On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:42:23 -0700, Bob Casanova
wrote:

Darwin's lack of knowledge is irrelevant, since a genotype is just the
analogue to a phenotype, the latter being the observed phenomena which
Darwin studied.

Darwin's fundamental theory has not been radically changed, modern
biology still follows his lead as below when you say that " 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."

You will find that it is theory and philosophy which leads you to the
facts and evidence, and not vice versa. If Lamarck ruled evolutionary
biology today, you would believe in his notion of inheritance of
acquired characteristics despite the evidence which, if offered to
you, you would promptly deny.

How do I know this? Because I know how religiously oriented the
scientific mind is, not in pursuit of God or the supernatural, but in
dogmatically holding to theories despite all evidence to the contrary.

Observed speciation is not evolution, it is observed speciation. But
you would not understand it AS speciation without some underlying
theory of evolution which guides your thinking. If religion or Lamarck
guided your thinking, you might see it as Creation, not as evolution.

Your critical comments regarding the philosophical thrust of my
arguments as opposed to the scientific - which is indeed religious and
dogmatic in the absence of philosophical guidance.

That is not an observed fact of evolution, that is confirmation of a
theory of evolution. But in the absence of philosophy to tell you the
difference between fact (as in "observed fact of evolution") and
theory (as in "theory of evolution"), your science becomes rigidified
by alleged fact as certainly as any belief in God or Allah.

But what were the mechanisms beneath the mechanisms? Every such
argument contains a limitation, a point at which you say your theory
is now proven fact. But that limit is in your own mind, since you
cannot pursue these mechanisms to their deepest ontological level.

Philosophy is the primary "fact" useful in determining which theory is
superior, evolution or ID. That is why I argue for a Kantian
teleological solution to the debate and argue against science's
solution which contains an inherent, almost supernaturalistic
booby-trap leading to its own demise. That solution I have already
stated, and while you deny that biologists actually believe any such
thing as "the idea of perfect adaptability of species" - and I never
claimed they did believe in it - I am attempting to prove that they
nevertheless need to believe in it, and that Kantian philosophy holds
the key to resolving the debate. It is not only possible this way, but
Darwin himself provides certain cues in his own assertions concerning
the perfectability of organs and other features.

'But when we compare the dray-horse and race-horse, the
dromedary and camel, the various breeds of sheep fitted either for
cultivated land or mountain pasture, with the wool of one breed good
for one purpose, and that of another breed for another purpose; when
we compare the many breeds of dogs, each good for man in different
ways; when we compare the game-cock, so pertinacious in battle, with
other breeds so little quarrelsome, with "everlasting layers" which
never desire to sit, and with the bantam so small and elegant; when we
compare the host of agricultural, culinary, orchard, and flower-garden
races of plants, most useful to man at different seasons and for
different purposes, or so beautiful in his eyes, we must, I think,
look further than to mere variability. We can not suppose that all
the breeds were suddenly produced as perfect and as useful as we now
see them; indeed, in many cases, we know that this has not been their
history. The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature
gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions
useful to him. In this sense he may be said to have made for himself
useful breeds.' (Chapter II, "Variation under Nature.")

We must "look further than to mere variability," we must also look to
such concepts as "beauty" and "perfection" which are difficult to
define objectively. In other words, Darwin has taken the science of
biology into subjectivist grounds in order to somehow prove his
contentions. You might break off here and point out that Darwin was
only talking about species bred to be useful to humans, but you forget
the analogy that Darwin has drawn here between artificial and natural
selection. Observe:

"We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great
results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the
accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand
of Nature. But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power
incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's
feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art." (Chapter
III, "Struggle for Existence.")

"No country can be named in which all the native inhabitants are now
so perfectly adapted to each other and to the physical conditions
under which they live, that none of them could be still better adapted
or improved; for in all countries, the natives have been so far
conquered by naturalised productions that they have allowed some
foreigners to take firm possession of the land. And as foreigners
have thus in every country beaten some of the natives, we may safely
conclude that the natives might have been modified with advantage, so
as to have better resisted the intruders." (Chapter IV, "Natural
Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest.") No species is so
"perfectly" adapted that it can manage to resist intruders from other
lands, as the European Starling has invaded, and practically
conquered, North America, except for man's attempts to eradicate this
menace to crops.

"Thus I can understand how a flower and a bee might slowly become,
either simultaneously or one after the other, modified and adapted to
each other in the most perfect manner, by the continued preservation
of all the individuals which presented slight deviations of structure
mutually favourable to each other."

Darwin, however, has made another mistake common to his time: his
believe in slow and gradual modifications as against sudden and
perhaps calamitous ones. "And as modern geology has almost
banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single
diluvial wave, so will natural selection banish the belief of the
continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden
modification in their structure." However, in the 20th century such
antidiluvialism, which is a form of anti-catastrophism, has been
disproven through mere geological evidence. And by analogy, Darwin's
belief that there have only been gradual, and never sudden,
modifications may also be proven false. This, fortunately, does not in
itself disprove his theory, as geology was not disproven by the
eradication of anti-catastrophism which was supported against the
cataclysmic views often propounded by religious mythologists. In fact,
it has been found that the English Channel was carved out by an
enormous flood consisting of billions of gallons of water perhaps
450,000 years ago at the end of an Ice Age, thus resulting in the very
creation of a great underwater valley by a single diluvial wave which
Darwin denied could ever exist, so fervent was his disbelief in
"religious" nonsense comparable in his eyes to Noah's Flood. See, for
example:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/26/island_britain/

'A sonar probe of the bed of the English Channel has produced evidence
that Britain may have become an island is less than 24 hours, the
Daily Telegraph reports. The survey, led by Imperial College London's
Sanjeev Gupta, revealed the "remains of a huge valley, running
south-west from the Strait of Dover" plus "deep bowls, scour marks and
piles of rubble on the sea bed that may have been caused by a torrent
of water".'

So much for Darwin's antidiluvialism. But that is not enough to
disprove his belief that there are only gradual modifications of
characteristics, it only shows that his argument by analogy was false,
that his desire to "merge," as it were, antidiluvialism with his
theory of gradual modification was guided by some irreligious notions
held a priori to the evidence, that is, ad hoc.

--

" If I had remembered that the name 'Galt' appears
in one of her books, I would have chosen a different
name for my character."

Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"