From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 21:30:29 BST
Hi Jonathan, Steve, All
Jonathan, we've been around this block before, but since there are many
new residents on the block since our last go around, a response to your
position on evolutionary theory seems called for.
STEVE
> Scientific theories generally make verifiable predictions and can be
> judged on how well predictions match measurements. Evolution seems to be
> different. Can anyone tell me what does evolution predict?
>
> JONATHAN
> I answered this before, e.g. in my reply to George on 23 July 2002
> (archived at
> http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0207/0604.html)
>
> Here is the relevant part again:
> >The only way to test a theory is to test its predictions. If the theory
> > makes no testable predictions, then according to Popper, it isn't a
> >scientific theory. The theory of evolution makes many predictions:
Popper said that Darwinism is not really a scientific theory because
natural selection is an all-purpose explanation which can account for
anything and therefore explains nothing. It is not obvious that a
faster horse sires more offspring, or that wings give an animal an
advantage to breed more survivors.
> >Evolutionary Theory predicts the emergence of antibiotic-resistant
> >bacteria, pesticide resistant insects and herbicide resistant plants -
> >all of these predictions verified.
These are examples of microevolution. What's at issue, and what evolution
theory fails to predict, are macro changes like the origin of life
from matter, the development up from the simple cell, and the evolution
of the cell into complicated, living organisms. The theory is always
looking back. It can't tell us what the next macro change, if any,
will be.
> >Evolutionary Theory predicts that you have more in common with a
> >gorilla than with a locust - MOLECULAR GENETICS CONFIRMS THIS.
I know of nothing in evolutionary theory that would predict the
emergence of self-consciousness, the step up from the gorilla. As noted
above, your theory really can't say what's ahead. Even the old saw
about moths turning brown to better hide themselves by imitating soot
from English chimneys has been challenged.
> >George, I challenge you to provide one example of a (valid) prediction
> >of Evolutionary Theory that has been disproved. (I should warn you,
> >people have been trying to do this, without success, since Darwin).
What other predictions does evolutionary theory make besides the two
you've named? You say there are many. How about half a dozen? (I doubt
if those predictions you cited above were actually made, but were
rather drummed up after the fact.) Are there any evolutionary
predictions around that might come to pass in our lifetime that we
could all see? (Predicting there will be new varieties of the flu virus
doesn't count. We want something better than that, like the emergence
of a giant frog or something.)
And, lest we forget:
"Today we have as a result a theory of evolution in which man is
ruthlessly controlled by the cause and effect laws of the universe
while the particles of his body are not. The absurdity of this seems to
have been neglected." (Lila, ch.11)
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 21:29:07 BST