On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:27:28 -0600, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Malrassic Park
hotmail.com>:
>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:08:00 -0700, Bob Casanova
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>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.
>Darwin himself would disagree with you, as I will show at the end of
>this post.
As I stated previously, Darwin's opinion is irrelevant,
since he knew nothing of the mechanism of inheritance.
> And your argument is ad hoc - you believe in Darwin
What does that mean, that I "believe in Darwin"? Do I
believe he existed and devoted quite a few years to research
into the phenomenon (that populations change over time, and
that species appear and disappear) which was observed even
before he was born? Well, yes, I do. Do I believe he knew
all there was to know about evolution? Hardly. You seem to
think biology is equivalent to religion, with belief all and
evidence nonexistent or completely subjective, but that's
not how science works. Perhaps before you make
pronouncements regarding science you should learn a bit
about it.
>therefore you find nothing but confirmation in nature for his theory.
>But if Lamarckian evolution ruled science today and Darwin never
>lived, you would find that nature abounds with confirmation of
>Lamarck.
No, I wouldn't, since the evidence doesn't support
inheritance of acquired characteristics. But believe what
you wish; apparently you will anyway, regardless of the
facts.
>Evolution is indeed a mechanism -- but of thought and theory only; it
>is nothing more than a method for reflecting upon certain particulars
>in nature. The goal of such reflection is not so much the mere
>understanding of them as it is the systematization of these
>particulars. You think you can see the hand of evolution at work, but
>you see nothing of evolution at all, only events such as change or
>growth. The mechanism itself is unknowable but it is thought to be
>evolution, not just as some theoretical speculation, but as a
>necessary mode of approaching these particulars by grounding them
>in reason. Evolution theory is thus nothing more but reason's peculiar
>manner of arriving at an understanding of nature through the necessary
>systematization of its particulars in a theory.
...and observed speciation is irrelevant? OK. Again, believe
what you wish; it won't change reality.
>This is why I find your misgivings to be unfounded.
What misgivings? I have no misgivings regarding the evidence
for speciation, nor that regarding evolutionary theory as
the best current explanation of the relevant mechanism.
> To claim, as you
>do, that evolution actually exists, and is more than a theory, is
>analogous to the claim that God actually exists and got the whole ball
>rolling in the first place.
Ummm...no,it isn't; once more you conflate the observed fact
of evolution (mainly speciation, but not limited to this)
with the theory designed to explain that observation, plus
others. Since speciation has been observed multiple times,
both in the lab and in nature, and since the genetic
information which provides evidence of the mechanism
underlying the evolutionary process is fairly well known,
and becoming more so every day, the existence of evolution
as a fact is not in doubt. There is no comparable evidence
regarding the existence of any deity.
But I suspect that facts won't sway your beliefs. Have a
nice day.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
