From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 21:53
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Joe Morlan reintroduced himself to talk.origins with a post of
his claimed theory of creation with the subject line as "Is
this a theory?" Kudos to Joe for floating this before the
treeful of howler monkeys. The next few messages are
messages from t.o. dealing with the topics Joe brought up.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #99 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [98 <컴] [컴> 100]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 21:56
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36680 of talk.origins:
From: david_gonda@qm.yale.edu (David Gonda)
Subject: Re: Is this a theory
Organization: Yale University Dept. of MB&B
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 22:06:12 GMT
Lines: 76
In article <168_9406301000@damar.com>, Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe
Morlan) wrote:
> -=> Quoting I.B. Harris to All <=-
>
> IH> But why all this arguing about semantics? As I understand
> IH> it, the scientific definition of a theory is a system of
> IH> beliefs which all the available evidence supports. A law,
> IH> despite the feeling of absoluteness its popular usage
> IH> suggests, is simply either an initial assumption, or a
> IH> consequence of the overlying theory.
>
> I'd be curious if anybody thinks this qualifies as a "theory."
> [purported theory of creation deleted]
--------------------------
In short, no. Not a scientific theory.
In his 1982 opinion which found the Arkansas "equal-time" law
unconstitutional, Judge William Overton described the following as the
"essential characteristics of science:
1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explantory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative; i.e., are not necessarily the final word;
and
5. It is falsibiable"
I think that most scientists would accept Overton's criteria as the
*minimum* criteria that must be met for something to be called "science"
(note incidentally that this is a much more restrictive set of conditions
than those implied in Harris's definition). With regard to the criteria
Overton used, your "theory" below fails as a scientific theory.
First and foremost, it is not guided by natural law and cannot be explained
by reference to natural law. Why did this creation event happen? How did
this creation event happen? What was the mechanism? Why does creation
result in the species that we see today? You say that your creation theory
"predicts that life will be organized into discontinuous, reproductively
isolated population (species)". Explain why, please. If I claim that an act
of creation would result in a single, uniform population of one species, on
what basis can we argue our respective views? When did creation happen? Why
did it happen then? If species can be brought into existence out of
nothing, complete, then evidence for age could be brought into existence as
well (unless you can tell me what restrictions would apply to your act of
"creation," and why). Thus, without any basis for knowing how or why acts
of creation are restricted, any evidence for the age of the earth would be
consistent with creation having occurred at any time (including last
Tuesday).
Note that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever with which to address my
questions. Without any such basis, your theory is untestable and
unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is at hand, you can always say
"well, that's the way it was created." Unless, of course, you can supply a
physical basis for creation that helps us to determine the possible
limitations that apply to acts of "creation" thereby giving us a basis for
discriminating between possible scenarios. (Before some wag raises the
objection, I believe that astrophysicists who think about the Big Bang *do*
argue about its physical origin; quantum fluctuations in vaccuum, etc.)
Note that I have argued that your theory is not scientific without once
referring to evolution. I won't say anything about evolution, except to
note that you fall into the old creationist false dichotomy of "evolution
versus creation." And that you make a lot of assertions about evolution and
its consequences that are simply not true, as I'm sure many others will be
pointing out to you shortly.
--
David Gonda
Yale University
Dept of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry
david_gonda@qm.yale.edu
[the opinions above, which are mine, are only mine, and belong to me]
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #100 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [99 <컴] [컴> 101]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 21:56
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36681 of talk.origins:
From: swansont@comphy.physics.orst.edu (Tom Swanson)
Subject: Re: Is this a theory
Date: 30 Jun 1994 23:07:18 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research, NY
Lines: 150
In article <168_9406301000@damar.com> Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe
Morlan) writes:
I'd like to thank Mr. Morlan for providing an attempt at stating a theory
for the gang on t.o.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>THE LONG AWAITED THEORY OF CREATIONISM
>
>The theory of scientific creation states that all life was
>created as it is now.
And when, exactly, did this happen? Was all life created in a short
span of time or have there been multiple creation events?
One prediction of your statement is that there has been no change
in any species. Since speciation has been observed, as well as other
changes in species that falls short of speciation, this is falsified.
The fact of artificial selection in breeding alone falsifies this
contention.
>The primary scientific evidence for creation is that all species
>breed true. No species gives birth to new species. Lizards beget
>lizards and amoebas beget amoebas. There is ample scientific
>evidence that species reproduce themselves. Note that this makes
>no unsupported assumptions, nor does it invoke any supernatural
>entities.
"Species" is, at some level, about naming and catagorizing things -
semantics. From one generation to the next the differences in individuals
is so small that they are of the same species. What evolution predicts
is that over a long period of time these genetic changes will accumulate
and that one can no longer classify the population in the same species as
in an ancestral population. Or, a splinter group of a species accumulates
genetic change and can no longer interbreed with the descendants of the
original species (this requires some kind of isolation between the groups
and, presumably, a difference in environments)
SO, yes, species reproduce themselves. But the genetic makeup changes.
>The Theory of Creation is thus more parsimonious than the
>theory of evolution, which states that species evolve into new
>species, either suddenly or by gradual steps. The theory of
>evolution of new species is not supported by direct observation,
>and assumes facts not in evidence.
Incorrect. Speciation has been observed. The contention that there
is no change in species assumes facts not in evidence.
>The theory of creation is independent of the phenomenon of
>microevolution which explains such things as the development of
>disease or poison resistance via natural selection and
>differential reproductive success. But evolution via natural
>selection acts only at the level of a population while Creation
>works at the inter-population level. Natural selection does not
>predict or explain the diversity of life on the planet while
>Creation does.
You are going to have to explain this better. It doesn't make sense
to me and seems to contradict your "theory". The last sentence is
just plain wrong wrt evolution. One must remember that mutation is
also a part of evolutionary theory - it is a source of genetic diversity.
Natural selection is a filter of sorts that wees out the unviables and allows
advantageous atrributes to become predominant and spread through a population.
>While the exact mechanisms of Creation are unknown, the fossil
>record is replete with examples of creation. New species appear,
>and life itself appears suddenly in the fossil record.
Without a mechanism you haven't got (much of) a theory. "sudden"
appearance is a relative term. A few million years is sudden by geologic
reckoning (and evolutionary reckoning as well) and the resolution of
radiodating is often measured in hundreds of thousands of years.
So it is hardly accurate to use the phrase "sudden appearance" unless
it is in the right context.
Look a little more carefully and you will find that the precursors of
these species that appear "suddenly" are awfully similar - could it
be that they're related? Hmmmmm.
>Further research is needed to determine the mechanisms for these
>well documented examples of creation, but current theory holds
>that these creation events imply the existence of a creator. Note
>that the existence of this creator is a conclusion of the theory
>of scientific creationism and not a basic assumption or premise
>of it.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The theory of creation as stated makes a number of testable
>predictions. E.g. it predicts that life will be organized into
>discontinuous, reproductively isolated population (species). The
>Theory of Evolution, by itself, makes no such prediction and
>there is no a priori reason why life is organized into species.
Evolution predicts the existence of species because it requires
genetic similarity to produce offspring. Selection will make
species look/behave differently when exploiting different niches in
the environment. Once you have isolation between groups you will
tend to get discontinuities.
>Furthermore the Theory of Creation predicts that there will be
>evidence of creation events. Such evidence is abundant in the
>fossil record with new species and life itself appearing at
>various strata. The Theory of Evolution makes no such
>predictions and fails to predict evidence of abiogenesis. In
>fact, a logical extension of the Theory of Evolution predicts
>that no evidence of abiogenesis will be found. Thus it is
>Evolution which is falsified by the data, not Creation.
what evidence of creation events other than the existence of new
species (predicted by evolution)? New forms at particular strata and
no extinct forms in younger strata is a *prediction* of evolution.
>The Theory of Creation is falsifiable. If it were found that
>life were not organized into discrete, discontinuous,
>reproductively isolated populations, that would disprove
>Creation. If evidence were found that life always existed, that
>would falsify the Theory of Creation.
This is a triviality. Your "theory" predicts what we call species, but
that has already been observed. No real prediction and no chance of
falsification. We need a mechanism. We need real predictions.
>The hypothesized mechanism of the Theory of Creation, is that the
>observed creation events imply a creator. While the exact
>mechanism of these creations or the methods used by the creator
>are not yet known, they are subject to further research. Current
>experiments on abiogenesis and attempts to create new species
>in the laboratory are the focus of current research (or should
>be.)
That's not a mechanism. It still boils down to "The Creator did it"
Once you invoke miracles you cease doing science.
Nice try, but:
- It's not a theory. Only one prediction that isn't vague and that one
(no changes in species) is trivially falsified. No mechanism.
- Most of your predictions aren't based on the statement of the theory.
Too vague.
- Most of your statements about evolution are wrong.
Tom Swanson | Oregon: Home af Tonya Harding, Bob Packwood
OSU Physics | and the OCA.
> | How proud we are.
L L
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #101 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [100 <컴] [컴> 102]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 21:57
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36666 of talk.origins:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae)
Subject: Re: Is this a theory (yes, but its logic is flawed and it is
falsified)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 23:41:35 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Lines: 185
In article <168_9406301000@damar.com> Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe
Morlan) writes:
> -=> Quoting I.B. Harris to All <=-
>
> IH> But why all this arguing about semantics? As I understand
> IH> it, the scientific definition of a theory is a system of
> IH> beliefs which all the available evidence supports. A law,
> IH> despite the feeling of absoluteness its popular usage
> IH> suggests, is simply either an initial assumption, or a
> IH> consequence of the overlying theory.
>
> I'd be curious if anybody thinks this qualifies as a "theory."
>
It is a "theory". It also appears to be a scientific theory,
because it can be falsified. However, it is vague on several key points,
and more importantly, it *is* falsified. See below.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> THE LONG AWAITED THEORY OF CREATIONISM
>
> The theory of scientific creation states that all life was
> created as it is now.
>
This can be tested, and even a superficial examination of the
fossil record and modern organisms reveals that life has changed
considerably over time.
> The primary scientific evidence for creation is that all species
> breed true. No species gives birth to new species.
This is incorrect. See the "speciation FAQ" on the talk.origins
archive (ics.uci.edu, /pub/origins), which documents some recent
speciations that have occurred.
> Lizards beget
> lizards and amoebas beget amoebas. There is ample scientific
> evidence that species reproduce themselves. Note that this makes
> no unsupported assumptions, nor does it invoke any supernatural
> entities.
>
There is an inherent "assumption" that you have not elaborated on
sufficiently: the definition of a species. This is no easy matter, but
at least as most biologists define them, new species have developed from
other species. If, as you allude to, it is a reproductively isolated
population, then your theory is clearly falsified.
> The Theory of Creation is thus more parsimonious than the
> theory of evolution, which states that species evolve into new
> species, either suddenly or by gradual steps. The theory of
> evolution of new species is not supported by direct observation,
> and assumes facts not in evidence.
This is incorrect. Speciation has been observed.
>
> The theory of creation is independent of the phenomenon of
> microevolution which explains such things as the development of
> disease or poison resistance via natural selection and
> differential reproductive success. But evolution via natural
> selection acts only at the level of a population while Creation
> works at the inter-population level. Natural selection does not
> predict or explain the diversity of life on the planet while
> Creation does.
>
> While the exact mechanisms of Creation are unknown, the fossil
> record is replete with examples of creation. New species appear,
> and life itself appears suddenly in the fossil record.
Be specific about where. "Suddenly" is also a relative term. Do
you mean "instantaneously" as far as the geological record can resolve?
If so, then there is no place where "life itself appears suddenly".
Also, can you offer an explanation why so many major groups
originate at different times? Let alone species - they appear and become
extinct throughout the entire record. The vast majority present in the
Cambrian (for example) are not present now, and vice-versa.
>
> Further research is needed to determine the mechanisms for these
> well documented examples of creation, but current theory holds
> that these creation events imply the existence of a creator. Note
> that the existence of this creator is a conclusion of the theory
> of scientific creationism and not a basic assumption or premise
> of it.
You have not tested multiple hypotheses. An alternative to a
creator being involved in the "sudden" appearance of life (which, as
pointed out above, is questionable) is that life originated by
introduction from space, or that some major preservational bias changed
suddenly (e.g., change in the ocean chemistry or atmosphere). You *are*
making an assumption that one of these possibilities is the only correct
one.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The theory of creation as stated makes a number of testable
> predictions. E.g. it predicts that life will be organized into
> discontinuous, reproductively isolated population (species). The
> Theory of Evolution, by itself, makes no such prediction and
> there is no a priori reason why life is organized into species.
Yes, there is. It is impossible for organisms to maintain genetic
homogeneity at a global scale in *all* environments. It is therefore
inevitable that some population will become reproductively isolated, new
species will originate, and species diversity will increase.
>
> Furthermore the Theory of Creation predicts that there will be
> evidence of creation events. Such evidence is abundant in the
> fossil record with new species and life itself appearing at
> various strata.
So, multiple "creations"? Is that what you are proposing? Can
you provide examples of intervals and organisms?
> The Theory of Evolution makes no such
> predictions
It does predict that in some circumstances (e.g., migration
events), species will appear "suddenly".
> and fails to predict evidence of abiogenesis.
? This is confusing. Do you mean it does not predict what
evidence of abiogenesis will be found? Or that it fails to predict
evidence that has already been found? Please be specific. More
importantly, abiogenesis is a different issue from that of evolutionary
theory. The two are related, but evolutionary theory deals much more with
life once it is established, rather than how it initiated.
> In
> fact, a logical extension of the Theory of Evolution predicts
> that no evidence of abiogenesis will be found. Thus it is
> Evolution which is falsified by the data, not Creation.
>
What does creation predict?
> The Theory of Creation is falsifiable. If it were found that
> life were not organized into discrete, discontinuous,
> reproductively isolated populations, that would disprove
> Creation. If evidence were found that life always existed, that
> would falsify the Theory of Creation.
>
There are other ways that specific models of Creation, like the
one presented here, can be falsified. See above for examples. You have
chosen one feature that evolutionary theory *also* explains (the existence
of reproductively isolated populations), and you have chosen another
feature that is impossible to determine (There is no way to tell if life
has always been present somewhere. We can only tell where it is.)
> The hypothesized mechanism of the Theory of Creation, is that the
> observed creation events imply a creator.
> While the exact
> mechanism of these creations or the methods used by the creator
> are not yet known, they are subject to further research.
I do not think this is a necessary part of a scientific creation
theory at this point, at least until you have provided one that does not
fail against the evidence even *before* reaching the point of asking
"how?"
> Current
> experiments on abiogenesis and attempts to create new species
> in the laboratory are the focus of current research (or should
> be.)
It is. Did you see the article in the July issue of Scientific
American?
Rebek, J., Jr., 1994 (July). Synthetic self-replicating
molecules. Scientific American, v.271, no.1, p.48-55.
See some of the articles in the "speciation FAQ" for speciation
"in the lab".
-Andrew
macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
home page: "http://geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/current_projects.html"
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #102 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [101 <컴] [컴> 103]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 21:57
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36677 of talk.origins:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: david_gonda@qm.yale.edu (David Gonda)
Subject: Re: Is this a theory (yes, but its logic is flawed and it is
falsified)
Organization: Yale University Dept of MB&B
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 01:04:05 GMT
Lines: 43
In article ,
macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) wrote:
> In article <168_9406301000@damar.com> Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe
> Morlan) writes:
> > -=> Quoting I.B. Harris to All <=-
> >
> > IH> But why all this arguing about semantics? As I understand
> > IH> it, the scientific definition of a theory is a system of
> > IH> beliefs which all the available evidence supports. A law,
> > IH> despite the feeling of absoluteness its popular usage
> > IH> suggests, is simply either an initial assumption, or a
> > IH> consequence of the overlying theory.
> >
> > I'd be curious if anybody thinks this qualifies as a "theory."
> >
> > ["theory" deleted]
>
> It is a "theory". It also appears to be a scientific theory,
> because it can be falsified. However, it is vague on several key points,
> and more importantly, it *is* falsified. See below.
So sorry, but I must point out that this is dead wrong. Morlan's post is
*not* a theory. It make no reference to natural processes and is
unfalsifiable. His so-called "predictions" do not necessarily follow from
his theory, and most are simply attempts at falsification of evolutionary
theory (the ol' creationist dichotomy again). The issue isn't that his
theory has been falsified by the data; there was no way for it to
legitimately play the game in the first place.
It is vital that we continue to make this point clear if we are to keep
creationist bullshit out of science classes in the US. To the best of my
knowledge, the Constitution does not prohibit laws that mandate the
teaching of unpopular or even falsified scientific theory; it does prohibit
laws that mandate the teaching of religious doctrine, which is what all of
these so-called "theories of creation" eventually reveal themselves to be.
--
David Keith Gonda
Yale University
Dept of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry
david_gonda@qm.yale.edu
[my opinion, not theirs]
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #103 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [102 <컴] [컴> 104]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 21:57
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36684 of talk.origins:
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Is this a theory
Date: 30 Jun 1994 21:18:16 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Lines: 62
In article <168_9406301000@damar.com>, Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe
Morlan) writes:
|> -=> Quoting I.B. Harris to All <=-
|>
|> IH> But why all this arguing about semantics? As I understand
|> IH> it, the scientific definition of a theory is a system of
|> IH> beliefs which all the available evidence supports. A law,
|> IH> despite the feeling of absoluteness its popular usage
|> IH> suggests, is simply either an initial assumption, or a
|> IH> consequence of the overlying theory.
|>
|> I'd be curious if anybody thinks this qualifies as a "theory."
|>
|> ----------------------------------------------------------
|> THE LONG AWAITED THEORY OF CREATIONISM
|>
|> The theory of scientific creation states that all life was
|> created as it is now.
This isn't clear to me. On first reading, I thought that you
meant that there was no change over time. Now it seems to me that
you are merely saying that things are the way they are. And I think
that this is the basic problem with the theory -- does using the
word "create" add anything of substance to what you say?
[...deletions...]
|> The theory of creation as stated makes a number of testable
|> predictions. E.g. it predicts that life will be organized into
|> discontinuous, reproductively isolated population (species). The
|> Theory of Evolution, by itself, makes no such prediction and
|> there is no a priori reason why life is organized into species.
I don't see how this theory entails that there are species. It
seems to me that a Creator could create any way that He/She/It/They
want/s to.
|>
|> Furthermore the Theory of Creation predicts that there will be
|> evidence of creation events. Such evidence is abundant in the
|> fossil record with new species and life itself appearing at
|> various strata. The Theory of Evolution makes no such
|> predictions and fails to predict evidence of abiogenesis. In
|> fact, a logical extension of the Theory of Evolution predicts
|> that no evidence of abiogenesis will be found. Thus it is
|> Evolution which is falsified by the data, not Creation.
I don't see how you can distinguish between a creation event and
any other way of appearance. New species could appear by evolution,
by abiogenesis, by mutations, by cross-breeding, by inheritance of
acquired characteristics -- who knows what other mechanisms are
possible? -- and I don't know how to tell that it is creation and
not something else. As a matter of fact, couldn't it be *both*
creation *and* evolution, or whatever?
[...more deleted...]
So, my basic problem is that you haven't described what creation
is -- you haven't distinguished it from anything else -- and you
haven't told us how to deduce consequences from it.
--
Tom Scharle |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #104 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [103 <컴] [컴> 105]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 21:58
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36698 of talk.origins:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: watson@bellatrix.sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Is this a theory
Organization: Carleton Home for Indigent Bit-Bashers
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 21:41:25 GMT
Lines: 117
Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe Morlan) writes:
>I'd be curious if anybody thinks this qualifies as a "theory."
I'll take a fast, non-expert crack at it.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>THE LONG AWAITED THEORY OF CREATIONISM
>The theory of scientific creation states that all life was
>created as it is now.
>The primary scientific evidence for creation is that all species
>breed true. No species gives birth to new species.
Falsified already, if one uses the standard definition of "species".
See the FAQs for examples (more on this anon).
>Lizards beget
>lizards and amoebas beget amoebas. There is ample scientific
>evidence that species reproduce themselves. Note that this makes
>no unsupported assumptions, nor does it invoke any supernatural
>entities.
>The Theory of Creation is thus more parsimonious than the
>theory of evolution, which states that species evolve into new
>species, either suddenly or by gradual steps. The theory of
>evolution of new species is not supported by direct observation,
>and assumes facts not in evidence.
>The theory of creation is independent of the phenomenon of
>microevolution which explains such things as the development of
>disease or poison resistance via natural selection and
>differential reproductive success. But evolution via natural
>selection acts only at the level of a population while Creation
>works at the inter-population level. Natural selection does not
>predict or explain the diversity of life on the planet while
>Creation does.
Last sentence not parse. Try again?
>While the exact mechanisms of Creation are unknown, the fossil
>record is replete with examples of creation. New species appear,
>and life itself appears suddenly in the fossil record.
>Further research is needed to determine the mechanisms for these
>well documented examples of creation, but current theory holds
>that these creation events imply the existence of a creator. Note
>that the existence of this creator is a conclusion of the theory
>of scientific creationism and not a basic assumption or premise
>of it.
Without a more rigorous definition of "creator", this seems like
an empty statement.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>The theory of creation as stated makes a number of testable
>predictions. E.g. it predicts that life will be organized into
>discontinuous, reproductively isolated population (species). The
Falsified, as above. You *might* have better luck if you moved your
discontinuity up to the family or order level. The usual technical
term is "kind", but so far it lacks a rigorous definition.
>Theory of Evolution, by itself, makes no such prediction and
>there is no a priori reason why life is organized into species.
Yes, it does. Once a lineage has split into reproductively isolated
branches, they are almost guaranteed to continue to diverge.
>Furthermore the Theory of Creation predicts that there will be
>evidence of creation events. Such evidence is abundant in the
>fossil record with new species and life itself appearing at
>various strata.
No. The *worst* you can say about the fossil record is that it does
not completely document gradual appearances -- but it is a case of
"argument from silence" to infer that the transitions therefore do not
exist. (And I expect Andrew Macrae to weigh in about now to tell us
that it's not even as bad as my "worst", and that there are
transitions).
>The Theory of Evolution makes no such
>predictions and fails to predict evidence of abiogenesis. In
>fact, a logical extension of the Theory of Evolution predicts
>that no evidence of abiogenesis will be found. Thus it is
>Evolution which is falsified by the data, not Creation.
>The Theory of Creation is falsifiable. If it were found that
>life were not organized into discrete, discontinuous,
>reproductively isolated populations, that would disprove
>Creation.
Again, how does one detect these "discontinuities"? There are many
fossils showing characters intermediate between two other fossils, but
the determined c'ist just says "Well, that's just a third kind, not a
link between the other two kinds." ICR-style Creationists reject
transitional forms mostly by defining them out of existence.
> If evidence were found that life always existed, that
>would falsify the Theory of Creation.
>The hypothesized mechanism of the Theory of Creation, is that the
>observed creation events imply a creator. While the exact
>mechanism of these creations or the methods used by the creator
>are not yet known, they are subject to further research. Current
>experiments on abiogenesis and attempts to create new species
>in the laboratory are the focus of current research (or should
>be.)
>... "Could you continue your petty bickering? I find it most intriguing."
--
| watson@sce.carleton.ca | The foregoing opinions are All My Own Work. Nyah! |
"Let Justice roll, roll down like water / and righteousness like a flowing
stream / 'til the morning come, and the darkness cease / and the weapons of
war become the instruments of Peace" - Ken Medema, after Amos 5:24 & Isaiah 2:4
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #105 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [104 <컴] [컴> 106]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 21:59
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36723 of talk.origins:
From: dorman@park.bu.edu (Clark Dorman)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Is this a theory
Date: 30 Jun 94 20:01:19
Organization: Boston University Center for Adaptive Systems
Lines: 23
In article <168_9406301000@damar.com> Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com
(Joe Morlan) writes:
J> I'd be curious if anybody thinks this qualifies as a "theory."
[rest deleted]
Well, it could be a start to a theory but it definitely is not there
yet. My problem with it is the lack of specificity about the creation
itself (1 or many, timing, etc.). There will be people in this group
that claim that a theory of "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron
since it proposes a non-natural event, namely creation. Including me.
The better you can specify the acts of creation the better, even
though how the creation occurred is unknowable (do we agree on this?).
Still, I would like to thank you for posting this. It is rare for
anyone to even make a stab at a theory of creationism. Please pay
attention to the posts that point out problems with your proto-theory
(they have already started, I see) and it may develop into a real
theory (likely to be immediately falsified though).
Clark
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #106 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [105 <컴] [컴> 107]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 21:59
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36719 of talk.origins:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: A Theory of Creation! (was Re: Is this a theory)
Message-ID:
Organization: The Brass Cannon Foundation
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 23:23:02 GMT
Lines: 267
Oops. The version of this I posted had an unfortunat attribution line;
Ive canceled that, and superseded it with this article.
In article <168_9406301000@damar.com>,
Joe Morlan writes:
>
>I'd be curious if anybody thinks this qualifies as a "theory."
Well, if it's a "theory", I don't think it's a theory that'll keep
evilutionists up at night.
>THE LONG AWAITED THEORY OF CREATIONISM
>
>The theory of scientific creation states that all life was
>created as it is now.
"All life... as it is now"? Therefore, (e.g.) gonococcus was created
with as much resistance to penicilin as it has now.
>The primary scientific evidence for creation is that all species
>breed true.
How is that evidence for your "theory"? Your theory says nothing about
speciation. Rather, it says that all life was created as it is now.
If species didn't breed true, you could just as easily say, "The
theory predicts that species won't breed true" (because then, "not
breeding true" would be a facet of "what life is like now".
>No species gives birth to new species.
Says who? There are recent, observed, incidents of speciation.
Furthermore, the fossil record abounds with incidents of speciation.
(See the Speciation FAQ for details.)
>Lizards beget lizards and amoebas beget amoebas.
I thought you were talking about "species"? If a lizard begets a
different species of lizard, well, that's speciation.
And we have concrete examples of fruit flies begeting a different
species (non-interfertile) of fruit fly. See the speciation FAQ.
>There is ample scientific
>evidence that species reproduce themselves.
Actually, there is evidence of *individuals* reproducing themselves
imperfectly, creating other individuals of the same species... most of
the time.
>Note that this makes
>no unsupported assumptions, nor does it invoke any supernatural
>entities.
It *implies* supernatural entities (who or what did the "creating"?)
And it does make unsupported assumptions, e.g. how much life has
managed to change since the "creation" while still managing to be
created "as it is now".
>The Theory of Creation is thus more parsimonious than the
>theory of evolution, which states that species evolve into new
>species, either suddenly or by gradual steps.
Well, the TOE states that populations change as a result of selection
on individuals. One consequence of the change is that sometimes,
speciation occurs. Which has been observed.
>The theory of
>evolution of new species is not supported by direct observation,
>and assumes facts not in evidence.
It is certainly supported by observation, of (e.g.) the fossil record,
the structure of existing life, DNA analysis, and many other things.
Consider (e.g.) the behavior of fast-breeding organisms (insects,
microbes) under intense selective pressure (insecticides,
antibiotics). The TOE predicts that natural selection will cause those
individuals with more resistance to be more successful at
reproduction, so the population will gradually become more resistant.
Your theory, on the other hand, predicts that this will *not* happen,
or at least *has not* happened; because life was created "as it is
now".
>The theory of creation is independent of the phenomenon of
>microevolution which explains such things as the development of
>disease or poison resistance via natural selection and
>differential reproductive success.
"Independent"? Your TOC claims that microevolution has never happened,
because "all life was created as it is now". It therefore predicts
that all organisms have always had the same level of disease or poison
resistance as they currently have. Any (e.g.) historical evidence to
the contrary is, therefore, evidence against your TOC.
>But evolution via natural
>selection acts only at the level of a population while Creation
>works at the inter-population level.
??? "evolution via natural selection" operates at the level of the
*individual*, or (according to some) at the level of the *gene*.
(Almost) no scientist claims that it happens at any higher level,
except insofar as cumulative individual selection produces changes in
the population. That is, *all* changes in populations are explicable
as the result of cumulative selection at the individual level or
lower.
Your TOC, on the other hand, predicts *nothing* about selection (at
the "inter-population" level or otherwise), except that it hasn't
happened (because all life was created "as it is now").
>Natural selection does not
>predict or explain the diversity of life on the planet while
>Creation does.
Sez who? Read _The Blind Watchmaker_. Evolution does a good job of
predicting and explaining the "diversity of life".
Your TOC, on the other hand, does neither. It predicts that life has
always been as it is now. If life is diverse now, it predicts that
life was always diverse. If life is sparse, it predicts that life was
always sparse.
And it doesn't explain why life was created with diversity; it just
says that it happened.
>While the exact mechanisms of Creation are unknown, the fossil
>record is replete with examples of creation.
Sez who? Please give an example.
>New species appear,
>and life itself appears suddenly in the fossil record.
Life (as it is now) occurs anything but suddenly. For a long time,
there was just prokaryotic life; then all sorts of weird life (most of
it nothing like "life as it is now") appears; then most of it dies
out. Life "as it is now" appears gradually over hundreds of millions
of years.
And species seem to develop from other, existing species. Predicted by
the TOE, but not by your TOC.
>Further research is needed to determine the mechanisms for these
>well documented examples of creation,
"well documented examples of creation"? Cite the documents, please.
>but current theory holds
>that these creation events imply the existence of a creator.
Whose current theory? Even your "TOC" doesn't say there was a creator,
just that creation occured. And the prevalent "current theory" of
biology doesn't invoke a creator.
>Note
>that the existence of this creator is a conclusion of the theory
>of scientific creationism and not a basic assumption or premise
>of it.
Mm, yes.
How about TOC #2:
"All life was created, as it is now, by invisible pink unicorns
(IPUs)."
This theory does not state that IPUs exist. It merely states that if
life exists, it was created as it is now by IPUs.
We observe that life does exist. Furthermore, it exists "as it is
now".
Therefore, the theory conclude that IPUs exist; for how could life
have been created by IPUs if they did not exist?
Note that the existence of these IPUs is a conclusion of the theory of
scientific pink-unicornism and not a basic assumption or premise of
it.
>The theory of creation as stated makes a number of testable
>predictions.
Yes, it predicts that there has been no change in life, for all life
was created "as it is now". It is therefore contradicted by historical
evidence, direct observation, and a fossil record which abundantly
differs from life "as it is now".
>E.g. it predicts that life will be organized into
>discontinuous, reproductively isolated population (species).
It predicts nothing of the kind. Rather, *because* life is "organized
into discontinuous, reproductively isolated population (species)", it
predicts that life has always been that way.
If life were composed of a single, universally interfertile species,
your TOC would, with equanimity, predict that life had always been
*that* way.
>The
>Theory of Evolution, by itself, makes no such prediction and
>there is no a priori reason why life is organized into species.
It may not predict that life is organised into species. But it does
*explain* why life is divided into species. Further, it explains why
these species can be grouped into genuses, families, orders, etc. Your
TOC does *not* explain this. If all species were created separately,
there is no reason why any two species should be more like each other
than like others.
>
>Furthermore the Theory of Creation predicts that there will be
>evidence of creation events.
It doesn't really predict that, but I'll give it to you anyway. So.
Where is the "evidence of creation events"? I don't see any.
>Such evidence is abundant in the
>fossil record with new species and life itself appearing at
>various strata.
Again, Sez who? Your interpretation of the fossil record is not a
common one among paleontologists...
>In
>fact, a logical extension of the Theory of Evolution predicts
>that no evidence of abiogenesis will be found. Thus it is
>Evolution which is falsified by the data, not Creation.
HOW does the TOE predict this? The TOE does not concern itself with
abiogenesis (pace deaddog). It concerns itself *only* with the
behavior of imperfect replicators. It does, indeed, explain how
"living" imperfect replicators can arise from "non-living" ones; but
it isn't concerned with how those first imperfect replicators came to
exist.
Still, it's not a big problem. Imperfect replicators aren't that hard
to come by.
>The Theory of Creation is falsifiable.
Yes, and falsified. If there were evidence that life has not always
been as it is now, if new species were found to arise or existing ones
were found to change (e.g. develop new immunities), that would be
evidence *against* your TOC. And there is plenty of such evidence.
>If it were found that
>life were not organized into discrete, discontinuous,
>reproductively isolated populations, that would disprove
>Creation.
Au contraire. If it were found that "life was not organized into
discrete, discontinuous, reproductively isolated populations", your
TOC would calmly predict that life has *never* been organized into
discrete, discontinuous, reproductively isolated populations. No
problem.
>The hypothesized mechanism of the Theory of Creation, is that the
>observed creation events imply a creator.
Stipulated. Observed creation events do, indeed, imply a creator. Now
give an example of an observed creation event.
--
Andrew Solovay [PGP public key available on request]
"Cottleston, cottleston, cottleston pie."
-- Pooh
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #107 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [106 <컴] [컴> 108]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 22:01
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36746 of talk.origins:
From: danwell@iastate.edu (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Is this a theory
Date: 1 Jul 1994 14:24:51 GMT
Organization: Denver Deathbeams and Stuff
Lines: 26
I stopped when I found the first problem with this
theory. It's prediction that species breed true is
known to be false as the result of direct observation.
Ring species and observed speciation in plants seem to
falsify the theory.
Also the theory seems to make a pudding of explaining
the various odd features of gene scans. It gives no
clue that helps explain the patterns of relatedness.
Evolution does: this helps pay for the added complexity
of the theory of evolution.
The creation theory also implied that all species that
ever lived were alive together at one point. If one takes
the fossil record and looks at all the species there are
one comes up with a distinct lack of room.
"In the beginning there was standing room only?"
Would you like to prepare a refinement of this
theory?
--
Dan Ashlock (Danwell)
danwell@iastate.edu
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #108 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [107 <컴] [컴> 109]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 22:02
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36736 of talk.origins:
From: Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe Morlan)
Date: 01 Jul 94 00:23:55 -0800
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Theory of Creation! (was Re: Is this a theory)
Organization: Damar Enterprises
Lines: 358
-=> Quoting Andrew Solovay to All <=-
AS> Well, if it's a "theory", I don't think it's a theory
AS> that'll keep evilutionists up at night.
But does it qualify as a theory? If it does, then Dr Pepper owes
me $10. If not, then I need to fix it.
>The theory of scientific creation states that all life was
>created as it is now.
AS> "All life... as it is now"? Therefore, (e.g.) gonococcus
AS> was created with as much resistance to penicilin as it has
AS> now.
Yup. More or less.
>The primary scientific evidence for creation is that all species
>breed true.
AS> How is that evidence for your "theory"? Your theory says
AS> nothing about speciation. Rather, it says that all life was
AS> created as it is now.
Actually creationism = speciation. They're synonyms.
AS> If species didn't breed true, you could just as easily say,
AS> "The theory predicts that species won't breed true"
AS> (because then, "not breeding true" would be a facet of
AS> "what life is like now".
A specious argument if I ever heard one. ;)
>No species gives birth to new species.
AS> Says who? There are recent, observed, incidents of
AS> speciation. Furthermore, the fossil record abounds with
AS> incidents of speciation. (See the Speciation FAQ for
AS> details.)
Your examples of speciation, are actually creation events. You
just didn't realize it.
>Lizards beget lizards and amoebas beget amoebas.
AS> I thought you were talking about "species"? If a lizard
AS> begets a different species of lizard, well, that's
AS> speciation.
AS> And we have concrete examples of fruit flies begeting a
AS> different species (non-interfertile) of fruit fly. See the
AS> speciation FAQ.
Perfect! Just the example of creation I was looking for....
>Note that this makes
>no unsupported assumptions, nor does it invoke any supernatural
>entities.
AS> It *implies* supernatural entities (who or what did the
AS> "creating"?) And it does make unsupported assumptions, e.g.
AS> how much life has managed to change since the "creation"
AS> while still managing to be created "as it is now".
These implications are in YOUR head, not in the theory.
>The Theory of Creation is thus more parsimonious than the
>theory of evolution, which states that species evolve into new
>species, either suddenly or by gradual steps.
AS> Well, the TOE states that populations change as a result of
AS> selection on individuals. One consequence of the change is
AS> that sometimes, speciation occurs. Which has been
AS> observed.
There is no such consequence. Evolution = a change in allele
frequency in a population over any amount of time regardless of
generational length. Note well: evolution is confined to one
population at a time. Anything that splits into two populations
is NOT evolution and does not qualify as an evolutionary
phenomenon. Evolution explains allele changes in single
populations only and explains nothing about speciation. Note
that this is the point that Mayr makes in his rejection of the
reductionist definition of evolution.
Given the reductionist definition of evolution which we all know
and love, only creationism explains diversity or speciation.
It's the pits, isn't it?
>The theory of
>evolution of new species is not supported by direct observation,
>and assumes facts not in evidence.
AS> It is certainly supported by observation, of (e.g.) the
AS> fossil record, the structure of existing life, DNA
AS> analysis, and many other things. Consider (e.g.) the
AS> behavior of fast-breeding organisms (insects, microbes)
AS> under intense selective pressure (insecticides,
AS> antibiotics). The TOE predicts that natural selection will
AS> cause those individuals with more resistance to be more
AS> successful at reproduction, so the population will
AS> gradually become more resistant.
Please pay attention. We were talking about direct observation
of the evolution of new species, not about evolution of the
properties of existing species.
AS> Your theory, on the other hand, predicts that this will
AS> *not* happen, or at least *has not* happened; because life
AS> was created "as it is now".
As admitted, the properties of these organisms may change, but
not the organisms themselves.
>The theory of creation is independent of the phenomenon of
>microevolution which explains such things as the development of
>disease or poison resistance via natural selection and
>differential reproductive success.
AS> "Independent"? Your TOC claims that microevolution has
AS> never happened, because "all life was created as it is
AS> now". It therefore predicts that all organisms have always
AS> had the same level of disease or poison resistance as they
AS> currently have. Any (e.g.) historical evidence to the
AS> contrary is, therefore, evidence against your TOC.
Please distinguish between creation of new species and changes of
the properties of existing species.
>But evolution via natural
>selection acts only at the level of a population while Creation
>works at the inter-population level.
AS> ??? "evolution via natural selection" operates at the level
AS> of the *individual*, or (according to some) at the level of
AS> the *gene*.
There are no reputable evolutionary biologists who think that
natural selection targets the individual gene. You are correct
that natural selection targets the individual organism, but the
resulting evolution is a population level phenomenon. Please
distinguish carefully evolution and natural selection. They
ain't the same animal.
Maybe I need to write a faq on this.
AS> (Almost) no scientist claims that it happens at any higher
AS> level, except insofar as cumulative individual selection
AS> produces changes in the population. That is, *all* changes
AS> in populations are explicable as the result of cumulative
AS> selection at the individual level or lower.
Agreed. This is within the mainstream of evolutionary thought.
AS> Your TOC, on the other hand, predicts *nothing* about
AS> selection (at the "inter-population" level or otherwise),
AS> except that it hasn't happened (because all life was
AS> created "as it is now").
That's because evolution (allele change in a population) is
independent of creation events (speciations).
>Natural selection does not
>predict or explain the diversity of life on the planet while
>Creation does.
AS> Sez who? Read _The Blind Watchmaker_. Evolution does a good
AS> job of predicting and explaining the "diversity of life".
Haven't read it. How could it possibly explain speciation using
the reductionist definition of allele change. Absurd!
....
>While the exact mechanisms of Creation are unknown, the fossil
>record is replete with examples of creation.
AS> Sez who? Please give an example.
The appearance of life at the beginning of the precambrian about
4,000,000 years ago would be such an example. But every new
species that appears in the fossil record is also an example.
There's lots and lots of creations.
>New species appear,
>and life itself appears suddenly in the fossil record.
AS> Life (as it is now) occurs anything but suddenly. For a long time,
AS> there was just prokaryotic life; then all sorts of weird life (most of
AS> it nothing like "life as it is now") appears; then most of it dies
AS> out. Life "as it is now" appears gradually over hundreds of millions
AS> of years.
And each step where new species occur is another example of
creation.
AS> And species seem to develop from other, existing species.
AS> Predicted by the TOE, but not by your TOC.
It's not predicted by the TOE, but the main premise of it.
>Further research is needed to determine the mechanisms for these
>well documented examples of creation,
AS> "well documented examples of creation"? Cite the documents,
AS> please.
See above.
>but current theory holds
>that these creation events imply the existence of a creator.
AS> Whose current theory? Even your "TOC" doesn't say there was
AS> a creator, just that creation occured. And the prevalent
AS> "current theory" of biology doesn't invoke a creator.
The theory of creation is not intended to be accepted. It's
intended to win $10 from Dr Pepper. If it can be shown that
creations occur, there is a logical implication that these
creations were caused by something. The other possibility is
that these creations were caused by nothing. I think the
existence of a creator is the more parsimonious explanation.
>Note
>that the existence of this creator is a conclusion of the theory
>of scientific creationism and not a basic assumption or premise
>of it.
AS> Mm, yes.
AS> How about TOC #2:
AS> "All life was created, as it is now, by invisible pink
AS> unicorns (IPUs)."
AS> This theory does not state that IPUs exist. It merely
AS> states that if life exists, it was created as it is now by
AS> IPUs.
AS> We observe that life does exist. Furthermore, it exists "as
AS> it is now".
AS> Therefore, the theory conclude that IPUs exist; for how
AS> could life have been created by IPUs if they did not exist?
AS> Note that the existence of these IPUs is a conclusion of
AS> the theory of scientific pink-unicornism and not a basic
AS> assumption or premise of
Sounds good, but there is no need to postulate IPUs, thus your
version assumes facts not in evidence. My version makes the
fewest possible assumptions given the premise of creation.....
AS> If life were composed of a single, universally interfertile
AS> species, your TOC would, with equanimity, predict that life
AS> had always been *that* way.
But it isn't, so....
>The
>Theory of Evolution, by itself, makes no such prediction and
>there is no a priori reason why life is organized into species.
AS> It may not predict that life is organized into species. But
AS> it does *explain* why life is divided into species.
Haw! HOW does it *explain* speciation? This better be good.
AS> Further, it explains why these species can be grouped into
AS> genuses, families, orders, etc.
Ooooh, are you out on a limb! Please define genus, family,
order, etc, so that I can unambiguously determine if a given
assemblage containing unique derived characters is one or the
other or none. Looking forward to your reply.
AS> Your TOC does *not* explain this. If all species were
AS> created separately, there is no reason why any two species
AS> should be more like each other than like others.
I'll wait for your elucidation of the definitions of genera,
families, etc before tackling this one. Hint: Higher
categories are strictly manmade hierarchical classifications with
no direct mapping to the real biological world.
>Furthermore the Theory of Creation predicts that there will be
>evidence of creation events.
AS> It doesn't really predict that, but I'll give it to you
AS> anyway. So. Where is the "evidence of creation events"? I
AS> don't see any.
>Such evidence is abundant in the
>fossil record with new species and life itself appearing at
>various strata.
AS> Again, Sez who? Your interpretation of the fossil record is
AS> not a common one among paleontologists...
That's 'cause they're all blinded by the religion of
evilutionism.
>In
>fact, a logical extension of the Theory of Evolution predicts
>that no evidence of abiogenesis will be found. Thus it is
>Evolution which is falsified by the data, not Creation.
AS> HOW does the TOE predict this? The TOE does not concern
AS> itself with abiogenesis (pace deaddog). It concerns itself
AS> *only* with the behavior of imperfect replicators. It does,
AS> indeed, explain how "living" imperfect replicators can
AS> arise from "non-living" ones; but it isn't concerned with
AS> how those first imperfect replicators came to exist.
The TOE states that all life evolved from pre-existing life.
Since life now exists, that means there must have been
pre-existing life. This statement is true in all time frames.
Thus life always existed. QED.
>The Theory of Creation is falsifiable.
AS> Yes, and falsified. If there were evidence that life has
AS> not always been as it is now, if new species were found to
AS> arise or existing ones were found to change (e.g. develop
AS> new immunities), that would be evidence *against* your TOC.
AS> And there is plenty of such evidence.
The TOC does not claim that life has always been as it is now.
Many species have been created and gone extinct over many
generations. The fossil record shows that. The TOC proposes
that all species living today were created as they are now.
That's all.
>If it were found that
>life were not organized into discrete, discontinuous,
>reproductively isolated populations, that would disprove
>Creation.
AS> Au contraire. If it were found that "life was not organized
AS> into discrete, discontinuous, reproductively isolated
AS> populations", your TOC would calmly predict that life has
AS> *never* been organized into discrete, discontinuous,
AS> reproductively isolated populations. No problem.
Good point. I'll give you that one.
>The hypothesized mechanism of the Theory of Creation, is that the
>observed creation events imply a creator.
AS> Stipulated. Observed creation events do, indeed, imply a
AS> creator. Now give an example of an observed creation
AS> event.
I already gave you one, the beginning of life itself. Any claim
of an observed speciation can be interpreted as a creation
because evolution only affects alleles in *a* population.
... "Could you continue your petty bickering? I find it most intriguing."
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #109 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [108 <컴] [컴> 110]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 22:03
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36735 of talk.origins:
From: Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe Morlan)
Date: 30 Jun 94 22:20:39 -0800
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: An objection to Mayr's definition.
Organization: Damar Enterprises
Lines: 23
-=> Quoting Daniel A Ashlock to All <=-
DAA> The reductionist definition is far more tractable when one
DAA> is trying to do a quantatative analysis of evolution and,
DAA> here's where I am puzzled, it seems that the changes in
DAA> diversity and degree of adaptation could be taken to be
DAA> consequences of the reductionist definition when it is
DAA> living in the real world.
The reductionist definition implies that genes are targets of
selection when actually it is the entire organism. Furthermore
natural selection of variation invariably reduces diversity by
culling the less fit members of the populations. It seems to me
that the logical consequence of evolution via natural selection
is a relatively depauperate world of few species and little
diversity.
I agree with Mayr that the reductionist definition of evolution
is wrong and misleading as well as leaving unexplained much if
not most evolutionary phenomena.
... "Could you continue your petty bickering? I find it most intriguing."
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #110 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [109 <컴] [컴> 111]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 22:03
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36750 of talk.origins:
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: A Theory of Creation! (was Re: Is this a theory)
Date: 1 Jul 1994 14:53:05 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Lines: 53
In article , Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe
Morlan) writes:
|> -=> Quoting Andrew Solovay to All <=-
|>
|> AS> Well, if it's a "theory", I don't think it's a theory
|> AS> that'll keep evilutionists up at night.
|>
|> But does it qualify as a theory? If it does, then Dr Pepper owes
|> me $10. If not, then I need to fix it.
Hmmm. Interesting bet. Is it possible for Dr. Pepper to win?
|>
|> >The theory of scientific creation states that all life was
|> >created as it is now.
|>
|> AS> "All life... as it is now"? Therefore, (e.g.) gonococcus
|> AS> was created with as much resistance to penicilin as it has
|> AS> now.
|>
|> Yup. More or less.
|>
|> >The primary scientific evidence for creation is that all species
|> >breed true.
|>
|> AS> How is that evidence for your "theory"? Your theory says
|> AS> nothing about speciation. Rather, it says that all life was
|> AS> created as it is now.
|>
|> Actually creationism = speciation. They're synonyms.
[...much deleted...]
It would have saved some time if you had mentioned that earlier.
While I still have difficulty in following some of your inferences,
I'll not press that, as the only question seems to be whether you
have something which can be called a theory of creationism, not
whether it is a good theory.
Let me ask you what is wrong with these candidates for a theory
of creation that is not wrong with yours:
Candidate A: Creation is the time derivative of momentum. Now,
rewrite Newtonian mechanics with the word "force" replaced by
"creation" throughout.
Candidate B: Creationism is the theory that all dogs have seven legs.
(This theory is easily falsified, hence is a falsifiable theory of
creationism.)
--
Tom Scharle |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #111 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [110 <컴] [컴> 112]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 22:04
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36753 of talk.origins:
From: danwell@iastate.edu (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: An objection to Mayr's definition.
Date: 1 Jul 1994 15:07:12 GMT
Organization: Denver Deathbeams and Stuff
Lines: 58
In article , Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe
Morlan) writes:
> -=> Quoting Daniel A Ashlock to All <=-
>
>
>DAA> The reductionist definition is far more tractable when one
>DAA> is trying to do a quantatative analysis of evolution and,
>DAA> here's where I am puzzled, it seems that the changes in
>DAA> diversity and degree of adaptation could be taken to be
>DAA> consequences of the reductionist definition when it is
>DAA> living in the real world.
>
>The reductionist definition implies that genes are targets of
>selection when actually it is the entire organism.
No, it doesn't. It makes no statement _at_ _all_ about what
the target of evolution is. In fact I was unaware that evolution
had a target?
>Furthermore
>natural selection of variation invariably reduces diversity by
>culling the less fit members of the populations.
And if you remove the water tank from a steam engine it works
poorly too; what's the relevance? I'm not being facetious. When
one says "Evolution is the variation of allel frequencies in a
population over time" one has said not one word about the source
of the variation.
>It seems to me
>that the logical consequence of evolution via natural selection
>is a relatively depauperate world of few species and little
>diversity.
And the consequence of a steam engine with the water tank removed
is a lot of hot metal that doesn't produce much useful work. While
you are correct, the existence of natural sources of additional diversity
make me wonder why you care?
>I agree with Mayr that the reductionist definition of evolution
>is wrong and misleading as well as leaving unexplained much if
>not most evolutionary phenomena.
Huh? The definition is clear, unambiguous, can be used to derive
both examples of natural and artificial evolution by adding appropriate
additional strucure, and matches all the examples of evolution I'm aware
of. Mayr's definition _excludes_ some forms of evolution.
It seems to me that you're trying to cram an introduction to
evolution into the definition to the detriment of it's accuracy.
>... "Could you continue your petty bickering? I find it most intriguing."
-Data. One of my heros.
--
Dan Ashlock (Danwell)
danwell@iastate.edu
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #112 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [111 <컴] [컴> 113]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 22:06
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36755 of talk.origins:
From: lamoran@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran)
Subject: Re: An objection to Mayr's definition.
Organization: UTCC Public Access
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 15:18:22 GMT
Lines: 44
In article ,
Joe Morlan wrote:
> -=> Quoting Daniel A Ashlock to All <=-
>
>
>DAA> The reductionist definition is far more tractable when one
>DAA> is trying to do a quantatative analysis of evolution and,
>DAA> here's where I am puzzled, it seems that the changes in
>DAA> diversity and degree of adaptation could be taken to be
>DAA> consequences of the reductionist definition when it is
>DAA> living in the real world.
>
>The reductionist definition implies that genes are targets of
>selection when actually it is the entire organism. Furthermore
>natural selection of variation invariably reduces diversity by
>culling the less fit members of the populations. It seems to me
>that the logical consequence of evolution via natural selection
>is a relatively depauperate world of few species and little
>diversity.
>
The "reductionist definition" doesn't say anything about the mechanism of
evolution. The definition of evolution is independent of any theory about
how it works. You are correct in assuming that strong natural selection
will eliminate alleles that have low fitness. The fact that living populations
are diverse is one of the proofs that natural selection isn't as important
in evolution as most people believe.
>I agree with Mayr that the reductionist definition of evolution
>is wrong and misleading as well as leaving unexplained much if
>not most evolutionary phenomena.
>
Please explain why the "reductionist definition" is wrong and offer one that
is correct. Please explain why a DEFINITION should include any theory or
speculation about mechanisms. Remember, we are defining _evolution_ here
not the _theory of evolution_ or _speciation_.
Laurence A. Moran (Larry)
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #113 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [112 <컴] [컴> 114]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 22:06
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
Article 36758 of talk.origins:
From: woodward@luna.ec.usf.edu. (Chris Woodward (PSY))
Subject: Re: Is this a theory
Date: 1 Jul 1994 15:22:34 GMT
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, College of Arts & Sciences
Lines: 139
In article <168_9406301000@damar.com> Joe.Morlan@FISHTANK.damar.com (Joe
Morlan) writes:
> -=> Quoting I.B. Harris to All <=-
>
>IH> But why all this arguing about semantics? As I understand
>IH> it, the scientific definition of a theory is a system of
>IH> beliefs which all the available evidence supports. A law,
>IH> despite the feeling of absoluteness its popular usage
>IH> suggests, is simply either an initial assumption, or a
>IH> consequence of the overlying theory.
>
>I'd be curious if anybody thinks this qualifies as a "theory."
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>THE LONG AWAITED THEORY OF CREATIONISM
>
>The theory of scientific creation states that all life was
>created as it is now.
Which is immediately falsified by the catalog of hominid
fossils (Homo neanderthalensis in particular) that have no
modern analogue.
>The primary scientific evidence for creation is that all species
>breed true. No species gives birth to new species. Lizards beget
>lizards and amoebas beget amoebas. There is ample scientific
>evidence that species reproduce themselves. Note that this makes
>no unsupported assumptions, nor does it invoke any supernatural
>entities.
Actually, species do not always breed true. Horses and donkeys
can breed to produce (sterile) offspring known as "mules".
Further problems are found with the definition of "species".
If you define a species as a class of animals that breeds
true, then the "primary scientific evidence for creation"
becomes a lame bit of polemical circle-jerking.
>The Theory of Creation is thus more parsimonious than the
>theory of evolution, which states that species evolve into new
>species, either suddenly or by gradual steps. The theory of
>evolution of new species is not supported by direct observation,
>and assumes facts not in evidence.
"assumes facts not in evidence"? Sounds like a lawyer's phrase
cribbed from "Matlock" or "Law & Order", and it's misapplied
to boot. To top it all off, the evolution of new species *has*
been observed (read the speciation FAQ), so this is directly
contradicted by evidence.
>The theory of creation is independent of the phenomenon of
>microevolution which explains such things as the development of
>disease or poison resistance via natural selection and
>differential reproductive success. But evolution via natural
>selection acts only at the level of a population while Creation
>works at the inter-population level. Natural selection does not
>predict or explain the diversity of life on the planet while
>Creation does.
Oh? How does Creation explain the existence of "living fossils"
like the Coelacanth (sp?), whose fossil bones are in museums but
living examples of which are sometimes caught off Madagascar?
How does Creation explain the rapid development of the enormous
number of different species we have today from the relative hand-
ful that could have fit on Noah's Ark?
I'm not even a professional biologist/geneticist (I'm an exper-
imental psychologist), but I recognize argumentum ad handwavium
when I see it.
>While the exact mechanisms of Creation are unknown, the fossil
>record is replete with examples of creation. New species appear,
>and life itself appears suddenly in the fossil record.
Which sort of contradicts the earlier assertion that all life
was created as it is now, doesn't it?
>Further research is needed to determine the mechanisms for these
>well documented examples of creation, but current theory holds
>that these creation events imply the existence of a creator. Note
>that the existence of this creator is a conclusion of the theory
>of scientific creationism and not a basic assumption or premise
>of it.
Oh? How can you talk about creation without postulating a
creator? Isn't that .. well, dishonest?
>The theory of creation as stated makes a number of testable
>predictions. E.g. it predicts that life will be organized into
>discontinuous, reproductively isolated population (species). The
>Theory of Evolution, by itself, makes no such prediction and
>there is no a priori reason why life is organized into species.
Not as it's "explained" here, it doesn't. Nothing about a
creation necessarily *implies* that the created species will
be reproductively isolated. If the Creator wanted to, he/she/it
could have created the species with any degree of reproductive
isolation from none to complete -- it's an assertion that does
not follow from the only semi-clear assertion in the whole mess.
>Furthermore the Theory of Creation predicts that there will be
>evidence of creation events. Such evidence is abundant in the
>fossil record with new species and life itself appearing at
>various strata. The Theory of Evolution makes no such
>predictions and fails to predict evidence of abiogenesis. In
>fact, a logical extension of the Theory of Evolution predicts
>that no evidence of abiogenesis will be found. Thus it is
>Evolution which is falsified by the data, not Creation.
Eh? How, may I ask, can you tell the evidence from a creation
event from the evidence of evolutionary change? Do you slice
time finely enough so that even if we had a complete fossil
record of every individual from Lucy down to the present you'd
still be able to (illegitimately) say that each was a creation
event?
>The Theory of Creation is falsifiable. If it were found that
>life were not organized into discrete, discontinuous,
>reproductively isolated populations, that would disprove
>Creation. If evidence were found that life always existed, that
>would falsify the Theory of Creation.
It's only your particular literalistic formulation of a Theory of Creation
that would be falsified -- other theories, like the "Blind Watchmaker"
theory would fare somewhat better.
>The hypothesized mechanism of the Theory of Creation, is that the
>observed creation events imply a creator. While the exact
>mechanism of these creations or the methods used by the creator
>are not yet known, they are subject to further research. Current
>experiments on abiogenesis and attempts to create new species
>in the laboratory are the focus of current research (or should
>be.)
You seem to be confused about the purpose of abiogenetic research.
Those experiments are directed towards demonstrating the plausibility
of life emerging from an inorganic soup with appropriate energy in-
put and catalysis -- in other words, just because the conditions
are right for it, not because someone waved a wand and said "let
there be life."
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
Message #114 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion] [113 <컴]
From: Wesley R. Elsberry Posted: 1 Jul 94 22:35
To : All
Subj: Joe and t.o.
It looks like a lot of the same concerns that I've expressed over
Joe's "ToC" were noted by the t.o. dogpile, like the lack of a
mechanism, the failure to address "creation" by a supposed
theory of same, and a laxity in logical statements given
within the "ToC" (Scharle's commentary went more directly to
the point than my own take on the matter).
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Central Neural System 409-589-3338 (1:117/385)
