Uneducated Criticisms of Darwinism
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:40:45 -0400 (EDT)
Thanks Jim.
Here a few of the criticisms of Salthe et al that I dug up:
[moderator's note: Again, let's watch ourselves. Responding to
people like Wells almost inevitably takes us over the line into
talking about creationism (since ID is creationism in my view,
which is the only view that counts). Let's not go there. - JAH]
Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701:
"A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of
microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are
governed by the principles of microevolution."
It should be noted that all of the scientists quoted above are believers in
Darwinian
evolution, and that all of them think the controversy will eventually be
resolved within
the framework of that theory. Stern, for example, believes that new
developmental
studies of gene function will provide "the current missing link." (p. 1079)
The important
point here is that the controversy has not yet been resolved, precisely
because the
evidence needed to resolve it is still lacking. It is important for students
to know what the
evidence does or does not show -- not just what some scientists hope the
evidence will
eventually show.
Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart
of Darwin's
theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology,
it is a disservice
to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely.
Furthermore, since
the scientific evidence needed to settle the controversy is still lacking,
it is inaccurate to
give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that
all scientists
have reached a consensus on the issue."
JE:-
The beat up of micro Vs macro evolution remains an epistemological red
herring for any _empirically_ based evolutionary theory. The non critical
difference between a polypeptide and a protein, between races and even
species remains _arbitrary_ within refutable Darwinism. IOW anybody can draw
their own line in the sand on any of these issues. However, no matter where
you draw these lines Darwinian evolutionary theory remains intact. This is
because changes in arbitrary concepts cannot form a basis for the refutation
of anything. The mass confusion here is the same old wart hog which bedevils
gene centric Neo Darwinism: understanding the _critical_ difference between
a refutation and a non verification (which few Neo Darwinists bother to
conceptualize). It would make a refreshing change to hear from any that DO.
SURVIVAL OF THE
FAKEST -- JONATHAN WELLS
"Darwin based his inference of common ancestry on
the belief that the earliest stages of embryo development
are the most similar. Haeckel's drawings,
however, entirely omit the earliest stages, which are
much different, and start at a more similar midway
point. Embryologist William Ballard wrote in 1976
that it is "only by semantic tricks and subjective
selection of evidence," by "bending the facts of
nature," that one can argue that the early stages of
vertebrates "are more alike than their adults."
JE:-
Dear oh dear.. It remains empirically untrue that the fertilized eggs of
different species are LESS similar than the fully grown adults which emerge
from them! The difference between species increases as their eggs develop,
they do not DECREASE.
"No one doubts, of course, that a certain amount of
descent with modification occurs within species.
JE:-
The old war horse: evolution within species is ok but not from one species
to another only exists because the species concept was defined as a constant
before Darwin BUT NOT AFTER.
Because of an appalling education system it seems nobody has bothered to
instruct these men and women that within refutable Darwinism the species
concept becomes reduced from an assumed "intelligent design" top down
constant to just another bottom up variable. IOW the species concept remains
ARBITRARY within empirically based Darwinism (and any VALID
simplified/oversimplified model derived from it).
What most Neo Darwinists have singularly failed to understand (and
consistently refuse to correct) is: what very exactly is the (implicitly)
assumed Darwinian constant which replaced the (explicitly) assumed species
constant (which alone existed before Darwinism)? This was and remains: Total
Darwinian Fitness (TDF). TDF can be defined to be: the total number of only
fertile forms each parent reproduces into just one population. Only by
holding TDF as a constant per selectee per population can Darwinian
evolution be halted entirely. Populations are units of evolution only
because fertile organisms become units of selection. The only reason parents
can be selected is because they are forced to move heaven and hell to
increase the total number of however, just _fertile_ forms that they
reproduce into any _one_ population. A parents ability to do this remains
limited by the _finite_ resources at their disposal but not CONTROLLED by
it. What this means is that fertile adult forms may be selected for in one
population but selected against in another. Such events (which you may note
remain refutable and not just non verifiable) have been empirically verified
on a countless number of times.
TDF provides a NON ARBITRARY point of refutation for Darwinism (and all
refutable evolutionary theory). Because the Neo Darwinists have thrown out
Popper's refutation requirement they have never even bothered to replace the
assumed species constant with anything else. This has allowed evolutionary
theory to become reduced to an irrefutable mathematical blancmange e.g.
Hamilton's Rule. TDF represents a refutable MAXIMAND within Darwinism. This
means that at all times TDF is maximized. The net result of this is that TDF
cannot be SELECTED to be REDUCED within NATURE.
"But Darwin's
theory claims to account for the origin of new species
- in fact, for every species since the first cells emerged from
the primordial ooze.
This theory does have the virtue of making a prediction:
If all living things are gradually modified descendants
of one or a few original forms, then the history of life
should resemble a branching tree. Unfortunately, despite
official pronouncements, this prediction has in some important
respects turned out to be wrong.
The fossil record shows the major groups of animals
appearing fully formed at about the same time in a "Cambrian
explosion," rather than diverging from a common
ancestor. Darwin knew this, and considered it a serious
objection to his theory. But he attributed it to the imperfection
of the fossil record, and he thought that future research
would supply the missing ancestors.
But a century and a half of continued fossil collecting
has only aggravated the problem. Instead of slight differences
appearing first, then greater differences emerging
later, the greatest differences appear right at the start.
JE:-
All that has been verified here is that evolution works much faster than
today's gene centric models can allow. This is not at all surprising given
the tiny size of the human genome, the even tinier number polypeptide coding
genes which remain different between man and chimp (our closest Darwinian
ancestor) and the proven falsity of Haldane's Dilemma. This dilemma
incorrectly dominated gene centric Neo Darwinism for over 50 years.
Haldane's false dilemma was and remains a product of chronic
simplified/oversimplified model misuse (the model was allowed to contest or
replace the theory it was simplified/oversimplified from). During this
misuse most (if not all) genetic epistasis remained artificially deleted.
The time frame within which intermediate forms will just "dilly dally"
about, i.e. remain intermediate becomes predicted to be very _small_. Also,
no intermediate form (even when one is discovered and many have been) can to
everybody's satisfaction represent a transition of one species to another
simply because the species concept remains _arbitrary_. IOW as soon as
somebody finds a really good intermediate form somebody else can validly (so
they do) move the species goal posts just to prove that it isn't. This non
resolvable game is called "politics" (not science). In it everything remains
relative to nothing specified by anybody so "anything goes".
"Some fossil experts describe this as "top-down evolution," and
note that it contradicts the "bottom-up" pattern predicted by
Darwin's theory. Yet most current biology textbooks don't
even mention the Cambrian explosion, much less point out
the challenge it poses for Darwinian evolution."
JE:-
Irrefutable "top down" design must _always_ win over refutable "bottom up"
evolution only because one is just an arbitrary belief while the other, a
rigorous refutable THEORY of SCIENCE. Unfortunately no Nobel prize will be
awarded for distinguishing one from the other....
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Origin - the wrong word?
- Next by Date: Re: Origin - the wrong word?
- Previous by thread: Re: Origin - the wrong word?
- Next by thread: Re: Uneducated Criticisms of Darwinism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
