Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Profundity
Message-ID: <419@spar.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 05:47:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.419
Posted: Wed Jul 24 05:47:44 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 03:23:06 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 77
Keywords: Designer Genes

>[Paul] sarcastically calls the position that "the fittest organisms
> will survive" profound because it doesn't "say anything".
>...
>What natural selection and evolution "predict"
>is that, for that set of circumstances that occurs over a period of time, the
>organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited for those
>circumstances, and those of course will be the ones that produce the 
>offspring that follow into the next period. [Rich]

    I'm believe Paul's sarcasm was quite on target, Rich. 

    You say that the organisms to survive will be the `best suited' ones.   
    Do you mean that ONLY the `best suited' ones will survive? By that do
    you also mean that the `inferior' ones will perish? And what the
    hell do you mean by `best suited'?

    Certain amazingly perverse evolutionary patterns have been known to
    occur in a species, such as are postulated to have created the male
    pheasant's arguably useless long tail, a major handicap which attracts
    mates (as well as predators).
    
    A common explanation is that any male who survives to sexual maturity
    must possess other quite extraordinary qualities. Furthermore, a genetic
    female preference for such a noticeable handicap evolved from the normal
    male-recognition mechanism. Note that not many males need to survive in
    order to produce a new generation.
    
    Therefore, females who possess genes with a preference to mate with such
    a fine specimen might produce many `superior' offspring, similar to their
    parents, who in turn... Somehow, possessing a handicap is more well
    suited, in these circumstances.

    A similar but unchecked evolutionary spiral is assumed to have driven
    the Irish Elk to extinction, which perhaps had the largest antlers of
    any similar creature to ever roam this planet. Did a few males become
    so `well suited to their circumstance' that Irish Elks vanished?
   
    Consequently, I see no way to define `well suited' in your sentence:

	   " organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited
	   " for those circumstances

    ..except as `well suited' == `likely to survive'. Now compare this to 
    your own description of creationist thought:

	   " They prefer an explanation that just says "God did it" because
	   " that's what they want. Not because there's any basis to it.
	   " Just because that's what they want.

    Since tautologies have a basis in any consistent universe, they are
    unfalsifiable metaphysics, and little different from the ideas of your
    opponents.

    I know that you mean well, Rich...

>------
>As I mentioned in a previous article this level of predictivity does not
>satisfy some people. 

    But that's not any level of predictivity at all!

    Rich, `predict' derives from Latin prae {before} + dicere {say, tell}
    and roughly means `to tell what will happen BEFORE it happens'.

    Evolution may be many things:

       *A word that denotes certain inferred (pre)historical events
       *A collection of phenomena that we are just now beginning to understand
       *An concept that explains processes seen today (and in the past)
       *A metaphysical principle used to help scientists derive hard 
        `predictive' theories

    ...but it is NOT PREDICTIVE! 

    SMASH CAUSALITY!!!

-michael