Re: [BULK] - Re: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?

From: <douglas.hayworth@perbio.com>
Date: Mon Sep 19 2005 - 17:15:47 EDT

Yes, evolution has it both ways because the pattern of data (to borrow a
phrase from ID) has specified complexity that exactly corresponds to
understood evolutionary mechanisms (i.e., that mutation is probablistic in
being able to produce point mutations AND the environment exerts the same
general physical "challenges" to form and function).

This variety of possibilities is exactly what evolution would predict, but
it such a mixture of true homologies and convergences is unlike any
"intelligent design" that our human minds would likely envision.

Douglas

                                                                                                                                        
                      "Cornelius
                      Hunter" To: "David C Campbell" <amblema@bama.ua.edu>, <asa@calvin.edu>
                      <ghunter2099@sbcg cc:
                      lobal.net> Subject: [BULK] - Re: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?
                      Sent by:
                      asa-owner@lists.c
                      alvin.edu
                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                        
                      09/19/05 03:30 PM
                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                        

From: "David C Campbell" <amblema@bama.ua.edu>
> >Indeed, even as mere circumstantial evidence the pseudogene data become
> ad hoc and scientifically useless, since under common descent there
> must be convergent mutations to explain common nucleotides that must
> have arisen independently (eg, in the urate oxidase pseudogene). If
> mutations can be viewed as independent where common ancestry cannot be
> the explanation, the why can't all mutations be viewed that way? From a
> scientific perspective, it is special pleading to claim these are
> evidence for evolution.<
>
> Convergent evolution is strongly expected if evolution happens at all.
> A classic example comes from the similarly streamlined bodies of
> squids, active sharks, tuna, ichthyosaurs, and dolphins. All encounter
> the same basic hydrodynamic forces and the same sort of body shape
> works well for all of them.
>
[... Big snip ...]
>
> In short, convergence is not a valid challenge to the legitimacy of
> evolutionary explanations, though it is a challenge to the correctness
> of specific models for particular groups.
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Dr. David Campbell

David:

Again, we're talking about evidence, not explanation. I did not present
convergence as a challenge to evolutionary explanations. I presented it as
a
challenge to evolutionary evidence. Here is the general form of the
evolutionary claim:

1. Evolution claims similar designs as evidence for evolution.
2. Similar designs that cannot be ascribed to common descent are chalked up

as examples of convergence.

So evolution is having it both ways. This is special pleading when the
similar designs are claimed as evidence for evolution (as in #1), but not
when similar designs are used as mere explanations (eg, "ah, these designs
are similar because they arose from a common ancestor").

--Cornelius
Received on Mon Sep 19 17:19:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 19 2005 - 17:19:03 EDT