On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:28:29 -0600, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Malrassic Park
hotmail.com>:
>On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:42:23 -0700, Bob Casanova
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>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.
>
>>> 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.
>
>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."
>
>>>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.
>
>You will find that it is theory and philosophy which leads you to the
>facts and evidence, and not vice versa.
Interesting. Observations lead to hypotheses, which are
tested and modified as required by the results of the
testing, finally resulting in theories when no tests show
further disagreement with observed reality. To you, this
means "it is theory and philosophy which leads you to the
facts and evidence". This process led from Darwin's original
ideas to the Modern Synthesis, so to you theory and
philosophy lead to facts and evidence. It led from
observations of the precession of Mercury to General
Relativity. It led from observations of black-body radiation
to Planck's quantum physics. And so on... Do you begin to
see a pattern here?
> 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.
Wrong again, but I don't expect you to acknowledge that
science is more than philosophizing and looking for facts to
support those conjectures, since you seem to get it exactly
backward. Scientists actually "do" science, as contrasted
with the philosophers who merely form conjectures.
>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.
Well, since you believe your unsupported opinion is
something you "know" there's not much point in continuing to
discuss this, is there?
>>>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.
>
>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.
You're very sure of your opinions, rather like a Young-Earth
Creationist who *knows* what he knows, no matter how many
times it's shown that his "knowledge" is nothing more than
unsupported belief contradicted by observed fact.
>
>>>This is why I find your misgivings to be unfounded.
>>
>>What misgivings?
>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.
Those aren't "misgivings", they're direct contradiction of
your beliefs. "Misgivings" implies partial acceptance, but
with reservations.
>> 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)
>
>That is not an observed fact of evolution, that is confirmation of a
>theory of evolution.
Nope; sorry. Speciation, although the borders between
species are sometimes somewhat gray, has a specific meaning
not dependent on the theories explaining it. If the members
of two populations descended from a single population are
unable to interbreed, they're different species. Since this
process has been observed *as it happened* it's a fact. That
the observation *does* support the current theory is
confirmation that the explanatory power of the theory is
correct; if it didn't the theory would be modified
accordingly and retested. I'm amazed that a "philosopher of
science" doesn't seem to know the difference between
observations and the theories formulated to explain those
observations in a coherent and verifiable framework.
> 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.
Facts are observations and theories are explanations; it
doesn't take a philosopher to distinguish one from the other
(except possibly to a philosopher). But thanks for the
arrogant and condescending lecture.
Bye.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
