonable alternate explanation (one which evolutionists
sometimes use) is available. The paper begins thus:

> "... SINEs ... provide excellent
> markers for phylogenetic analysis: their mode of evolution is
> predominantly homoplasy-free, since they do not typically insert in
> the same locus of two unrelated lineages ... (Shedlock and Okada
> 2000)."

1. The premise that SINEs do not "typically insert in the same locus" comes
from the observation that they typically align phylogenetically, and there
aren't very many outliers. Evolutionists are well aware that there are other
types of markers that do not align so well. In normal science, problematic
markers are chosen selectively, or simply not used for phylogenetic
reconstruction. So evolutionists are glad to find a type of marker that is a
more reliable indicator of phylogeny, such as SINEs. These markers, they
say, are "predominantly homoplasy-free," but this is based on the assumption
that evolution is true. Without presupposing evolution, a scientist would
not be able to make this claim about SINEs because the evidence could also
be an indicator of common process. There is no way to know from merely the
comparative data, without an axiom up front, such as evolution is true.

2. Another reason that the SINE evidence is not compelling is that it does
not represent a narrow prediction of evolution. Remember, evolution can
explain SINEs that do not align phylogentically with no problem. Imagine if
there were 10 times more outliers. 100 times more, etc. This could be
explained as a result of common insertion site preference, as is currently
used to explain outliers.

So, summarizing, this evidence does not rule out alternate explanations, and
it is not the fulfillment of a reasonably narrow prediction of evolution. So
it is not compelling. You wrote:

> However, normal science sensu Kuhn can indeed give important support to
> the paradigm. The fact that using evolutionary models in this example
> gives coherent results provides support for evolution of these taxa.
> Data obtained while assuming that gravity is valid are not invalid for
> assessing the validity of gravity.

Of course, I never claimed otherwise.

--C

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. David Campbell" <amblema@bama.ua.edu>
To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: What goes around comes around

>> Here is what's important. The bottom line is that the paper that
>> Preston cited takes this conclusion its starting point:
>>
>> "Repetitive elements, particularly SINEs (short interspersed
>> elements) and LINEs (long interspersed elements), provide excellent
>> markers for phylogenetic analysis: their mode of evolution is
>> predominantly homoplasy-free, since they do not typically insert in
>> the same locus of two unrelated lineages ... (Shedlock and Okada
>> 2000)."
>>
>> This premise relies on the assumption that evolution is true.
>
> Aha! We were looking at different aspects of the paper. You do not
> have to assume that evolution is true in order to observe the pattern
> of SINEs, or even to assert that the pattern of SINE occurrence is a
> good match with evolutionary expectations. However, to claim that an
> evolutionary analysis tells us something meaningful about the real
> world does imply assuming that evolution is true, at least for the
> subset of organisms under consideration. (It may be of interest to
> note that some extreme advocates of particular analytical techniques,
> generally used for evolutionary studies, appear to advocate using the
> technique because it's THE technique, regardless of possible
> discrepancies between the technique and actual organismal history.
> Thus, it's not absolutely necessary to accept evolution to use these
> methods. Similarly, Kurt Wise has tried to develop his own version of
> such analyses under the assumption that certain groups of species
> evolved, but that these groups were separately created.)
>
> However, normal science sensu Kuhn can indeed give important support to
> the paradigm. The fact that using evolutionary models in this example
> gives coherent results provides support for evolution of these taxa.
> Data obtained while assuming that gravity is valid are not invalid for
> assessing the validity of gravity.
>
> To assess the merits of evolution requires at least treating it as a
> plausible idea and modeling what is actually expected based on
> evolutionary ideas.
>
>>Lift this assumption, and the question of whether the pattern of
>>repetitive elements is mostly due to common descent or common process
>>is much less certain. Common process is the more parsimonious
>>explanation since it is required in some cases.
>
> Not necessarily. The pattern must be examined in each case to determine
> whether common descent or a convergent/parallel process provides a
> better explanation. (It's a bit complicated because common processes
> operate under common descent as well as independently of it). For
> example, suppose 50 things match the pattern of common descent and 5 do
> not. Assuming only common processes for all of them requires 110
> events, whereas assuming mostly common descent with a few convergent
> events requires only 55 events. Thus, common process is less
> parsimonious in this example.
>
>> > The claim that ID or YEC is necessary to good religion occurs
>> >either explicitly or implicitly in many popular accounts of both.
>> >These clash with the doctrine of salvation by faith in Jesus alone.
>
>> Is "good religion" the same as "salvation"?
>
> Depends on whose claim is under consideration. Some rabid YECs claim
> that you will not be saved if you do not believe YEC. Some ID
> advocates endorse any religious view that appears sympathetic to ID and
> condemn any that question ID. Salvation may not be very applicable to
> some of those religions.
>
> From a Christian perspective, salvation by faith alone is a critical
> issue for orthodoxy. It is not a full description of faith by any
> means. My point may perhaps be better stated as follows:
>
> Calling into question the faith or salvation of someone based on their
> views on the timing and method of creation implies that a particular
> view on the topic is necessary to salvation. This sort of claim
> closely parallels the assertion that circumcision is necessary for
> salvation. Paul fought such claims in Galatians and elsewhere.
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections Building
> Department of Biological Sciences
> Biodiversity and Systematics
> University of Alabama, Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345 USA
>
Received on Mon Oct 10 17:22:08 2005