RE: [asa] (testing evolution) (was: TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry)

Hi Moorad- so to be clear- your example is "Darwin's tree of life" and say that it is too vague to be science.

First- the focus should be on what evolution teaches today, not the evolutionary thoughts of over 100 years ago. So Darwin is off-limits.

Second- I think the 'tree of life' (or bush or whatever) is only an image to visualize what happened, used as an analogy to help explain things- with the main concept they are trying to present being descent with modification (for all creatures, vs. fiat or divine intervention by God poofing things into existence from scratch).

So the real question is what data conflicts with the idea of descent with modification. All the details of evolution (mechanisms, etc.) will change as more data becomes available- it the way of refining the theory. Whether it is tree, bush, or forest; it is all still evolution... descent with modification. What data is there to disprove descent with modification for everything (from stars, to the periodic table, to plants and animals) in existence today (other than we can't yet explain how it happened in detail... which isn't data, but a lack of data)?

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:43 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) (was: TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry)

I believe the whole history of Darwin's tree of life is of that nature. It is pliable enough to go from tree to bush to forest and still people will claim the correctness of evolutionary theory.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:51 PM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) (was: TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry)

Moorad said:
"However, if a new point occurs that does not fit the existing curve, then the curve can be modified quite successfully to fit that point."

Another point of answering this- please give an example of this to validate the point. Where do evolutionists do this?

If you want me to, I think I could give you an example where YEC's, OEC's, and ID'ers do this... except I think their method is to usually ignore the data more than 'modifying the curve.' I'm not aware of any situation where evolutionists ignore data. It seems like the YEC/OEC/ID groups operate more in the scientific ignorance arena. So to prove it either way, some examples would be nice... and I can provide one if you want me to- but you should start because it was your initial claim.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:17 AM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) (was: TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry)

Moorad said:
"However, if a new point occurs that does not fit the existing curve, then the curve can be modified quite successfully to fit that point."

I disagree. Further, I think YEC's would agree with your statement and do that all the time. Datapoints don't align for them, so they just say it is a mystery or miracle.

Moorad said:
"You cannot do that in; say a theory in physics, where future experimental results can falsify the theory that makes the wrong predictions."

My point and contribution is to say that your statement is wrong. There's not much difference in making a theory and trying to disprove it with scientific experiments or looking at historical data. In both cases, there is this common denominator: the hypothesis is made absent of facts, and facts are gathered to see if they can disprove the theory. If they disprove the theory, the theory is then modified and new data is collected (rinse and repeat). New data is new data- it doesn't matter if it comes from history (such as genomic studies of DNA).

This point is important because YEC-like mentality depends on false arguments like "no one was there to see it." They then think they can manipulate the interpretation of the data or ignore it because no one was there to see it.

Now of course some hypotheses are easier to confirm or deny, while others are much more complex. Evolution is so much more complex because of its overarching aspects and the time scale involved... billions of years (timescales beyond our natural comprehension- for us 200 years seems like a long time). Evolution is also more complex than others because of all the fields of study involved (cosmology, geology, biology, etc.).

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:01 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Bernie,

The truth of the matter is that evolutionary theory is like connecting given points with a curve. One can make predictions as to the potential points that would fit that curve. However, if a new point occurs that does not fit the existing curve, then the curve can be modified quite successfully to fit that point. You cannot do that in; say a theory in physics, where future experimental results can falsify the theory that makes the wrong predictions.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 1:17 PM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Moorad said:
"For one, we can make all sorts of predictions in our theory of gravitation and test them experimentally, witness Apollo 11, whereas the same cannot be said of evolution."

I think this is false. We can test evolutionary theory. A macroevolutionary hypothesis is that man descended from an apelike creature. Can it be disproven? Yes. Rather than running experiments, instead data is collected. Genomic studies. Data falls in line with evolutionary theory, and helps define/refine evolutionary theory. Data also disproves creation of human by fiat or any kind of sudden, non-descent (YEC/OEC idea of human creation).

In this way, evolutionary theory is scientific- only instead of running experimental tests (although there is much of this too, such as with fruit flies), it is more of collecting data to validate or disprove... such as genomic studies (just one example from biology).

So yes- many predictions are made in evolutionary theory as to what you should find when collecting data.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 9:58 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Bill Powers; Cameron Wybrow
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

I agree that present evolutionary theory isn't on a par with general
relativity - if one remembers that Einstein's theory covers all the
successes of Newton's as well as departures from it. But I don't think this
invalidates my point about the need for theorizing about what makes
evolution work - if in fact it's happened, & I think it has.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>; "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com>;
"Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Hi George,

From one theorist to another, I would never place the present understanding
of evolution on an equal footing with our understanding of gravitation. For
one, we can make all sorts of predictions in our theory of gravitation and
test them experimentally, witness Apollo 11, whereas the same cannot be said
of evolution.
I know that if I assume that the physical is all that there is, then
evolutions must be true. However, the converse is not true and therein lies
all the discussions and disagreements.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
George Murphy [GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 10:56 AM
To: Bill Powers; Cameron Wybrow
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

I want to comment just on the piece of Bill's post that I snip below.

Of course we can believe, & have strong evidence for believing, that
evolution has happened & is happening without knowing what makes it work.
In the same way, one can regard Newton's law of universal gravitation simply
as a well supported empirical rule with no attempt to understand why it's
true. That is what Newton meant when he said "I do not make hypotheses,"
not theorizing in general. He was not adverse to all hypotheses.

But scientists are not satisfied with such positions. Some may argue that
they should be but they generally aren't. They look for reasons why things
behave in one way & not another. & when we find that our empirical rules
run into probleems - when we realize that Newton's laws don't account
precisely for details of orbital mechanics or if we start wondering why the
coelecanth is still around - we're going to look for theories that will (a)
broaden our original empirical rules & (b) at the same time tell us why
those rules are approximately true.

(The coelecanth example is perhaps a poor one. The YEC notion that its
survival challenges evolution is of course nonsense. But it is natural to
wonder why some species survive for a long time & others don't. & one of
the deficiencies of merely saying "evolution happens" is that we have no way
of getting at such questions.)

Shalom
George - unapologetic theorist
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com>
To: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

> Cameron:
...........................
> Now you come and say that Darwinian evolution is "weak" science. You
> never doubt, it seems, that evolution has taken place. You simply
> question the means.
>
> One needs to ask what is the significance of questioning the means. When
> Newton proposed his theory of gravity, he refused to posit an opinion as
> to how gravity acted, taking such an effort to be a remnant of
> Aristotleian physics. Most of the questions that the Aristotelians asked
> of him and other science are still unanswered and science has "progressed"
> nonetheless.
>
> Naively I ask, to what extent does evolutionary science depend upon the
> specific means of biological evolution? Chromosome fusion and the like
> appear equally consistent with chance, lawfulness, and intelligence.
...........................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.=

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:41:04 -0700