ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/09/84)
[This line is blank]
I've been a bystander in the creationism-evolution debate for some
time. Ray Miller's last contribution is sufficiently outrageous that I
finally feel moved to comment. In what follows the quotes are all from
Ray. I have had to edit some of the lines to save space.
> Bill Jefferys wrote "Let *evolutionists* propose conceivable observations
> whose implications would be so serious *to evolutionists* that it would cause
> them to question the validity of evolutionary theory. Similarly, let *crea-
> tionists* demonstrate that their discipline is indeed a science by suggesting
> conceivable observations that would cause *them* to question the validity of
> creationism." A fine idea, with Bill being the only evolutionist brave enough
> to do that. Bill's suggested test was evidence of men and dinosaurs living
> contemporaneously. Given such evidence in 3 separate notes by me, others on
> the net responded with things like: well, little green men from Ork might have
> trotted around barefoot and then split for 65M years (ala Eric Von Daniken).
> Silly of course, but it demonstrates that evolution is so plastic that it can
> always be twisted to squirm out of any potential falsification procedures.
Ray,
Bill Jefferys's suggestion was a good one. As someone else, I forget who,
pointed out, actually any outrageous anachronism would suffice. That is, the
presence in an early strata of an organism that supposedly evolved much much
later. As Bill stated, in order to be acceptable evidence the fossils should
clearly have been formed in the strata that they are found, substantiated
by any available dating techniques. I think anyone would agree that such an
occurrence would require an extraordinary explanation, i.e. an intervention
from outside the undisturbed evolution of life on Earth. Little green men
from Ork are as "scientific" a hypothesis as divine intervention. I don't
advocate either.
As far as evidence goes, you have not submitted evidence of anything.
You have passed along an unsubstantiated claim, without even bothering to
say whether or not it meets the conditions for evidence that Bill suggested.
The next paragraph in your article dealt with the predictability
of future evolution. Others have dealt with this point. The quoted biologists
were almost certainly refering to the difficulty of assessing the importance
of natural selection in evolution, not the kinship of all living
things. (He didn't give the reference in Nature.) One aspect of
prediction which no one has commented has to do with the fact that evolution,
like any theory of history, does predict that evidence concerning the past,
e.g. fossils as yet uncovered, will be consistent with evolution. An example
of such evidence, unknown in Darwin's days, is the biochemical similarity
between living organisms. To an amazing extent the degree of kinship of
organisms, as revealed through the fossil record, is an predictor of the
biochemical similarity between organisms.
> But as I promised last week, here is a falsification test for creation (2
> test actually). First for the Paluxy River tracks. Given a slab of Cretaceous
> limestone, fabricate a human-like footprint. It must be of equal quality as
> the best that Dr. Baugh has found, i.e., subtle human features such as toes,
> arch, heel, ball of foot, etc. all in correct anatomical proportions.
> Additionally lamination lines *must* follow the contour of the depression -
> including the toe region. The lamination lines will of course eliminate all
> carvings (hoaxes, erosion, etc.) I will wave the additional restriction that
> the print must be located underneath overlying Cretaceous layers to make it
> easier. If such a thing can be done (and no scientist or evolutionist has yet)
> then while not falsifying creation, I will agree that the Paluxy tracks cannot
> be used as strong positive evidence for the model.
This is not the same as abandoning your hypothesis, and therefore is *not*
a test of creationism.
> (BTW Bill, to answer your question, if I recall correctly Dr. Baugh has 2
> doctoral degrees: one in Theology and the other in Paleoanthropology. He also
> has a MS in Archaeology. So despite your comments, he knows what he's doing.)
This is a minor point, but all the same, where are these degrees from?
> But to put creationism to the test even more: creation, unlike evolution,
> says that some things won't happen (and thus opens itself to falsification).
> Creationists claim that there are limits in variability to viable organisms.
> Thus to falsify the claim, simply demonstrate said transitions in the past
> (through fossils) or in the present. If you don't know the difference between
> "horizontal" and "vertical" evolution then you don't know enough about the
> creation model to intelligently criticize it. If you don't know why creation-
> ists generally agree with evolutionists on the *order* of fossils in the local
> geological columns then you don't know enough about the creation model to
> intelligently criticize it. And finally, if you don't propose a mechanism by
> which your model can be falsified (or at least try like Bill) then you have no
> grounds on which to call evolution a science.
On the other hand, evolution says certain things *have* happened. At the risk
of being revealed as unintelligent, I have never seen or heard the terms
"vertical" and "horizontal" evolution. I have heard of "variation within
type" and "variation between types". Allow me to offer the following
definitions. Variation within type is change in a population of plants
or animals that is well documented in the historical record. Variation
between types covers everything else.
"Just another Cosmic Cowboy"
Ethan Vishniac
{ut-sally,ut-ngp,kpno}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712