dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/22/85)
> [Keith Doyle] > Being aware of the fact that creationists at the ICR must sign an affidavit > attesting that they believe that the Bible is to be taken literally etc. > it would appear that such an observed transmutation could then be explained > as an 'act of God' or a 'miracle' or who knows what, but dosen't necessarily > disprove creation. (as one would expect from current creationist tactics). Of course. Anything *could* be explained as a miracle...but an *observed* transition would be better evidence than an *inferred* one. Example: creationists fully accept the _Biston betularia_ phenomenon. The "transition" from a predominantly light-colored population to a predominantly dark one (and now back again) has been observed. No one has proposed to explain it as a miracle that I know of. Now, I know that this isn't exactly what you mean by an "observed transmutation" - but I prefer to worry about that (i.e., "explain it away"! :-) ) when you come up with one. >> [Dan Boskovich] >> I would be interested in hearing some examples of how Evolution >> could be falsified? > [Keith Doyle] > One basic prediction of evolution is, that life, *all* life, as diverse as > it is linked up in a hierarchical arrangement of similarities. We might > postulate then, that all life is constructed using the basic building > block DNA. If however we discovered one or more life forms that didn't > use DNA as a building block, we may have falsified at least one aspect > of evolutionary theory. "At least one aspect"? You just called it the "basic prediction of evolution". That seems to me more than simply "an aspect". But what sort of prediction is it when one "predicts" it after *observing* the (generally) hierarchical arrangement of organisms? One hardly needs evolution to "predict" an underlying similarity. I also doubt very much whether non-uniformity would actually be taken to falsify anything. We can see this by asking what would happen if this basic prediction failed. Would it be evidence against evolution? Nope. Why? Because it would merely show that the origin of life occurred more that once, and in different ways - all of which would be evolutionary ways, of course. So how could one test it, really? When one insists on interpreting all facts from within an evolutionary framework, it is hardly likely that the framework shall be contradicted. Aspects of it, yes (as you said), but not the framework as a whole. This is similar to the statement that's been thrown around about fossils of higher animals being found in early strata. It has been said that this would falsify evolution. It wouldn't. All that happens is that the interpretation is changed to "it appears that this organism evolved earlier than was formerly realized. Clearly then, it must have earlier ancestors than was supposed." This is what in fact *actually* happens, for instance, with the bird fossils that were as old as _Archaeopteryx_. "Too early" fossils don't make a dent. Also, if one wants to make the hierarchy a criterion, one had better be careful to leave a back door open, because the hierarchy is violated. Eukaryotic cells are said to have been invaded by bacteria that turned into mitochondria. Then they were invaded by cyanobacteria that were the source of chlorophyll in the primitive cells from which all green plants arose. So you have branches of the tree growing together again. Of course...it *could* have been a miracle! :-) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/24/85)
In article <1127@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > [Keith Doyle] > > One basic prediction of evolution is, that life, *all* life, as diverse as > > it is linked up in a hierarchical arrangement of similarities. We might > > postulate then, that all life is constructed using the basic building > > block DNA. If however we discovered one or more life forms that didn't > > use DNA as a building block, we may have falsified at least one aspect > > of evolutionary theory. > > "At least one aspect"? You just called it the "basic prediction of > evolution". That seems to me more than simply "an aspect". But what > sort of prediction is it when one "predicts" it after *observing* the > (generally) hierarchical arrangement of organisms? One hardly needs > evolution to "predict" an underlying similarity. The prediction of evolution that has been fulfilled is that MORE similarities will be found, allowing incorporation of all organisms into the hierarchy. The ubiquity of DNA/RNA and attendent machinery, linking all the diversity of life, is something separate creation could not predict without postulating an unimaginative (:-)) creator. > I also doubt very much whether non-uniformity would actually be taken > to falsify anything. We can see this by asking what would happen if > this basic prediction failed. Would it be evidence against evolution? > Nope. Why? Because it would merely show that the origin of life > occurred more that once, and in different ways - all of which would be > evolutionary ways, of course. Have Newton's Laws been falsified? Yes and no. They are special cases of general relativity. If certain kinds of non-uniformity were found, our current ideas of evolution might become special cases of a supplanting theory. Such as a multiple origin theory. For an example of another type of non-uniformity, if we found that Biblical kinds had apparently unbridgeable gaps between their cellular machinery (one used DNA, another used XXX, and each other kind used a different method), then we would have to declare their similarities analogous (rather than homologous) and evolution would be falsified. > So how could one test it, really? When one insists on interpreting > all facts from within an evolutionary framework, it is hardly likely > that the framework shall be contradicted. Aspects of it, yes (as you > said), but not the framework as a whole. The trick is to find another framework that explains things better. For example, the old theories of epicycles weren't really contradicted: they could merely have been adjusted for the individual cases. But Kepplers description by elliptical orbits sweeping out constant areas per unit time proved far less complex and far more accurate. No disproof involved: just a better fit of data to hypothesis. > This is similar to the statement that's been thrown around about > fossils of higher animals being found in early strata. It has been > said that this would falsify evolution. It wouldn't. All that > happens is that the interpretation is changed to "it appears that this > organism evolved earlier than was formerly realized. Clearly then, > it must have earlier ancestors than was supposed." This is what in > fact *actually* happens, for instance, with the bird fossils that were > as old as _Archaeopteryx_. "Too early" fossils don't make a dent. Actually, your example isn't very good. Bird fossils of any sort are RARE. With extremely sparse data like that, it's hard to find close to the earliest species. So we're not surprised if ancestors are found a few million years earlier. But mammal fossils are common. It would be VERY surprising to find a mammal fossil in a Carboniferous (or earlier) deposit. Fossils this early WOULD make a dent. Which is why creationists keep hanging out at Pauluxy. (sp?) > Also, if one wants to make the hierarchy a criterion, one had better be > careful to leave a back door open, because the hierarchy is violated. > Eukaryotic cells are said to have been invaded by bacteria that turned > into mitochondria. Then they were invaded by cyanobacteria that were > the source of chlorophyll in the primitive cells from which all green > plants arose. So you have branches of the tree growing together > again. Of course...it *could* have been a miracle! :-) Actually, the hierarchy is broken with the formation of every zygote. Mitochondria and chloroplasts can still be considered (obligate) symbionts. There are some other organelles of eucaryotic cells (nucleolus maybe?) that might also have a symbiotic origin. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/24/85)
> > This is similar to the statement that's been thrown around about > fossils of higher animals being found in early strata. It has been > said that this would falsify evolution. It wouldn't. All that > happens is that the interpretation is changed to "it appears that this > organism evolved earlier than was formerly realized. Clearly then, > it must have earlier ancestors than was supposed." This is what in > fact *actually* happens, for instance, with the bird fossils that were > as old as _Archaeopteryx_. "Too early" fossils don't make a dent. > | > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > | "Too early" fossils don't make a dent because none of the examples that have come to light are particularly impressive. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide just why that might be the case. The statement stands that a strong anachronism would violate evolutionary theory. A trivial, and unrefuted example, would be the discovery of the skeleton of a human being, or any other sufficiently modern mammal, in really old strata. The fossil record is quite rich for more than 600 million years into the past. Why aren't human fossils found except in the last few million years? As for those bird fossils, could you give a reference to that? (I think you already did earlier but I've lost it.) There are at least two important points to keep in mind with them. First, in what sense were the fossils "modern"? Someone else has already commented that other paleotologists think they are probably pterosaurs. The difference between birds and pterosaurs are sufficiently numerous that I'm tempted to believe that the fossils are extremely fragmentary and "modern" means that the bones are hollow and fragile. Second, archeopteryx could coexist with its descendants as long as it didn't directly compete with them. The only real impossibility is that its descendants couldn't predate it. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) (05/25/85)
References: | Nope. Why? Because it would merely show that the origin of life | occurred more that once, and in different ways - all of which would be | evolutionary ways, of course. Evolution does *not* deal with "the origin of life". It gives some sug- gestions as to how life may have originated. The large difference between the creationist and evolutionist points of view is that the creationists hold that organisms were created, and did not change (except very little in special circumstances :-)), but evolution holds that organisms do change. | So how could one test it, really? When one insists on interpreting | all facts from within an evolutionary framework, it is hardly likely | that the framework shall be contradicted. Aspects of it, yes (as you | said), but not the framework as a whole. | | This is similar to the statement that's been thrown around about | fossils of higher animals being found in early strata. It has been | said that this would falsify evolution. It wouldn't. All that | happens is that the interpretation is changed to "it appears that this | organism evolved earlier than was formerly realized. Clearly then, | it must have earlier ancestors than was supposed." This is what in | fact *actually* happens, for instance, with the bird fossils that were | as old as _Archaeopteryx_. "Too early" fossils don't make a dent. The easiest way to contradict the whole framework would be to show that there was no heirarchical structure of living organisms, and that all species appeared suddenly at one time. (Or have a "creator" say "Ha! fooled you! There is *no* method to my madness!") Dave Long -- {hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/27/85)
Paul DuBois writes: > > This is similar to the statement that's been thrown around about > fossils of higher animals being found in early strata. It has been > said that this would falsify evolution. It wouldn't. All that > happens is that the interpretation is changed to "it appears that this > organism evolved earlier than was formerly realized. Clearly then, > it must have earlier ancestors than was supposed." This is what in > fact *actually* happens, for instance, with the bird fossils that were > as old as _Archaeopteryx_. "Too early" fossils don't make a dent. If evolution is unfalsifiable, Paul, why do creationists claim that there is evidence which contradicts it? "Unfalsifiable" means that any conceivable observation is consistent with it. Why did Gish entitle one of his books *Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!*, if the fossil evidence cannot conceivably contradict evolution? In an article in *Science Digest* (Oct. 1981, p. 84), Gish wrote: If millions of species have gradually evolved through hundreds of millions of years, the fossil record must contain an immense number of transitional forms -- museums should be overflowing with them. The fossil record shows, however, an explosive appearance of a great variety of highly complex creatures for which no ancestors can be found and systematic gaps between all higher categories of plants and animals. The fossil record is thus highly contradictory to evolution but remarkably in accord with creation. Creationists also like to bring up the Paluxy footprints, the creationist Piltdown, as evidence against evolution. Indeed, I am sure that the "Scientific Case for Creation" articles that are being posted to net.origins contain many claims that the evidence is contradictory to evolution. No doubt one of those articles also claims that evolution is unfalsifiable. This is an example of the creationist habit of making mutually contradictory arguments, parodied by Kenneth Miller as follows: "the age is 10,000 years ... the radiometric methods are inaccurate ... the radiometric methods do indicate a great age but we "expected" that ... we cannot determine the age of the earth by any scientific evidence, but by the way, we've got some evidence which says it's young! ... the age of the earth doesn't matter because there's still not enough time for evolution ..." So I would like to ask Paul which one of the following mutually contradictory statements he believes to be true: 1. Evolutionary theory is not falsifiable; i.e., evolutionary theory cannot be contradicted by any conceivable empirical evidence. 2. There exists empirical evidence which can be shown to contradict, disprove, or otherwise refute evolutionary theory. I hope Paul will put this article near the top of his stack of articles to be answered; perhaps we can get a reply from Dan B. as well. I am reluctant to conclude that creationists are dishonest, but when they talk out of both sides of their mouths, it is easy to jump to such a conclusion. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/01/85)
In article <133@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes: >> > As for those bird fossils, could you give a reference to that? (I think >you already did earlier but I've lost it.) There are at least two important >points to keep in mind with them. First, in what sense were the fossils >"modern"? Someone else has already commented that other paleotologists >think they are probably pterosaurs. The difference between birds and >pterosaurs are sufficiently numerous that I'm tempted to believe that the >fossils are extremely fragmentary and "modern" means that the bones are >hollow and fragile. Second, archeopteryx could coexist with its descendants >as long as it didn't directly compete with them. The only real impossibility >is that its descendants couldn't predate it. > I am the one who wrote about the alternate identification of these fossils(based on an article in a recent issue of one of the Linnean Society journals). Pauls reference was to a science newspaper that is by reporters not scientists. And yes the fossils were *very* fragmentary, and quite small - there was a photo of one of them in the Science News article. Its supposed modernity was, I believe, in the structure of the (few) joints among the specimens. P.S. Paul, if you will show me an early Triassic bird fossil that is *clearly* a bird(perhaps a skull), I might seriously doubt evolution: late Jurassic is simply not that much of a difference from current evidence, and does not involve birds *predating* thier hypothetical ancestors. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen