Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: ...and yet more responses
Message-ID: <689@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Oct-84 12:24:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.689
Posted: Tue Oct 23 12:24:04 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 06:45:49 EDT
References: <1432@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 54

> Actually, Ethan and the others trying to submit ideas for falsifiability
> do so in vain, inasmuch as much more advanced scientists in the
> evolution camp have flat-out admitted that "our theory of evolution has
> become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations."

In general, appeals to authority are intrinsically weak, but given the
Creationist habit of quoting out of context, that is especially so on 
this issue.  I don't know why Larry failed to give the source of the 
above quotation.  If I were paranoid I might think that it is because
he doesn't want people to look up the context for themselves.  In reality,
I suppose, Larry himself has never read the original article, but simply 
lifted the quote from a handy Creationist tract.

The quotation is indeed taken out of context.  The first word of the 
quote, "our", gives away the show.  Isn't that a peculiar word to use?  
"Our theory of evolution".  Not "The theory of evolution".  Hmmm.  Well, 
if you go back to the original reference (L. C. Birch and P. R. Ehrlich, 
*NATURE*, Vol. 212, p. 349-352) you will find that the authors are making
a technical objection to the way some ecologists draw conclusions from
a supposed evolutionary history of particular species. They are *NOT*
claiming that evolution *itself* is unfalsifiable, and in fact do not
discuss evolution at all except as it relates to the particular problems
of ecology they are interested in.  To give a longer quote from the same
article, "We do not deny at all that the closely related species of birds 
have come by the properties they possess as a result of an evolutionary 
history, though we are less convinced than Lack as to what that history is.  
What we deny is that we need to know the evolutionary history before we can 
understand the ecology of two related species that happen to occupy the 
same island today.  If ecological studies were to depend on a knowledge 
of the evolutionary history of the species, as Lack seems to want, then 
most ecological studies would be halted, for this information is denied 
us for most species."

This is quite different from claiming, as Larry does, that evolution
itself is unfalsifiable.  Indeed, if Larry really believes that evolution
is infalsifiable, why does he attempt to produce "evidence" that if true, 
would falsify it?  As an example, I refer to his paragraph immediately 
preceeding the one quoted above, which ends:

> We can also note the treatment given to the dinosaur and man
> footprints in Glen Rose, Texas. Evolutionists will fight tooth-and-nail
> rather than let their pretty little system get blown to bits. (BTW,
> *ancient* human bones have recently been found there, *in situ*.)

The "bones" that Larry refers to are in reality silicified limestone
nodules.  I posted an article on that about two months ago.  But that
is beside the point.  
-- 
"One good horselaugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)