Denial of Evolution VI.

[billvon]

TOE says "XYZ happens", the conference concluded, based on the available evidence which for the most part was lacking, that XYZ doesn't happen.

Wrong. You are making some incorrect assumptions on what XYZ is.

 

[Grumpy]

leopold

it was a conference with some of the biggest names in evolution.
most, if not all, were not creationists.

And not one of them said that evolution was false, as you seem so intent on insinuating. The argument was about Gradualism versus Punctuated Equilibrium as to which was more responsible for the fossil record

the most controversial thing was the lack of data to support much of what was said, which led to the panels consensus.
for the consensus you will need to buy the issue.

No, their consensus was that what we now call Punctuated Equilibrium is a valid concept in evolutionary theory, but it is not the only one and that there was not enough evidence to say either was more important at that time. They in no way reached any consensus that a Creationist would accept as true, nor was the consensus that evolutionary theory was false. The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, but the details are not all nailed down. This conference was an attempt to move our understanding forward. BUT EVERY SCIENTIST AT THAT CONFERENCE WOULD SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AS BEING THE ONLY VALID EXPLANATION FOR LIFE"S DIVERSITY even as they argue about the details.

Here's what Steven Gould said about the controversy at the time when Creationists tried to make the same insinuation as you are trying. Remember Gould was the chief proponent of Punctuated Equilibrium

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

TOE says "XYZ happens", the conference concluded, based on the available evidence which for the most part was lacking, that XYZ doesn't happen.

My point is that XYZ is not a component of the central thesis of TOE I posted above, so how does any controversy over XYZ undermine the theory?

 

[exchemist]

I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean to imply that the Theory of Evolution was a fact. I mean that evolution is an observation that cannot be denied, and it is the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection (a separate thing) which attempts to explain the phenomenon. We know that the species change over time, and that modern species did not exist in the past. This is beyond dispute.

Ah, you mean phenomena such the acquisition of drug resistance in bacteria and tumours, and so on? Yes, I see what you mean, I had indeed misunderstood. Apologies for the undeserved diatribe: after numerous irritating encounters with the creationist fraternity I get a bit twitchy on the subject.

 

[leopold]

i guess you people will have to read the article for yourselves because it's readily apparent you aren't going to believe me.

 

[exchemist]

i guess you people will have to read the article for yourselves because it's readily apparent you aren't going to believe me.

But Leopold, why on Earth would any of us want to spend money to read a science article from 1980, 30 years ago? Is this a field where nothing has moved on in 30 years? Seems unlikely.

Or are you referring to something more recent, that I must have missed in this long correspondence?

 

[Rav]

Meh. I've read the whole thing already. I read it 2 years ago. Here's a copy: http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1747213/2-3-science-evolutionary-theory-under-fire-pdf

Again, the only thing of real note in there is the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis, which is itself a form of gradualism.

 

[Stanley]

Supposedly there were...

I hit the post button too soon. Too many buttons for my antiquated brain.

One should NOT mangle the word "fact". It was the only thing keeping us honest. You throw that away and all that will remain is a shell of your former self.

I ask the members - What do you guys think about extinction level events - Did they happen?

 

[exchemist]

i guess you people will have to read the article for yourselves because it's readily apparent you aren't going to believe me.

Leopold, thanks to Rav I've now read it too. And all it seems to be is a lively meeting discussing the merits of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium FROM 30 YEARS AGO.

Since then, even a layman like me is aware that there has been a huge amount of work on the various mechanisms by which genetic change occurs, which makes sense of all this. For instance I gather there is even evidence of a mechanism that accelerates the frequency of mutation in parts of the genome, in response to environmental stresses. Extraordinary stuff. So the mechanisms of evolution are clearly a very lively area of research and as a result our understanding has come on considerably.

But, in view of all these exciting discoveries that have gone on since 1980, what exactly is your point in directing us to this piece of late c.20th history?

 

[exchemist]

Meh. I've read the whole thing already. I read it 2 years ago. Here's a copy: http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1747213/2-3-science-evolutionary-theory-under-fire-pdf

Again, the only thing of real note in there is the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis, which is itself a form of gradualism.

Many thanks Rav.

 

[AlexG]

i guess you people will have to read the article for yourselves because it's readily apparent you aren't going to believe me.

The reason no one believes you is because the article does not state what you say it states.

 

[exchemist]

I ask the members - What do you guys think about extinction level events - Did they happen?

I would say there is a lot of evidence for a number of extinction events, notably the Great Dying at the end of the Permian and the K/T event. The end of the Ediacaran may be another but evidence from so early, especially when there seem to have been only soft-bodied creatures, is hard to come by. But why do you ask?

P.S. I would not class these flatly as "facts", though by now they are more than hypotheses: "probable facts" feels about right. But I admit it's not my own field of expertise.

 

[Stanley]

exchemist,

If there were extinction level events then how did the animals come back?

 

[exchemist]

i read the article grumpy and i know for a fact this was not the consensus of this meeting.
unfortunately i do not have access to the issue anymore.

Leopold, now that Rav has kindly sourced the article anew for us all, perhaps YOU you would be good enough to re-read it yourself and tell US what consensus, if any, you think it reached, rather than demanding, as you have done several times in this thread, that we tell you.

And when you have done that, we can all consider (a) whether we agree with your analysis and (b) what continued relevance it has today, after another 30 years of research.

 

[exchemist]

exchemist,

If there were extinction level events then how did the animals come back?

Because an "extinction event" does not mean ALL life was extinguished. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

Notice that for this, which is the most extreme extinction event known or suspected to date, estimates have been made of the proportion of both marine and terrestrial lifeforms that were extinguished. Neither however is 100%.

Stanley, I don't want to seem rude, but I think maybe you might do a little reading for yourself on the web about such things before asking us. It's not hard to find the answer to questions as basic as this. It would save us all some time and we could move on to the more interesting aspects.

 

[Grumpy]

Rav

Meh. I've read the whole thing already. I read it 2 years ago. Here's a copy: http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1747...under-fire-pdf

Again, the only thing of real note in there is the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis, which is itself a form of gradualism.

Thanks for the cite, I remember the conference from 1980(I was a teacher of Physics and Chemistry at the time), that's why I posted Gould's quote about the misuse people like leopold were attempting to make of it. When I said "And not one of them said that evolution was false, as you seem so intent on insinuating. The argument was about Gradualism versus Punctuated Equilibrium as to which was more responsible for the fossil record." I was absolutely correct and he was absolutely wrong, dishonestly so. Trollishly wrong, one might say.

leopold

We have now established beyond any reasonable doubt that...

The consensus was that gradualism was not the only mechanism that evolution has, that rapid changes in genomes were possible followed by long periods of stasis.

...from post 62 was absolutely correct(despite your tantrums)and that...

If you know so little about the subject, why make yourself look like a fool again, avoid that subject. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

...from the same post was really, really good advice in your case.

Grumpy

 

[Stanley]

Because an "extinction event" does not mean ALL life was extinguished. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

Notice that for this, which is the most extreme extinction event known or suspected to date, estimates have been made of the proportion of both marine and terrestrial lifeforms that were extinguished. Neither however is 100%.

Stanley, I don't want to seem rude, but I think maybe you might do a little reading for yourself on the web about such things before asking us. It's not hard to find the answer to questions as basic as this. It would save us all some time and we could move on to the more interesting aspects.

Of course I am aware of at least what a Wikipedia page would state. I am not 100% certain that extinction events have occurred.

If they did occur then how many times did evolution occur given that in all these instances life was by and large unable to survive on Earth.

 

[spidergoat]

Of course I am aware of at least what a Wikipedia page would state. I am not 100% certain that extinction events have occurred.

If they did occur then how many times did evolution occur given that in all these instances life was by and large unable to survive on Earth.

Evolution is occurring all the time. Anyway, even if the entire surface of the planet is sterilized, there is bacteria far under the surface in cracks in bedrock.

 

[billvon]

i guess you people will have to read the article for yourselves because it's readily apparent you aren't going to believe me.

I did. And again, your assumption of what it says is incorrect.

 

[gmilam]

I am not 100% certain that extinction events have occurred.

I know some dinosaurs who would disagree with you on this point.