Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Prediction or Observation?  II
Message-ID: <545@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-May-85 13:32:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.545
Posted: Fri May 24 13:32:38 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 26-May-85 00:53:04 EDT
References: <1127@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 83
Summary: 

In article <1127@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
> > [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.

The prediction of evolution that has been fulfilled is that MORE similarities
will be found, allowing incorporation of all organisms into the hierarchy.
The ubiquity of DNA/RNA and attendent machinery, linking all the diversity
of life, is something separate creation could not predict without postulating
an unimaginative  (:-)) creator.

> 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.

Have Newton's Laws been falsified?  Yes and no.  They are special cases of
general relativity.  If certain kinds of non-uniformity were found, our
current ideas of evolution might become special cases of a supplanting theory.
Such as a multiple origin theory.  For an example of another type of
non-uniformity, if we found that Biblical kinds had apparently unbridgeable
gaps between their cellular machinery (one used DNA, another used XXX, and
each other kind used a different method), then we would have to declare
their similarities analogous (rather than homologous) and evolution would
be falsified.

> 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.

The trick is to find another framework that explains things better.
For example, the old theories of epicycles weren't really contradicted:
they could merely have been adjusted for the individual cases.  But
Kepplers description by elliptical orbits sweeping out constant areas
per unit time proved far less complex and far more accurate.

No disproof involved: just a better fit of data to hypothesis.
 
> 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.

Actually, your example isn't very good.  Bird fossils of any sort are RARE.
With extremely sparse data like that, it's hard to find close to the
earliest species.  So we're not surprised if ancestors are found a few
million years earlier.  But mammal fossils are common.  It would be VERY
surprising to find a mammal fossil in a Carboniferous (or earlier) deposit.
Fossils this early WOULD make a dent.  Which is why creationists keep
hanging out at Pauluxy. (sp?)

> 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!  :-)

Actually, the hierarchy is broken with the formation of every zygote.
Mitochondria and chloroplasts can still be considered (obligate) symbionts.
There are some other organelles of eucaryotic cells (nucleolus maybe?)
that might also have a symbiotic origin.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh