Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Creation, Evolution, and Flood Message-ID: <1163@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 12:57:10 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1163 Posted: Fri Sep 26 12:57:10 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:27:48 EDT References: <203@BMS-AT.UUCP> <1148@cybvax0.UUCP> <210@BMS-AT.UUCP> <1159@cybvax0.UUCP> <1199@bunker.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 77 Keywords: science flood cosmology Xref: linus talk.origins:109 talk.religion.misc:274 In article <1199@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) asks some excellent questions: > In article <1159@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > >No theory is "scientifically verifiable". At best, a theory may be refutable > >in the Popperian sense. These criteria do exist for evolution: for example, > >if a mosaic pattern (rather than the hierarchical pattern we observe) of > >characters of species is discovered, then evolution would be falsified. > > This seems like a place to start a fruitful discussion. Would you go into > more detail regarding what would constitute a 'mosaic' pattern, as opposed > to a 'hierarchical' pattern? Would finding what were considered modern > features in what was thought to be a primitive creature an example of > a 'mosaic' pattern? Would finding features which were common to what > were thought to be distant relatives, but not common to what were thought > to be close relatives, an example of a 'mosaic' pattern? (I'm just trying > to find out if I have a good feel for what a 'mosaic pattern' is.) Yes: if there is enough of this sort of odd data, it becomes impossible to postulate a phylogeny (based on the data-- you can always just make one up. :-) > It occurs to me to wonder how much of the hierarchical pattern is 'really' > there, and how much is imposed on the observations because that is what > people expected or wanted to find. It further occurs to me that some > patterns ought to be considered mosaic, but are forced into the hierarchical > model as examples of parallel evolution, or some such phrase meaning > that, yes, it's an exception, but we aren't going to let it bother us. > (That probably doesn't sound the way I want it to; take it as a suggestion > for introspection. The ones who never question their objectivity are > the ones I think are least objective.) Actually, this is a problem that I have asked my frieds who are professional cladists about. They answer that yes, they do find mosaic data in their studies, but that it is usually greatly outweighed by overall hierarchical patterns. It's a good question how the mosaic data can be accounted for: there are a fair number of possibilities. First, the data consists of phenotypic character states, such as whether or not it has a bill like a duck. The duck-billed platypus is an example of a seeming exception contributing towards mosaic data. But if you look more closely at the platypus bill, it has a completely different structure than a ducks. So one reason for mosaic-appearing data is insufficiently exact observation. Most "parallel evolution" won't pass as truly the same character under close enough examination. But let's say that the character is something less complex, like a knob on the leg of a beetle. Say no amount of exacting observation can tell the difference between two knobs. Still, the knob is a phenotypic character: it is what develops from the particular assortment of genes. Many different assortments of genes can create the same phenotypic character. So another reason for mosaic-appearing data is the phenotype/genotype distinction. Finally, a third common source of mosaic-appearing data is hybridization. This is much more common between plants than animals. When hybridization is guessed, frequently a seemingly mosaic pattern can be made sense of. > It also occurs to me to ask whether creationism predicts a mosaic or > a hierarchical pattern (I know that many say that creationism doesn't > predict anything; please refrain from flooding the net with statements > to that effect. I want to know what (if anything) creationism does > predict.) To the best of my knowledge, creationism doesn't predict any particular pattern: hierarchical or mosaic patterns work just as well with creationist ideas (such as they are :-). It is interesting to me that with all the blather creationists make about Biblical "kinds", there is NO published enumeration or classification of "kinds" by any creationist. Keep up the good questions, Gary. -- "There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance. I have erased that line!" -- Professor Science -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh