Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Charles Darwin · 08-31-2003, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by markfiend
According to 29 evidences for macro-evolution at talkorigins, this agreement is to the 41st decimal place. To compare, the charge of the electron is only known to the 7th decimal place. So not very much disagreement at all.

I guess an argument is OK if it is for evolution, no matter how specious. Here is the claim:

"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^41 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree. In spite of these odds [CD: what odds?], as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies. Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree to better than 41 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the 'twin nested hierarchy.' "

Apparently the claim is that evolution predicts the molecular and morphological trees to be identical, and they are, in spite of there being 10^41 trees in all. This is seen as some sort of great coincidence which can only be explained by evolution. If this were the case then evolution would be falsified since there are molecular vs morphological mismatches. But since evolution is considered a fact, then this isn't really the case.

Note also the unspoken assumption here that molecular and morphological characters can be unrelated. Truly bizarre; but then again, this is evolution.

Charles Darwin · 08-31-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
I have hesitated to participate in this thread, because I am a layman in biology, but I do think that we have a basic problem here about the understanding of science. And that is odd, because CD claims to be a scientist. So I too would like some elucidation of what he understands as a "scientific fact".

If we look at the fairly short history(approximately 400 years) of modern science, although there have been some totally discredited theories, most progress has been made by building on and refining what has gone before (e.g. Newton's oft-quoted "standing on the shoulders of giants").

In a very few cases, we do seem to have arrived at a finished state, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics as the basis of modern mechanical engineering. Normally, however, the process of adjustment and refinement goes on. Even when a previously unexplored phenomenon such as radioactivity is investigated, it largely adds to scientific knowledge and theory rather than totally superseding it.

It would have been remarkable indeed if Darwin's publication of the Origin of Species had been the final word on evolution. It is true that he spent a long time gathering evidence for it, but the total evidence available at his death was small in comparison with what has subsequently been gathered. And some of that later evidence has refuted some of Darwin's ideas. This is no more surprising than that the periodic table, when first postulated, had gaps and mistakes that have subsequently been adjusted.

There is no particular reason to suppose that biology has nearly run its course in the way that Newtonian mechanics has. So we should expect to see continued minor adjustments to evolutionary theory as new evidence is forthcoming. There is no paradox in asserting that an ancestor tree should exist but that not quite all the details have yet been established beyond doubt. What is so remarkable is that the work of huge numbers of scientific professionals since Darwin have produced evidence, sometimes in fields that did not even exist in Darwin's day, all of which support the fact of evolution.

All good points, but on the whole we will disagree because I don't view evolutionary biology as the kind of successful, progressive process, akin to Newtonian physics, as you are describing. Let me put it this way. The problem lies not with a few missing blanks that have yet to be filled in. I'm not quibbling over some fine points.

The whole idea is, frankly, untenable. Now this alone doesn't mean the thing is all wrong. Science is sometimes bizarre. But when one examines the evidence at hand, things don't get any better.

Now I trust you are well aware (unless you've been living in a hole) that the whole topic is laced with deeper concerns. This thread is no less of an example than the history of the movement. The emotional and religious issues are obvious. With some theories of science, one might argue there are subtle religious influences. Not even here; here the religion is quite overt. There's no hiding it. Just read the posts.

Godot · 08-31-2003, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I guess an argument is OK if it is for evolution, no matter how specious. Here is the claim:

"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^41 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree. In spite of these odds [CD: what odds?], as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies. Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree to better than 41 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the 'twin nested hierarchy.' "

Apparently the claim is that evolution predicts the molecular and morphological trees to be identical, and they are, in spite of there being 10^41 trees in all. This is seen as some sort of great coincidence which can only be explained by evolution. If this were the case then evolution would be falsified since there are molecular vs morphological mismatches. But since evolution is considered a fact, then this isn't really the case.

Note also the unspoken assumption here that molecular and morphological characters can be unrelated. Truly bizarre; but then again, this is evolution.

You've got a bit of a problem here. There are not 10^41 phylogenetic trees, there are 10^41 alternate ways to arrange the the major taxa into a tree. Big difference. There is only one correct tree. Therefore, your odds are 1:10^41.

Charles Darwin · 08-31-2003, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xixax
I would just like to point out to Charles Darwin that the cheetah just arose from a very similar cheetah-like ancestor. Likewise, that ancestor came from something very similar to itself, and so on and so on until you have something not much like a cheetah at all.

If Charles Darwin saw a cheetah born without spots, would he scream bloody murder and say that science just can't explain anything like that happening? No. Would he invoke a creator and say "SEE? God just made us a new species, a cheetah without spots!" I'd hope not.

If, for some reason that proved spotless cheetah's were more effective in reproducing and eventually that gene spread throughout a small population, one of the spotless cheetah's then gave birth to a litter with shorter tails, would he see any problem? NO.

Now we have a litter of spotless cheetah's with shorter tails... Charles D, do you see where this is going? Multiply the changes and timeframe by nearly unimaginable quantities and you still fail to understand how evolution works?

I feel similarly to Huxley, it's nearly embarrassing not to understand and recognize that evolution happened and is still happening. It's unavoidable.

Yes, I see where it is going. What is "unavoidable" to you is in fact a highly speculative notion that between the microbe and cheetah there lie a tremendous number of finely grained intermediates, each one not so different from its neighbors that it cannot be reached via normal biological variation; that normal biological variation is able to explore the space sufficiently quickly and "experiments" run in the wild with sufficient efficacy to move the process along the path in spite of the astronomical design space involved. What is embarrassing is hearing someone unequivocally claim such speculation is "unavoidable."

Meanwhile, let us consider that fact that known cases of minor evolution are brought about by an incredibly complex adaptation machine. Mutations do not occur randomly, either temporally or spatially, and we find what are essentially preprogrammed pathways of change. Hardly the kind of thing evolution describes. Simply put, evolution would have had to create the marvelous mechanisms that make evolution possible.

Charles Darwin · 08-31-2003, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Are you seriously arguing that it would be less amazing if millions upon millions of creatures just popped into existence in a sequence that mimics common descent, rather than evolving from very similar antecedents?

Are there any other fields of science in which you prefer magic as an explanation, even when a non-magical explanation fits the evidence?

Translation: Mechanistic / naturalistic explanations will always be preferred. It is built into the paradigm.

Doubting Didymus · 08-31-2003, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Meanwhile, let us consider that fact that known cases of minor evolution are brought about by an incredibly complex adaptation machine. Mutations do not occur randomly, either temporally or spatially, and we find what are essentially preprogrammed pathways of change. Hardly the kind of thing evolution describes. Simply put, evolution would have had to create the marvelous mechanisms that make evolution possible.

Sorry, are you now claiming that muations are not random?

lpetrich · 08-31-2003, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Apparently the claim is that evolution predicts the molecular and morphological trees to be identical, and they are, in spite of there being 10^41 trees in all. This is seen as some sort of great coincidence which can only be explained by evolution. ...

I wonder what CD is claiming -- that it is some sort of irrelevant coincidence?

Quote:

Note also the unspoken assumption here that molecular and morphological characters can be unrelated. Truly bizarre; but then again, this is evolution.

CD ought to tell us why he thinks that this hypothesis is unwarranted -- why he thinks that there is some sort of necessary correlation between cytochrome c sequences and macroscopic features.

Urvogel Reverie · 08-31-2003, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Sorry, are you now claiming that muations are not random?

Apparently so. It should be most curious to see his explanation for stochastic replication/transcription errors.

Urvogel Reverie

markfiend · 09-01-2003, 02:37 AM

In response to my post about phylogenies

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
You are not trying hard enough. There are some cars with a hatchback; others without. Some with a trunk, others without. Then include trucks, earth movers, mopeds, bicycles, airplanes, .... You get the point. I don't want to push the analogy beyond its point of usefullness, but you've erred in the opposite extreme.

Yes I get the point. But you do not. The more "traits" you add to the car-pool, the more possible heirarchies can be constructed. The design argument would predict that all these possible heirarchies are equally valid. With living things, there are 10^41 possible heirarchies, but only one that is valid.

HRG · 09-01-2003, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Translation: Mechanistic / naturalistic explanations will always be preferred. It is built into the paradigm.

This has nothing to do with a "paradigm" (Oh Kuhn, Kuhn, what nonsense is spread in thy name ...). It has everything to do with the simple fact that only naturalistic explanations are objectively testable.

(How would you distinguish between a water-to-wine transformation by Jesus and a grand illusion by Loki ?)

It is highly doubtful whether supernatural explanations are actually explanations. As someone has said, what can in principle explain everything explains nothing.

Regards,
HRG.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.