From: Jonathan B. Marder (jonathan.marder@newmail.net)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 08:49:39 BST
Hi Platt,
PLATT
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.
[snip]
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.
JONATHAN
I accept Popper's philosophy of what constitutes a scientific theory, but
dispute his representation of Darwinism. Without wanting to sound pompous, I
would guess that I know more about the relevant scientific issues than he
does.
I also think your "account for anything" "explains nothing" paraphrase of
Popper is irrelevant. According to my limited knowledge of English, to
ACCOUNT FOR is synonymous with EXPLAIN. I and see no problem about saying
that a scientific theory can "account for anything" (i.e. explain)- the same
would go for quantum theory, thermodynamics and many other theories. The
test is whether they can make verifiable predictions. I maintain that
Darwinism does.
PLATT
These [Jonathan's pesticide resistance examples] 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.
JONATHAN replies:
Darwin had no access to geological dating tools, so had no direct evidence
for when various single-celled and multi-celled organisms first emerged.
Therefore, any timeline Darwin implied is PROSPECTIVE. The fact is that the
timeline constructed using the latest geological dating tools essentially
confirms Darwin's ideas.
PLATT
I know of nothing in evolutionary theory that would predict the
emergence of self-consciousness, the step up from the gorilla.
JONATHAN
Platt, all I need from you is a working definition of self-consciousness and
we can then start testing theories . . .;-)
PLATT
What other predictions does evolutionary theory make besides the two
you've named? You say there are many. How about half a dozen?
JONATHAN
Okay Platt, here goes
1. We will find key enzymes conserved from bacteria all the way through the
animal and plant kingdoms - SEVERAL EXAMPLES FOUND.
(not Darwin, because he didn't know about enzymes, but a hypothesis implicit
in all the funding that went into molecular biology).
2. Some species will be observed to go extinct (SEVERAL SAD EXAMPLES).
3. Climatic change will be associated with change in the flora and fauna
(SEVERAL EXAMPLES in geological/biological record).
4. Human's may turn out to be not so unique after all (SEVERAL EXAMPLES from
language and behavioural experiments).
5. Old molecules will be put to new uses. SEVERAL EXAMPLES e.g. the visual
protein rhodopsin is related to bacteriorhodopsin, a photosynthetic pigment
in certain bacteria.
6. Hosts and parasites will be found to co-evolve (SEVERAL EXAMPLES).
Platt, is that enough? If not, go find someone else to give you more. I'm
through . . .
Jonathan
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 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 08:50:42 BST