On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:48:19 -0600, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Malrassic Park
hotmail.com>:
>On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:33:30 -0700, Bob Casanova
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:17:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Hamady
>>
gmail.com>:
>>>>>file:///E:/Harun%%20Yahya%%20-%%20An%%20Invitation%%20to%%20The%%20Truth.htm
>>>
>>>The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the mainstream theory
>>>of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two natural
>>>mechanisms: "natural selection" and "mutation".
>>
>>...and others. But most scientific illiterates aren't aware
>>that other mechanisms exist.
>>
>>> The theory basically
>>>asserts that natural selection and mutation are two complementary
>>>mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications lies in random
>>>mutations that take place in the genetic structures of living things.
>>>The traits brought about by mutations are selected by the mechanism of
>>>natural selection, and by this means living things evolve.
>>>
>>>When we look further into this theory, we find that there is no such
>>>evolutionary mechanism. Neither natural selection nor mutations make
>>>any contribution at all to the transformation of different species
>>>into one another, and the claim that they do is completely unfounded.
>>
>>The fact that speciation has been observed multiple times,
>>in real time, seems to refute your conjecture.
>>
>>
>>observed couldn't have happened>
>
>I have found in the past that all the scientific fiddle-faddle can be
>clarified through the application of a little philosophy, in the form
>of Kantian teleology, to provide a definition of Darwinian evolution.
This should be interesting, especially given the designation
of scientific knowledge as "fiddle-faddle". Something like
navel-gazing as applied to philosophical fiddle-faddle?
Here's a hint: "Darwinian evolution" is a null concept;
there's evolution (including observed natural selection),
and there's Darwin. One is an observed fact, and the other
was a chronicler of that fact. But since he knew nothing of
genetics, even the early work by Mendel, he never did figure
out the underlying mechanism. But in the century and a half
since publication of "On the Origin of Species" scientists
have learned quite a bit about that mechanism.
>And so in pursuit of this I came up with the following definition of
>evolution as: That science which is regulated by the Idea of perfect
>adaptability of species.
There is no such idea, at least not among biologists.
Species (actually, populations) adapt to their specific
environments, but only so far as their genetic variability
plus any chance mutations allow. There's no such thing as
"perfect adaptability".
>This is not to say that such an Idea actually exists as a causal
>mechanism in nature, any more than natural selection exists. But most
>philosophical illiterates assume that natural selection does exist as
>a mechanism, when in fact it is nothing but a heuristic.
Really? So the observed fact that in a population with
genetic variability (which is to say, in all observed
populations) the tendency of those best adapted to the
existing environment to leave more offspring, and thus to
increase the percentage of their genes in the population
(which is what natural selection is) isn't a mechanism for
change, and therefore for evolution? Interesting idea...
Wrong (at least for any commonly-accepted definition of
"mechanism"), but interesting.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
