Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Prediction or Observation?  II
Message-ID: <1127@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 16:35:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1127
Posted: Wed May 22 16:35:53 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 21:08:49 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 70


> [Keith Doyle]
> Being aware of the fact that creationists at the ICR must sign an affidavit
> attesting that they believe that the Bible is to be taken literally etc.
> it would appear that such an observed transmutation could then be explained
> as an 'act of God' or a 'miracle' or who knows what, but dosen't necessarily
> disprove creation. (as one would expect from current creationist tactics).

Of course.  Anything *could* be explained as a miracle...but an
*observed* transition would be better evidence than an *inferred* one.
Example:  creationists fully accept the _Biston betularia_ phenomenon.
The "transition" from a predominantly light-colored population to a
predominantly dark one (and now back again) has been observed.  No one
has proposed to explain it as a miracle that I know of.  Now, I know
that this isn't exactly what you mean by an "observed transmutation" -
but I prefer to worry about that (i.e., "explain it away"! :-) ) when you
come up with one.

>> [Dan Boskovich]
>> I would be interested in hearing some examples of how Evolution
>> could be falsified?

> [Keith Doyle]
> One basic prediction of evolution is, that life, *all* life, as diverse as
> it is linked up in a hierarchical arrangement of similarities.  We might
> postulate then, that all life is constructed using the basic building
> block DNA.  If however we discovered one or more life forms that didn't
> use DNA as a building block, we may have falsified at least one aspect
> of evolutionary theory.

"At least one aspect"?  You just called it the "basic prediction of
evolution".  That seems to me more than simply "an aspect".  But what
sort of prediction is it when one "predicts" it after *observing* the
(generally) hierarchical arrangement of organisms?  One hardly needs
evolution to "predict" an underlying similarity.

I also doubt very much whether non-uniformity would actually be taken
to falsify anything.  We can see this by asking what would happen if
this basic prediction failed.  Would it be evidence against evolution?
Nope.  Why?  Because it would merely show that the origin of life
occurred more that once, and in different ways - all of which would be
evolutionary ways, of course.

So how could one test it, really?  When one insists on interpreting
all facts from within an evolutionary framework, it is hardly likely
that the framework shall be contradicted.  Aspects of it, yes (as you
said), but not the framework as a whole.

This is similar to the statement that's been thrown around about
fossils of higher animals being found in early strata.  It has been
said that this would falsify evolution.  It wouldn't.  All that
happens is that the interpretation is changed to "it appears that this
organism evolved earlier than was formerly realized.  Clearly then,
it must have earlier ancestors than was supposed."  This is what in
fact *actually* happens, for instance, with the bird fossils that were
as old as _Archaeopteryx_.  "Too early" fossils don't make a dent.

Also, if one wants to make the hierarchy a criterion, one had better be
careful to leave a back door open, because the hierarchy is violated.
Eukaryotic cells are said to have been invaded by bacteria that turned
into mitochondria.  Then they were invaded by cyanobacteria that were
the source of chlorophyll in the primitive cells from which all green
plants arose.  So you have branches of the tree growing together
again.  Of course...it *could* have been a miracle!  :-)

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
                                                                    |