I'm expanding on a couple of different posts I made at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board, one of my favorite hang-outs. Basically, you see a lot of probability discussions in IDC literature. This is one more reason why they are nonsense. They generally looked at random mutation (that is, the replacement of one "letter" in the DNA with another letter) and natural selection.
There are at least 18 different mechanisms involved in evolution:
Mechanisms that increase diversity in a population
Random replacement mutation in DNA
Gene duplication
Frame shift mutation
Gene flow from other species
Recombination
Symbiosis
Environmentally generated changes to DNA decoding
Protein changes (prions, etc.)
Mechanisms that alter allele proportions in a population
Natural selection
Sexual selection
Sexually antagonistic selection
Random genetic drift
Kin selection
Molecular drive
Mechanisms that operate at a level above populations
Speciation
Punctuated equilibrium
Extinction/competition/invasive species
Mass extinction events
Parasitic/symbiotic relationships (note this is different from the symbiosis that occurs at the genetic/cellular level).
To do a probability calculation, you need to account not only for the probabilities of each of these mechanisms, but also for the independence of every possible subset of these mechanisms. that would be 524,288 (2^19)
Just one more way IDC falls short of even it's own goals.
Posts
52 comments:
Eric, I post this comment in this spot only because it is your most recent and because it has occurred to me that, after a spell, you don't go back to look for any comments to blog entries that you may have composed months, or years, ago.
I have made a number of comments in posts when, at the time my comments were entered, the original post was rather "old."
I'm aint sayin ya gotta accept eny ole invitation to discuss your thoughts which come down the pike. If ya don't wanna respond, that's kewl. Just aint sure ya even seen em, or will, unless you know they're there.
I am not religious and I don't believe that ID theory is science. That said, I believe I have seen about as many uninformed, wildly extavagant claims made by "supporters of" ("cheerleaders for," would probably be a better phrase) the modern synthetic theory of evolultion as I have by religious "nuts."
Carl Woese, a pre-eminent micro-biologist and physicist who has received microbiology's highest award,the Leeuwenhoek Medal, has said that evolution should not be taught at lower levels. But not because he is anti-evolution, by any means.
According to Woese:
The molecular paradigm, which so successfully guided the discipline throughout most of the 20th century, is no longer a reliable guide. Its vision of biology now realized, the molecular paradigm has run its course....
The most pernicious aspect of the new molecular biology was it reductionist perspective, which came to permeate biology, completely changing its concept of living systems and leading then to a change in society's concept thereof...
A heavy price was paid for molecular biology's obsession with metaphysical reductionism. It stripped the organism from its environment; separated it from its history, from the evolutionary flow; and shredded it into parts to the extent that a sense of the whole—the whole cell, the whole multicellular organism, the biosphere—was effectively gone...
In the last several decades we have seen the molecular reductionist reformulation of biology grind to a halt, its vision of the future spent, leaving us with only a gigantic whirring biotechnology machine. Biology today is little more than an engineering discipline. Thus, biology is at the point where it must choose between two paths: either continue on its current track, in which case it will become mired in the present, in application, or break free of reductionist hegemony, reintegrate itself, and press forward once more as a fundamental science...
Society cannot tolerate a biology whose metaphysical base is outmoded and misleading: the society desperately needs to live in harmony with the rest of the living world, not with a biology that is a distorted and incomplete reflection of that world. Because it has been taught to accept the above hierarchy of the sciences, society today perceives biology as here to solve its problems, to change the living world."
http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/2/173
More from Woese:
" Biology today is no more fully understood in principle than physics was a century or so ago. In both cases the guiding vision has (or had) reached its end, and in both, a new, deeper, more invigorating representation of reality is (or was) called for...
...biology of the 20th century was in the strange position of having to contort itself to conform to a world view (fundamentalist reductionism) that 20th century physics was simultaneously in the process of rejecting. In a metaphysical sense, molecular biology was outdated from the onset!"
An onotological commitment to what Woese calls "fundamental reductionsim" is just as non-scientific as is any ontological commitment which posits an "intelligent designer." Both are "fundies," driven by their philosophical presuppositions. Neither view is "scientific."
Woese elaborates on his meaning as follows:
"Fundamentalist reductionism (the reductionism of 19th century classical physics), on the other hand, is in essence metaphysical. It is ipso facto a statement about the nature of the world: living systems (like all else) can be completely understood in terms of the properties of their constituent parts. This is a view that flies in the face of what classically trained biologists tended to take for granted, the notion of emergent properties. Whereas emergence seems to be required to explain numerous biological phenomena, fundamentalist reductionism flatly denies its existence: in all cases the whole is no more than the sum of its parts."
He seems to be claiming that fundamental reductionism conflicts with empirical observations. If so, then I guess ya could say that it has been "scientifically refuted," eh?
It occured to me that some elaboration on Woese's objection to teaching evolution in high school might be useful to anyone (assuming there is anyone) who reads these comments:
"One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teeachers don't understand.
I certainly don't want any intrusion of religious ideas in the name of science -- but I don't want this bland soup that's taught as evolution in the name of science, either. It's not science -- it's catechism. Let's hold off until college, then hire some teachers who really know what to teach them. You have to go to the higest levels to find people with an understanding. That whole setup isn't there at all; all that's there is teaching the same old pap for 150 years, modfied by neo-Darwinists but not in an useful way."
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/famed-microbiol.html
James Shapiro, a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago, has also questioned just how "scientific" the dogmatism of the neo-darwinists is and views both sides of the debate as being motivated by ideological rather than scientific concerns. He views both sides of the debate as being populated by "fundamentalists:"
"Although such purists as Dennett and Dawkins repeatedly assert that the scientific issues surrounding evolution are basically solved by conventional neo-Darwinism,...there are far more unresolved questions than answers about evolutionary processes, and contemporary science continues to provide us with new conceptual possibilities....the debate about evolution continues to assume the quality of an abstract and philosophical "dialogue of the deaf" between Creationists and Darwinists.
"... neo-Darwinist writers like Dawkins continue to ignore or trivialize the new knowledge...What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate.
...the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science."
http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html
In 2000, Micheal Ruse, a staunch defender of evolution who testified in the 1981 Arkansas trial against creationists who wanted creationism taught in public schools, revealed that:
I still remember arguing in the Arkansas court house with one of the most prominent of the literalists...Duane T. Gish, author of the best-selling work, "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!,"...
"Dr Ruse," Mr. Gish said, "the trouble with you evolutionists is that you just don't play fair. You want to stop us religious people from teaching our views in schools. But you evolutionists are just as religious in your way...
At the time I rather pooh-poohed what Mr. Gish said, but I found myself thinking about his words on the flight back home. And I have been thinking about them ever since. Indeed, they have guided much of my research for the past twenty years. Heretical though it may be to say this -- and many of my scientist friends would be only too happy to chain me to the stake and to light the faggots piled around -- I now think the Creationists like Mr. Gish are absolutely right in their complaint.
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/A/eyring_2_2.htm
Since that time, Ruse has public an entire book on the "evolution-creation struggle," which was deemed to be "New York Magazine Best Academic Book" for that year. I have not read it, but it sounds interesting.
The Harvard University Press says: "In his latest book, Michael Ruse, a preeminent authority on Darwinian evolutionary thought and a leading participant in the ongoing debate, uncovers surprising similarities between evolutionist and creationist thinking. Exploring the underlying philosophical commitments of evolutionists, he reveals that those most hostile to religion are just as evangelical as their fundamentalist opponents." http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/RUSEVO.html
Here are a few excerpts from other reviews:
"A prerequisite of progress in this cultural struggle is that we should recognize the metaphysical assumptions underlying dogmatic forms of scientific naturalism, and be willing to investigate the concerns that motivate criticism. Ruse has done his best to reveal both."
--John Hedley Brooke, Nature
"The argument between evolutionists and creationists, Michael Ruse says, is not a debate between science and religion, but one between rival religions the origins of which go back to the Enlightenment. 'Evolutionism' and 'creationism' denote complexes of ideas that surround the concepts of evolution and creation themselves. Ruse has bravely written a book that could offend all parties, and fundamentalists of all stripes. But for those willing to examine their own convictions, The Evolution-Creation Struggle offers a new perspective on an important contemporary debate."
--Alan Batten, Globe and Mail
"His thesis is that the struggle is not one between science and religion, but between two religions, 'siblings' born of the 19th-century loss of faith. This wonderfully readable book is full of insights drawn from many years on the frontline of this bitter ideological conflict."
--P. D. Smith, The Guardian
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/RUSEVO.html?show=reviews
aintnuthin (at least,I'm reasonably sure this is you),
Thank you for the variety of responses.
With regard to Woese, his comments are in many ways an inspriation my post. It's the primary reason you have to examine 262,144 cases as opposed to 18: the interactions of the various mechanisms creates a sum greater than the individual mechanisms themselves.
With regard to Shapiro and Ruse: popularizers such as Dawkins, Harris, etc. who attempt to catapault from evolution to a non-theistic philosophy are certainly going beyond what science can say, whether they recognize i or not. Naturally, when going beyond science into a belief system,they tend to fall prey to the same foilables as people who accept other belief systems. While the Creationists would like for them to be them to be the primary opponents in theirculture struggle, the truth is that much of teh water is carried by theists in one fashion or another. I think that belies the claim that the issue is one of dogma vs. dogma. Even Dawkins acknowledges that government schools should not be teaching his view of the world.
However, I wonder what John Hedley Brooke thinks the alternative to "dogmatic" scientific naturalism (as opposed to scientism or philosophical naturalism) would be. I have not heard of a reasonable method for non-naturalistic science.
I'll go through some of my older posts later in the to see if there are other comments that I feel merit a response.
"I wonder what John Hedley Brooke thinks the alternative to "dogmatic" scientific naturalism (as opposed to scientism or philosophical naturalism) would be. I have not heard of a reasonable method for non-naturalistic science."
====
Woese claims that the last century of biology has, with disasterous effects, been ruled by "fundamentalist reductionism," but he has no particular problem with "reductionim" as (one) acceptable method of scientific inquiry.
"We need to distinguish what can be called "empirical reductionism" from "fundamentalist reductionism." Empirical reductionism is in essence methodological; it is simply a mode of analysis, the dissection of a biological entity or system into its constituent parts in order better to understand it. Empirical reductionism makes no assumptions about the fundamental nature, an ultimate understanding, of living things...What makes this curious period in biology's history doubly bizarre is that a fundamentalist reductionist perspective wasn't even needed in the first place in order to study biology on the molecular level. The simple empirical reductionist outlook would have done just fine, and technology was moving us in that direction anyway!
Molecular biology's success over the last century has come solely from looking at certain ones of the problems biology poses (the gene and the nature of the cell) and looking at them from a purely reductionist point of view. It has produced an astounding harvest. The other problems, evolution and the nature of biological form, molecular biology chose to ignore, either failing outright to recognize them or dismissing them as inconsequential, as historical accidents, fundamentally inexplicable and irrelevant to our understanding of biology....
Twenty-first century biology will concern itself with the great "nonreductionist" 19th century biological problems that molecular biology left untouched. All of these problems are different aspects of one of the great problems in all of science, namely, the nature of (complex) organization. Evolution represents its dynamic, generative aspect; morphology and morphogenesis represent its emergent, material aspect. One can already see the problem of the evolution of cellular organization coming to the fore."
By now the lesson is obvious: hold classical evolutionary concepts up to the light of reason and modern evidence before weaving an evolutionary tapestry around them. Most of them will turn out to be fluid conjectures that 19th century biologists used to stimulate their thinking, but conjectures that have now, with repetition over time, become chiseled in stone: modern concepts of cellular evolution are effectively petrified versions of 19th century speculations. Evolutionary study today is on a fresh, new molecular footing. This is no time to be shackling our thinking with a collection of refurbished antiques, ideas that automatically make us think in a 19th century mind-set about problems that above all require open minds. I don't feel it helps us to debate these antiquated notions (in modern dress) in the present context."
Many emiment evolutionists have claimed that biology is in the midst of a revolutionary "paradigm shift," but I have not seen any one claim to know just exactly what it entails. They all seem to talk about a fresh start, analysis and research to be done from "new perspectives," and the like. The common theme seems to be that scientific dogmatism has greatly discouraged such endeavors in the past, and that these past pitfalls must somehow be avoided in the future.
Woese further sez:
"The discipline had never sought to frame the overarching questions that synthesize and define a field. Quite the contrary: when such questions happened to come along, microbiologists either shied away from them or papered them over with guesswork. There was one occasion (perhaps the only one) on which the "lack of a concept of a bacterium" was recognized and denounced as the "abiding scandal" of bacteriology (45). But, rather than use this insight to begin a much-needed dialog within the field, the authors concocted a guesswork solution to settle the matter then and there, thereby removing the question/problem from the arena of discourse....Remember, it is not guesswork per se that is anathema; it is guesswork, conjecture, and the like that masquerade as problem-solving, interest-ending fact and so violate scientific norms."
The whole "junk DNA" episode strikes me as a contemporary example of the general problem of trying to reach "scientific" conclusions deductively and a priori on the basis of axiomatic dogma.
Barbara McClintock, Carl
Woese, Lynn Margulis, and many others, no doubt, had their research rejected out of hand by the prevailing dogmatists. They were ridiculed for decades for daring to even suggest evidence for possiblilities that the neo-dawwinists considered "impossible" (read as " viewed as inconsistent with their metaphysical commitments").
Woese's colleagues were warned to disassociate themselves from him if they valued their reputations, etc. To his death (in 2001 or so), Ernst Mayr refused to accept Woese's research and theories as acceptable.
When the high priests of a "science" exhibit such "thought processes" and use such tactics, what can be expected from their (relatively)uninformed disciples, such as high school biology teachers, I wonder?
"...we should recognize the metaphysical assumptions underlying dogmatic forms of scientific naturalism..." (Brooke)
"I wonder what John Hedley Brooke thinks the alternative to "dogmatic" scientific naturalism (as opposed to scientism or philosophical naturalism) would be." (One Brow)
I don't think I read Brooke the same way you do, and you have changed his words when referring to his statement, Eric.
Brooke talks about dogmatic FORMS of scientific naturalism, and explicitly refers to metaphysical assumptions which underlie them.
He is not sayin that scientific naturalism is per se dogmatic, as I read him. You appear to read him otherwise.
One can certainly approach evolutionary theory without being philosophically commited to reductionsim as ontology, genetic determinism, axiomatic premises selected to avoid and preclude any questions of teleology and/or non-linearity, etc.
Here is a link to a reprint (by a website which calls itself "uncommon descent") of an article written by a European Professor of Philosophy of Science, which summarizes a number of European theories of evolution which are "non-darwinian." Best I can tell, none of them are theistic or depart from scientific naturalism as a working framework: http://www.uncommondescent.com/jean-staune/non-darwinian-evolution/
He makes a point about a matter which you and I have debated before. Many people talk about THE Theory of Evolution, as though their is one monolithic and universally accepted explanation for the fact of evolution. To quote this author:
"Evolution is a fact. One must say it aloud and repeat. Darwinism is a theory that presents a possible explanation of this fact. Therefore to speak of “Darwinian Evolution” is to confuse that fact with a present theory that explains it. It is as absurd to speak of “Darwinian Evolution” from an epistemological point of view as it is to speak of “Newtonian” planetary systems. The existence of planetary systems is a fact, and their formation and movements could be explained by diverse theories (Newtonian theories, Einsteinian theories...
It seems that the majority of Intelligent Design theorists do not believe in the idea of a common ancestry...a catastrophe for any sort of non-Darwinian way of thinking...To deny it is to re-enforce Darwinism and to discredit the non-Darwinian school of thought.
...the neo-Darwinians who have divided themselves into several schools of thought are still currently largely dominant in Biology. This is due to the nature of the paradigm presently dominating the Life Sciences. Inherited from Newtonian Classical Physics, the mechanist and reductionist paradigms conceive the universe and the human being, at least by analogy, as one would construct a watch in a factory assembly line. However, it is precisely this paradigm which has totally disappeared our day in the realm of Physics.
We have many reasons to believe that something fundamental escapes in our understanding of evolution if we look at it on a wide scale of time, and that a new paradigm is necessary in biology...we can guess that... this new theory will, without proving the existence of a ‘designer’, be much more compatible with a non-materialist conception of the world than Darwinism."
While some claim there are multiple "theories of evolution," other, seemingly well-qualified evolutionists, claim there is no extant "theory of evolution." Antonio Lima-de-faria,Emeritus Professor of Molecular Cytogenetics at Lund University in Sweden, for example:
"Lima-de-Faria does not consider Charles Darwin’s 1859 idea of natural selection – survival of the fittest – a theory. He writes in his classic book, Evolution without Selection. Form and Function by Autoevolution, that Darwinism and the neo-Darwinian synthesis, last dusted off 70 years ago, actually hinder discovery of the mechanism of evolution...
Nothing could be better than selection because it can "explain" equally well a given situation or its opposite state. This is why there are as many Darwinist interpretations as there are authors. The result is total confusion.
Moreover, Darwinism starts from the wrong end of evolution. The Origin of Species is about a terminal process in biological transformation, thus it cannot give an answer to a phenomenon that started billions of years ago...
Most of us are aware of the limitations of our knowledge and are only compelled to draw the logical conclusions of the results that we have accumulated. This is why I never called my novel concept of autoevolution a "new theory". Theories, in advanced sciences, such as chemistry and physics, are based on a coherent body of knowledge that allows predictions.
No prediction seems to be possible at present concerning biological transformation. Darwin could not tell, and no one can tell today what species will come after humans, sparrows or lilies. Since I always abhorred abstract models and "arm-chair theories", which abound in the literature, I looked for a physico-chemical mechanism that may not "explain" evolution but may elucidate its origin and dynamics...
The origin of form and function must be sought in the process of self-assembly. This is not an abstraction but a permanent event which has been demonstrated to take place at the level of elementary particles (by physicists), atoms (chemists), macromolecules (biochemists) and cells (biologists).
The experimental results have been available for the last 35 years but have been ignored or silenced to avoid creating cracks in an edifice based on randomness and selection...Silence is the strongest weapon. The disregard for science’s ethical principles is widespread..."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00077.htm#chapter7
Eric, as I'm sure you've surmised, I am using this "comments" section as a forum for further discussion (if there is any further discussion) of some issues we have discussed on another occasion.
The link below is to what I found to be a very interesting video-taped interview of Stuart Newman. It touches on many aspects of both evolutionary theory and related pedagogical concerns (it's about 40 minutes long).
The main topic is Newman's (and others') views on "self-organization," in evolution and it's implications for neo-darwinist theory. As a side note, it comes out that the powers that be have said they don't want to have it taught in schools because it is (or can be) confused with intelligent design theories (which I found rather astonishing). There are other worthwhile things to read in this 10-11 chapter "news" piece done by Suzan Mazur (it's the source of the Lima-de-Faria excerpt in the last post), if this is a topic which interests you (and I think it is, but am not sure if your interest is more geared toward compiling polemical ammunition than in evolutionary theory, per se).
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0811/S00344.htm#chapter13
I guess I find it both exasperating and ironic that the anti-creationist crowd, who like to view and present themselves as independent, skeptical free-thinkers and liberals, exhibit such conservative, reactionary, and dogmatic responses to criticisms to neo-darwinism.
Whatever other faults they may have, it seems to me that the educated ID types routinely exhibit a much better understanding of the necessary implications of the theoretical structure of the modern synthetic school than do the average "proponent" of "THE theory of evolution."
In the interview cited above, Newman says the the "fights" about evolution are ridiculous, but he assesses the blame to both religion and science (because, he says, people are being asked to accept evolutionary explanations which are both implausible and untrue).
The "bulldogs of Darwin" do often create what I see to be a shameful spectacle of fervent defensive dogamatism and frequently insist that extremely dubious positions are beyond doubt. They do a great disservice to science, in my opinion.
Many who (without adequate knowledge to even form a qualified opinion) advocate the indisputability of "THE theory of evolution" are knowledgable enough to discern and and admit that they are, in an ontological sense, strictly reductionistic, deterministic and materialistic in their philosophical orientation. They also seem to be right pround of it, and declare it almost as though it is a medal of honor.
That's fine, but I would never tend to view any debate between those with such philosophical dispositions and creationists as anything much different than an argument between, say, one of a Methodist denomination and one of a Babtist denominaton.
To quote David Hume on the topic:
“Disputes between men pertinaciously obstinate in their principles are the most irksome. The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence in enforcing sophistry and falsehood, and, as reasoning is not the source from whence either disputant derives his tenets, it is in vain to expect that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.”
Know what I'm sayin?
Anonymous said...
"They also seem to be right pround (sic) of it, and declare it almost as though it is a medal of honor."
I forgot to add: They will usually assure you that their philosophical commitments are "scientific" and that they epitomize the very essence of a truly "scientific" approach.
Nuthin could be farther from the truth, as I see it, anyway.
Once upon a time, there was a Neandrathal, who was the Galileo of his time.
He is now the acknowledged as the first to propound a "theory of the sun." This occured one day when he pointed up to the (theretofore unnamed) ball of fire in the sky and uttered the word "sun." His clansman began to repeat the word "sun." His concept of a sun was soon thereafter widely held to be a proven theory, a fact, if you will.
This same dude, called Howlin Wolf (Wolf, for short) had a habit of leaving his cave around midnite to go crusin for Babes. He often found them. Almost as often, he would end up havin to run for his life when spotted by males of the Babes' clan.
Once he felt he had put a safe distance between himself and his pursuers, he was dog tired and would often sit for an hour or two, restin, before he had enough energy to head back to his own cave. He had nuthin to look at except the stars, and one night he noticed, and focused on, a "wandering" star (of a type now known as planets) that seemed, upon attentive and prolonged observation, to be "moving." He saw the same thing the next night, and the night after.
He then announced to his fellow clansmen that he had a "theory" which "predicted" that there were wandering stars, which moved. No one else had ever noticed such a phenomenon, but he insisted they stay up late for a little star-gazin, so he could prove his theory.
They did, and, sho nuff, Wolf's theory proved to be true. It was now a proven theory, and he was given great honors for the perceptive predictive powers and and astonishing imagination which allowed him to both propose, and prove, his theory. It is now known as THE theory of planetary motion.
A few months later, after watchin the stars while restin, he arrived at yet another startling theory, to wit, that ALL the stars moved. Some just moved slower than others, that's all. He went to his clansman and announed a new theory, the theory of heavenly motion. However, he had great difficulty in provin his new theory, because no one else could see "all" the stars movin. Wolf persisted, sayin that the proof of his theory could only come with repeated observation, over extended lengths of time. Most of his Neanderthal homeyz didn't really give a rat's ass, and it was several years before his prediction was confirmed by other members of his clan, who had taken to imitating Wolf's midnite-creepin ways and found themselves lookin at the stars for long periods most every night.
Decades, centuries, and millenia passed, and Wolf's theory of heavenly motion was confirmed so frequently that it was deemed to now be proven fact. Some people took to recording the position of the stars, and began to notice certain patterns. The zodiac seemed to repeat its perceived structure every 360 days or so, for example. Such observations were perceived as mere additions to THE theory of heavenly motion devised and proven by Wolf long ago. Every recorded entry of particular data about the position of the stars (which data led to the discovery of the repeatin patterns), was also deemed to simply be an "addition to" THE known theory of heavenly motion.
Years later, guys like Ptolemy proposed that all heavenly motion had to be circular (because it is the perfect geometrical shape, and the heavens are perfect) and that the earth was motionless (self-evident to any inhabitant of earth, who could tell he wasn't movin).
Based on these insights, fabulous mechanical models of the heavenly bodies were created and it was found that there was a way to move them in a way which conformed to existing "theory" (i.e. centuries of recorded observations). Epicycles, extants, and the like were required, and the more observations that got recorded, the more complicated the whole thing got, but it worked. It could "predict" about when the first day of Spring would be, when eclipses would occur, and all kinda good stuff. This too was all a mere confirmation of the long-established (by Wolf) Theory of Heavenly Motion. It was nuthin new, just confirmation of THE theory.
Centuries later, some dude callin hisself Copernicus started talkin (again, like the ancient Greek, Aristarcus, had done done) about the earth movin and not bein the center of the universe. A couple of guys disagreed, at first, but later others agreed. Wasn't nuthin new, of course. Just the same ole Theory of Heavenly Motion that had been around for eons. It had all been proven long ago, and THE theory of heavenly motion was merely once again confirmed. Ptolemy and his crew were never "wrong," they were simply workin within the paramters of the one and only, immutable Theory of Heavenly Motion.
True fact, dat.
Didn't we already com to an agreement on this long ago?
You are providing comment after comment on how neo-Darwinians disregard other ideas of evolution (if they did not,they would not be neo-Darwinian), but for little discernible reason. Woese, Margulis, et. al., did not try to win the day with political maneuvering, they did it by doing science, proving point after point one step at a time. They succeeded while while dozens, possibly hundreds of other heterodox scientists failed to show their ideas would lead to anything useful. It's easy now to say Woese, Margulis, etc. should have been given more credence, because now people know they had something significant to contribute. It was much harder to pull the few correct from the horde that was incorrect 30-40 years ago. If they knew who was right, they would not have needed to do the science.
While the discussion whether the results of evolution would be repeated or not can no doubt be hours of fun, until it provides a different, testable prediction of the future, whether in an experiment or in life, it's not meaningful scientifically. I will not make the error of confusing the science of Dawkins with the philosophy of Dawkins. Usually, even Dawkins does not make that error.
"I wonder what John Hedley Brooke thinks the alternative to "dogmatic" scientific naturalism (as opposed to scientism or philosophical naturalism) would be." (One Brow)
I don't think I read Brooke the same way you do, and you have changed his words when referring to his statement, Eric.
Brooke talks about dogmatic FORMS of scientific naturalism, and explicitly refers to metaphysical assumptions which underlie them.
He is not sayin that scientific naturalism is per se dogmatic, as I read him. You appear to read him otherwise.
Scientific naturalism (as opposed to scientism or philosophical naturalism) is the commitment to using natural means to test natural phenomena. A alternative to this amounts to either suggesting we use natural means and/or to test non-natural phenomena. If Brooke was referring to any sort of philosophical position, he made a category error.
One can certainly approach evolutionary theory without being philosophically commited to reductionsim as ontology, genetic determinism, axiomatic premises selected to avoid and preclude any questions of teleology and/or non-linearity, etc.
You switch from a discussion of scientific naturalism to one of reductionism very casually. Woese had no problems with the former. Non-linearity is quite compatible with reductionism, BTW. Teleology is fine with reductionism when you can discuss an experimental protocol for it. The reason for the failure of ID as a scientific enterprise is not that teleology in general is out of bounds, but rather that the evidence for teleology in biological systems is lacking.
"You are providing comment after comment on how neo-Darwinians disregard other ideas of evolution (if they did not,they would not be neo-Darwinian), but for little discernible reason."
If you can't discern my reasons then I won't try to explain right now. Is there a Theory of Evolution, which is not neo-darwinian, which you subscribe to, Eric? If so, what is it?
"The reason for the failure of ID as a scientific enterprise is not that teleology in general is out of bounds, but rather that the evidence for teleology in biological systems is lacking."
It a generic sense, teleogy is simply purposive, and has nothing to do with divinity, a "designer" is some grandiose sense or anything supernatural. If I go to my refrigerator to make a sandwich, that is purposeful behavior, with an end in mind (to eliminate my hunger). One online dictionary definition is:
"1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena."
In that sense, "evidence for teleology in biological systems" absolutely abounds in the literature. Grant much of it is unexplainable by, inconsistent with, or flatly contradictory to, the premises of neo-darwinism, but still...
To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia:
"Many contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology believe that teleological notions are a distinctive and ineliminable feature of biological explanations but that it is possible to provide a naturalistic account of their role that avoids the concerns above." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
What would a "naturualistic account" of the role of "telological notions" be, ya figure?
Is there a Theory of Evolution, which is not neo-darwinian, which you subscribe to, Eric? If so, what is it?
Yes, and no. There is an over-arching Theory of Evolution, which includes features like common descent, transmission of genetic information, etc. There is no single, complete, finished Theory of Evolution.
I do accept many neo-Darwinian ideas are important to understanding evolution, and many non-neo-Darwinian ideas are also important. I don't feel a need to pick sides generally. I'd rather look at what each of them has to say abotu an individual struture or phenomenon.
In that sense, "evidence for teleology in biological systems" absolutely abounds in the literature.
For example? Remember, "evidence for teleology exists" is very different from discussing the implausibility of evolution. Where is the positive proof of design?
Grant much of it is unexplainable by, inconsistent with, or flatly contradictory to, the premises of neo-darwinism, but still...
The complement of "teleology" is *not* "neo-Darwinism".
What would a "naturualistic account" of the role of "telological notions" be, ya figure?
Explaining the bacterial flagelum as the result of a successively more complex strutures, perhaps. Did you hav something in mind?
Did you, perchance, look at the video-taped interview of Stuart Newman I cited above? It is very general, but gives a little insight into one (of many) forms (self-organization) of "phenotypic plastisty" that are currently being discussed.
The following link is to one (of many) discussions of "teleology in self organizing systems." The author distinguishes between the "selected effect" notion of function (SE) and the "causal role" (CR) notion of function. He says that at one time he believed that any and all notions of function in biology should be limited to the SE type.
He goes on to explain that he is now convinced that he was wrong to do so. His concluding sentence is: What from a shallow point of view has function without purpose may, from a deeper point of view, have an evolutionary purpose."
http://web.duke.edu/philosophy/bio/assets/BRANDONteleology.pdf
One Brow asked: "Did you hav something in mind?
I'm really not sure what you mean by an explanation of X "being a result of successively more complex structures." I probably would have "something else" in mind if I asked myself the same question I asked you (which I didn't, yet).
"Where is the positive proof of design?"
You shifted rather quickly from a concept of "evidence for" a notion, and "proof positive," dincha?
There is NO proof positive of design, and, in my view, never will be. I didn't think that was the question.
Here is another paper, entitled "Visions of Evolution: Self Organization Proposes what Natural Selection Diposes," which discusses the role of natural selection is (or can be percieved to be). http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/biot.2008.3.1.17
I find it helpful to read this in conjunction with Gould's analysis of what Darwin's "true insight" was, i.e., that natural selection is a creative force which "causes" evolution. Gould also sets forth the strict assumptions which are required to hold such a view in a section he called "Natural Selection as a Creative Force." http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_selection.html
testin
I can't seem to make any further posts (of any length) in this thread. Built in limits, mebbe?
I agree that generally, the notions of self-organization are seem to be relevent to biology, since they are basically saying that biological systems are limited and shaped by the natural forces of the world. Beyond that acknowledgement, I'm not sure how much of the discussions you've linked to belong in a high-school biology class. To really discuss an example of such a concept, and make a proper distinction that is about natural limits, not outside guidance, is probably a day or two of class time. What do you then remove?
I did not ask for "proof positive" (final and determinitive proof),but merely "positive proof", evidence that is the result of design. NO evidence of the latter exists.
However, we may have been using "teleology" to mean different things. Your links use the term to describe the effects of natural selection, usually I hear the term in a sense meaning guidance from an external source. If all you mean is the mataphoric use, the notionthat selection shapes morphology, then I would agree there is much proof for that sort of teleology.
I'm not aware of any built-in limits, and we have had longer comments. SometimesI do need to hi the "poast comment" button two or three times, myself.
"Your links use the term to describe the effects of natural selection...If all you mean is the mataphoric use, the notionthat selection shapes morphology, then I would agree there is much proof for that sort of teleology."
No, that's not all I mean, and the links I used go beyond suggesting that natural selection alone "shapes morphology."
I still can make a post, so I'm going to try breaking it up. Eric, by way of a little more response to questions which have been raised about both John Hedley Brooks and teleology, I will add more in the next post (if it lets me).
Wiki has an article on philosophical teleology, where the views of several ancient Greek thinkers are summarized, i.e.
1. Democritus and Lucretius (who) were supporters of what is now often called metaphysical naturalism, or accidentalism. In evolutionary theory, these thinkers can be seen as corresponding to neo-darwinists in philosophical dispostion;
2. Plato, who assumed that the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer using eternal Forms as his model--can be seen as roughly analogous to present day creationsists, and...
3. Aristotle, who rejected the views of both. To quote wiki: "Aristotle argued that Democritus, proponent of the atomic theory, was wrong to attempt to reduce all things to mere necessity, because such thinking neglects the purpose, order, and "final cause" that causes the necessity...
The foregoing is only a lead-in to the real point I am trying to get to, but I just can't make another post (something in the coding when I cut and pasted, mebbe, I dunno). Here's the link. I try to put it another way and see if that helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
For Aristotle natural ends are produced by "natures" (principles of change internal to living things), and natures, Aristotle argued, do not deliberate: "It is absurd to suppose that ends are not present (in nature) because we do not see an agent deliberating." (Physics 2.8, 199b27-9; see also Physics 2.5-6 where "natures" are contrasted with intelligence) Aristotelian teleology, then, offers us the idea of natural design without a Designer." In terms of evolutionary theorists, then, Aristotle might be associated with those who reject the views of both the neo-darwinists and the creationists.
Hmmm, "natural design without a Designer"--what could that possibly mean, I wonder? How can "natures" not deliberate? How can a "nature" be contrasted with "intelligence," as Aristotle tried to do?
Two more quote from the wiki article:
1. "Nature adapts the organ to the function, and not the function to the organ." (Aristotle).
2. "Nothing in the body is made in order that we may use it. What happens to exist is the cause of its use." (Lucretius)."
Self-organizationists might take the first view (without bein absolute about it). Darwin obviously sides with the atomists (metaphysical naturalists)
The original (several posts up) reference to "metaphysical naturalism or accidentalism" is designed to distinguish that extreme "form" of naturalism (which Brooks might call "dogmatic," from other forms. This is similar to how Woese contrasts what he calls "fundamental reductionism" from "epistemological reductionim" (a methodology). Lewontin, among others, has claimed that what starts as methodological natural can quickly become "dogmatic" (i.e., metaphysical) naturalism. I don't really care about fine semantics, but I do think the conceptual difference is important.
Many, including Dawkins, for one, seem to have trouble seeing that they are two different things.
"I did not ask for "proof positive" (final and determinitive proof),but merely "positive proof", evidence that is the result of design. NO evidence of the latter exists."
Eric, what "positive proof" is there that all genetic mutations are "random" with respect to the needs of the organism?
If you can answer that, I may get a better sense of what you mean by "evidence for" one thing or another.
I don't believe I have ever held or defended the positon that "natural selection alone shapes morphology". I was merely discussing the use of teleology meant.
Self-organizationists might take the first view (without bein absolute about it). Darwin obviously sides with the atomists (metaphysical naturalists)
Dawkins would probably side with the atomists. Darwin was actually much more open to different types of thought, and did not favor reducitonism as teh sole means of analysis.
Eric, what "positive proof" is there that all genetic mutations are "random" with respect to the needs of the organism?
If you can answer that, I may get a better sense of what you mean by "evidence for" one thing or another.
We know of a variety of errors that can cause mutations, and have a decent idea how frequently each will occur in certain conditions. The total numbers of mutations known is withing range of the estimates provided by these mechanisms. None of these mechanisms (copy error, chromosomal fragmentation/fusion,viral insertions, etc.) have a reasonablepath in which they can bedirected by the needs of teh organism. Aswe both know, there seems to be evidence that some bacteria can allow increased mutations, however this does not seem to change the directions of those mutations.
What I would be looking for is a testable mechanism or residue of design, or a test that can determine whether a given sequence of chaacters was generated randomly or designed.
Eric, I really don't want to get into this too deep right now, but I take it that you're satisified with the "evidence for" random mutation. You mention frequency rates, reasonable paths (of which there are none, you say, etc.)
You mention a test that can determine whether a given sequence of characters was "generated randomly or designed."
If no such test can be provided, then it would seem that you couldn't test for randomness either, eh?
Here is an excerpt from the Sandwalk blog concerning frequency and statistical probablilities:
"Ultraconserved elements are stretches of DNA that are 100% identical in mouse, rat, and human genomes. In order to qualify as an ultraconserved element, the length has to be greater than 200 bp. This eliminates most sequences that might be identical by chance." http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/role-of-ultraconserved-non-coding.html
Now contrast the following statements in response:
1. "...we were surprised at how much of the junk DNA was almost identical in mouse and human. This is because not enough time has passed since humans and mice diverged from their common ancestor." Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press08dec04/index.html
2. "They found more than 480 ultraconserved regions that are completely identical across the three species. The fact that the sections have changed so little in the 400 million years of evolution since fish and humans shared a common ancestor implies that they are essential to the descendants of these organisms." http://www.geinfo.org.nz/062004/08.html
Birney has a simple explanation that seems to imply that no change is even to be expected, because not enough time has passed to think it would. So, what's that tell ya?
Birney's quote tells me that the timetable is slow. Since out of the 6 trillion base pairs, we can expect maybe 9 mutations per generation, many of which will reverse a previous mutation, others that result in a non-viable enbryo, I'm not entirely surprised at how small the difference is. I don't see it as evidence for the organism in some way controlling the mutations.
Yes, there is no known test for randomness, just as there is no known test for design. I agree.
"I don't see it as evidence for the organism in some way controlling the mutations."
I don't either, at least not necessarily, but I don't see it as evidence against it, either. Given that you posited "known" rates of mutation, the complete lack of compliance with the known rates (Birney's suggestion notwithstanding) could conceivably be the organism asserting "protective" control at some level.
"Yes, there is no known test for randomness, just as there is no known test for design. I agree." Just curious...would you object if teachers were prohibited from teaching the "random" hypothesis in high schools because, being unsusceptible to testing, it aint "science?"
"Dawkins would probably side with the atomists. Darwin was actually much more open to different types of thought, and did not favor reducitonism as teh sole means of analysis."
Yes, you're quite right about this, my mistake. Darwin's theory of heredity incorporated Lamarkian notions, for example.
I should have said "neo-darwinists," not Darwin. The only "new" thing the neo-darwinists brought to the table was a new "theory of heredity" which was one of strict genetic determinism. I think that this view of the role of genes (and it's implications for both heredity and evolutionin general) is being questioned (and rejected)on numerous fronts these here days. Rightfully so, in my opinion. The concept of strict genetic determination blew chunks from jump street, I figure.
As I've told you before, Eric, neither evolutionary theory nor crusades for or against "creationism" are of special interest to me. For perhaps that reason, I just recently came across this quote of a statement made by Richard Lewontin:
"I first met Carl Sagan in 1964, when he and I found ourselves in Arkansas on the platform of the Little Rock Auditorium, where we had been dispatched by command of the leading geneticist of the day, Herman Muller. Our task was to take the affirmative side in a debate: "Resolved, That the Theory of Evolution is proved as is the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun."
In terms of simplistic overstatement of claims of "proof" made on behalf of the modern synthesis, I find this quite revealing, especially since it happened more than 50 years ago and involved eminent (as least today) scientists. How could they even begin to take the affirmative side of such a debate in any kinda seriousness, I wonder?
"especially since it happened more than 50 years ago" (Anon)
I aint got no special interest in arithmetic neither, a corse.
I don't either, at least not necessarily, but I don't see it as evidence against it, either. Given that you posited "known" rates of mutation, the complete lack of compliance with the known rates (Birney's suggestion notwithstanding) could conceivably be the organism asserting "protective" control at some level.
Altering the rate (which, since cells have already known mechanisms to slow down the rate, seems believable) would be different from controlling the mutation itself.
Just curious...would you object if teachers were prohibited from teaching the "random" hypothesis in high schools because, being unsusceptible to testing, it aint "science?"
I would object to physics/math teachers being prohibited from teaching the "random" hypothesis of the results of throwing a die, and in that same manner I would object to the prohibiltion against teaching that mutations are random. If we have a known mechanism that is has no visible means of control, it's science to say that the results are random. After all, all science is provisional.
Now, it would be unscientific and untrue to say that the DNA code is random, as there are several non-random influcences into the DNA structure of a population.
The concept of strict genetic determination blew chunks from jump street, I figure.
It's largest contribution is as a stepping stone to a more complete understanding of life. I don't think Woese, Margulis, etc. would have been able to produce the results they had with the backdrop of genetic determinism to step on as well as chip away at.
How could they even begin to take the affirmative side of such a debate in any kinda seriousness, I wonder?
Well, typically the majore aspect of the ToE that would be debated at such an event is common descent. Whatever is going on with regard to methods and mechanisms of inheritance, it does not put common descent into question.
One Brow said: "Whatever is going on with regard to methods and mechanisms of inheritance, it does not put common descent into question."
Ya think? Kinda depends on whatcha wanna call "common," I spoze. Sure nuff don't seem to be no LUCA no more, eh, Eric?
"The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection...Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection...
"For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.
Thus began the final battle over the tree. Many researchers stuck resolutely to their guns, creating ever more sophisticated computer programs to cut through the noise and recover the One True Tree. Others argued just as forcefully that the quest was quixotic and should be abandoned.
...what if species also routinely swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being closely related in some respects but not others?
Surprisingly, HGT also turns out to be the rule rather than the exception in the third great domain of life, the eukaryotes...This genetic free-for-all continues to this day. The vast majority of eukaryote species are unicellular - amoebas, algae and the rest of what used to be known as "protists" (Journal of Systematics and Evolution, vol 46, p263).
Hang on, you may be thinking. Microbes might be swapping genes left, right and centre, what does that matter? Surely the stuff we care about - animals and plants - can still be accurately represented by a tree, so what's the problem?...HGT has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows. The most likely agents of this genetic shuffling are viruses, which constantly cut and paste DNA from one genome into another, often across great taxonomic distances. In fact, by some reckonings, 40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses, some of which has taken on vital biological functions (New Scientist, 27 August 2008, p 38). The same is probably true of the genomes of other big animals.
"If there is a tree of life, it's a small anomalous structure growing out of the web of life," says John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at the University of Exeter, UK.
"It's part of a revolutionary change in biology," says Dupré. "Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure. We're clearly going to see evolution as much more about mergers and collaboration than change within isolated lineages."
Rose goes even further. "The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." If he is right, the tree concept could become biology's equivalent of Newtonian mechanics: revolutionary and hugely successful in its time, but ultimately too simplistic to deal with the messy real world."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=3
All these peoples alla time talkin bout how simplistic the modern synthetic theory is, and how new perspectives are required, eh? I tellya.....
So, then, THAT is what these chumps wanna claim is "as proven as is the claim that the earth orbits the sun?" Heh.
Sounds like every other neo-darwinist I ever heard spin a tale, I give em that much. They aint no different.
One Brow said: "I would object to physics/math teachers being prohibited from teaching the "random" hypothesis of the results of throwing a die, and in that same manner I would object to the prohibiltion against teaching that mutations are random. If we have a known mechanism that is has no visible means of control, it's science to say that the results are random."
I would agree and disagree to some extent. I don't think it's "science" to say things are random if you don't know a mechanism...it's just metaphysics. To "hypothesize" randomness would one scientific theory, and that's fine. But it's a hypothesis, and should be taught as such, rather than "teaching" kids that it IS in fact random.
Bible-thumpers aside, I think this is all many of the intelligent design proponents want to be spelled out in schools. If the evolutionists won't tolerate that, and insist on teachin "fact," while refusing to acknowledge that other hypotheses could well be equally viable as a matter of fact, then they shouldn't oughta be teachin nuthin, like Woese sez.
Ya think? Kinda depends on whatcha wanna call "common," I spoze. Sure nuff don't seem to be no LUCA no more, eh, Eric?
...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html?page=3
All these peoples alla time talkin bout how simplistic the modern synthetic theory is, and how new perspectives are required, eh? I tellya.....
Acutally, I read the article, and the take on the article from a variety of sciencebloggers. It's an exaggeration, at best, to say the tree of life is a bad paradigm.
As for the LUCA, it's still replacable with a LUCP (population) from which all life seems to descend. In fact, HGT helps guarantee this. Even if some forms of proto-life started independently in different parts of the globe, all of their genes would have intermixed through HGT.
So, then, THAT is what these chumps wanna claim is "as proven as is the claim that the earth orbits the sun?" Heh.
For common descent, this is a true claim.
I would agree and disagree to some extent. I don't think it's "science" to say things are random if you don't know a mechanism...it's just metaphysics. To "hypothesize" randomness would one scientific theory, and that's fine. But it's a hypothesis, and should be taught as such, rather than "teaching" kids that it IS in fact random.
Again, "random" only applies to "with respect to the needs of the organism". Just like throwing a die is not really random (it's determined by physics), mutations happen for reasons of chemistry. However, chemistry does not consider teh needs or the organism.
Randomness is the normal default for any sort of statistical explanation. It's the usual null hypothesis, which has to be disproven.
Now, I am curious about which "other hypotheses could well be equally viable as a matter of fact" when it comes to mutation of the genetic code, and how you would test those hypotheses.
Eric, I have addressed your "null hypothesis" in the Nagel thread.
One could easily hypothesize, along the lines of Lamarck and Darwin himself, that existing organisms have some means of directing their own phenotypic changes to some extent, and that they in fact do so in response to environmental factors and other "stimuli."
In science as "proof" is merely inference from known phenomena and no particular inference, however seemingly persuasive, cannot positvely rule out other possible explanations. NO scientific conclusion can be proven, and you know that. So what is the purpose of asking how any given hypothesis can be "proven," exactly, eh?
Well, you didn't use the word "proven" in that response. I didn't mean to misquote you. How do you "test" anything? How do you "test" the hypothesis that all mutation is random? And what good would a "test" even do if it doesn't "prove" anything?
One could easily hypothesize, along the lines of Lamarck and Darwin himself, that existing organisms have some means of directing their own phenotypic changes to some extent, and that they in fact do so in response to environmental factors and other "stimuli."Of course, and many did. However, without a testable mechanism to support this hypothesis, since we already know many mechanisms of evolution and know of no reason they would be directed, simply making a generic hypothesis doesn't offer insight into research.
How do you "test" anything?Make a prediction that can be verified under controlled coditions. Newton tested his gravitic law seeing how much a wire would twist when balls of different masses were brought close a ball on a rod attached to the wire. In that scenario, you can control the masses of the two balls, the distance, etc.
And what good would a "test" even do if it doesn't "prove" anything?It shows that a hypothesis does (or does not) have predictive ability. One of the key reasons Intelligent Design is not science is that it makes no predictions about life, and what you will see as you explore life.
Post a Comment