>> Evolution, with a capitol "E", is the theory that man
>> descended from apes descended from thecodonts descended from
>> reptiles etc. etc.
>> That's the theory the CFs oppose.  It should be noted that
>> even the most ardent CFs generally accept that evolution
>> (lowercase "e") is a real force for biological change.  They
>> simply refuse to believe that it could be the origin of life.

> Ahh... So Evolution can't be proven (or more accuratly, not 
> disproven)
> because we can't go back in time?

> I guess I can see that point. You can't say (as a Popper head) that
> _E_volution could not account for us being here but you can say that
> _e_volution has not yet been disproven. So _E_volution is not Popper 
> type
> science but _e_volution is.
>
> The point then is that we can never know where we came from. CF or 
> ES or Pan
> Sperma or whatever theory you like is pointless to argue given what 
> we have
> for looking into the past.

All statements, as always, are suffixed with an invisible "IMHO".

This apparently trivial point is a vitally important one.
It's not quite as bad as you suggest above. In areas of NPS we can of 
course still formulate models and test them. And find they are 
inadequate and refine them and test them again. BUT the modelling and 
the testing is subtly but radically different than for PS. This isn't 
bad (although it's more convenient when things are amenable to PS) but 
we need

The difference is that:

In PS the models are of the form "we think this is how it all works" 
and the tests are of the form "given our model we expect xxx to happen 
when we yyy". [eg 'I expect this large weight to fall faster than this 
small weight because it has more mass per surface area and ...' 
:-) ][Undoing Gallileo]

In NPS our model is of "what we think actually happened" and our tests 
are of the form "do we find xxx which is what we would expect if yyy 
actually happened." [I think the Eastern Washington Channelled 
Scablands were eroded over xxx million years because they appear 
similar to other sites where I think the same thing happened". If this 
is true then attributes of this system will be similar to other 
systems where I think this also happened."] [[NB The area is now 
*believed* to have been eroded by suddenly released flow from one-time 
Lake Missoula in a period of days rather than millions of years. This 
is a favoured creationist example - which should not distract free 
thinkers from the point being made.]]

The point is, that in PS one believes that something happens a certain 
way because when you model it and propose stringent tests to attempt 
to prove yourself wrong the tests tend to fail. In NPS one believes 
that something happened because of the interpretation of the evidence 
available. One can attempt to disprove the conclusion by attempting to 
find evidence that doesn't match ones belief BUT it is far easier to 
be able to "explain away" *apparent* inconsistencies and to interpret 
what one finds in the light of what one already believes.

In both PS and NPs one cannot ever know for sure but in NPS it is far 
easier to fool yourself.

In PS it is generally unusual to find two or more mature models of 
equal quality. If one does then a falsifying test for one should be an 
equally good test of the other and stringent enough tests will tend to 
favour one model above others (never without a fight of course. The 
fights are valuable as they bring light to bear on weak points).

In NPS it is far far more likely to find two or more mature models 
which may be of equal quality. I say "may be" because it is not 
possible to tell if they are or not. As we are examining "what I think 
happened given the evidence", opposing theories based on the same 
evidence will be claimed to have greater merit than all others. The 
reasons for the interpretations will again lead to fights but for 
these there is often no resolution. *E*volution is an excellent 
example of this. Again, this comment does not address Evolution's 
factuality or otherwise - just notes that as it is NPS the 
protagonists are sure to be much more bitterly divided over major 
theories. In NPS it is much easier to make up, modify or develop new 
theories "on the fly" than with PS. It is even possible to use the 
lack of evidence as support for a theory. Cf the late great Dr Gould's 
"punctuated equilibrium" theory of Evolution which took the hitherto 
vexatious lack of intermediate states between species and used it to 
create a theory that was supported by the lack of transitional 
stages - as any good theory must be. Very very very trivially briefly, 
and not doing it full justice, PE says that beneficial mutations occur 
in isolate genetic pools which are not mixed with the main 
population - perhaps in remote valleys or in some other way cut off 
from the madding crowd. These variations are increased by natural 
selection until the become the sole or dominant form in this splinter 
population. This group is then by circumstance suddenly reintroduced 
to contact with the main population (eg Lake Missoula drains) and 
their superior genetic construct(s) and significant numbers provide a 
significant seed to cause the changes to spread rapidly through the 
main population. The transitional forms did exist, as they *MUST* 
under Darwin's theory of Evolution (and any other serious variant) but 
they are confined to a minute geographic area and are relatively small 
in number in proportion to the change so their chance of survival as 
fossils or discovery if they did is vanishingly small.

Such a NPS post priori fit-the facts conjecture can ONLY be attacked, 
if the proposer has done their homework (as Gould surely had), by 
other people's theories and opinions. It is not testable by 
experiment. It is not readily repeatable. One may attempt to replicate 
its basic premise with PS but the best that even this can do is show 
that it really could have happened that way. That's a not totally 
unconvincing thing to do. I don't know if anyone's tried in the case 
of punctuated equilibrium. If one wished to try the test would 
probably be less than convincing as it would probably be restricted to 
taking an isolate from a homogeneous population, introducing a known 
advantageous mutation , allowing it to spread until it dominated the 
isolate and then reintroducing the group to the main body and 
observing the genetic improvement spread until it dominated the main 
group. The reason that this would be unsatisfying is that a main plank 
that the true procedure must be based on is absent - namely the random 
generation of a beneficial mutation which will spread through a 
population of specified no trivial size on the basis of its conferred 
reproductive advantage. The number of mutations that have been seen to 
arise spontaneously and act in this manner can, to date, be counted on 
the eyes of one foot. This fact will be hotly contested by many. While 
it is possible to observe the occurrences of many (apparent) past 
mutations and while mutations to new progeny is observed and while 
generations which play fast and loose with existing genetic material 
are able to be generated artificially, new (beneficial) mutations 
which produce (stable, continuous) upward progress in reproductive 
competition have not been observed. I'd be immensely pleased if any 
who disagree with this understanding were to furnish me with as many 
examples as possible that disprove it. (The qualifiers in brackets are 
because, while these are the necessary long term requirements, even 
without these the statement is AFAIK true).

The most frequently cited example, at least historically, of 
"beneficial mutation" is Sickle Cell Anaemia. While this generically 
inherited (of course) mutation confers  immunity to Malaria, it's 
highly likely that most people who have it would choose Malaria as a 
favoured option if they had the choice. The condition causes 
distortion of the red blood cells into a "sickle" shape. This greatly 
restricts blood flow in fine capillaries and leads to crippling and 
painful physical disorders and early death. Under some conditions it 
may even be reproductively advantageous as the sufferers probably in 
many cases survive to past reproductive age in areas of heavy malarial 
infestation. If all "beneficial mutations" carried such downsides few 
would voluntarily choose them for their children. This does NOT by 
itself make them a non-Darwinian example. If the mutation passes the 
reproductive advantage test then it's a candidate. The fact theta the 
mutation is a simple change to an existing genetic structure would 
disqualify it from serious consideration in a beneficial-mutation rich 
environment. When it's one of the few possssssible candidates it 
becomes something of a poster boy.

All the above is NOT a dig at Evolution but shows the sort of 
considerations that can arise when attempting to support NPS's 
unavoidably horse after cart approach. Again, this is not a complaint 
against NPs, just an observation of how it does and must work.

The disparate incompatible theories of Evolution are an excellent 
example of the blindness that can possess even the most capable of 
people when it comes to pet theories that cannot be tested but only 
"proved to my satisfaction". The only thing that all flavours of 
Evolutionists largely agree on is that Creationists are infantile 
idiots. Which they may be. And may not be :-).

To brieeeeeefly address a point from elsewhere. It helps to know if 
the theory one is dealing with is PS or NPS. As I stated elsewhere, 
and Gerhard agreed with (without noticing that I'd said it explicitly 
further up the email)(easily done) is that both PS and NPS deal with 
things which are ultimately unknowable.

    PS says "I believe it is likely that xxx works like this because I 
have tested my model rigorously and it invariably produces the same 
results as xxx does no matter how hard I try to get it not to."

    NPS says "I believe that xxx caused yyy by zzz because every piece 
of evidence I can discover fits in with my conclusion."

To convince (usually very grudgingly) the PS believer that he is wrong 
you just have to break his model.Sometimes this can be done with 
thought experiments alone. Sometimes it takes more resources than are 
reasonably available and you need to convince someone with enough 
money to help you and him break the model, or not. [[There are a 
number of serious people who question the Michelson Morley 
experimental results, 
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/D/Da/Dayton_Miller.htm 
notwithstanding and/or based on the vast number of tests that were 
done using even better equipment over many years after M&M went on to 
other things. BUT nobody will fund an M&M setup these days. The chance 
of breaking the model seems to remote (or too dangerous) to those with 
science dollars]].

However, to convince an NPS believer that he is wrong you CANNOT break 
his model - you have to break his mind. The model is intimately tied 
to the structure of his belief system and his interpretation of the 
data. New data which you think breaks his model but which he thinks 
doesn't, doesn't.
"A man convinced against his will, has the same opinion still" . If he 
isn't even convinced its pointless.

What would it take *at a minimum* to "break" updated classical 
Darwinian Evolution? It's easy to think of large destroyers 
(aforementioned Panspermiating aliens in Times Square MIGHT do the 
trick).  But any number of small things that were actual outright 
results of the theory being wrong, would not be accepted as disproofs. 
It takes a flood-tide in the minds of men to destroy an entrenched NPS 
model.

Take the same small disproofs and cast them at a PS model and they 
will break it on every occasion, if it's any good. It may be able to 
be un-broken by Popperian iteration but the next small attack will 
break it again, Given time it will become so distorted by repeated 
small attack that it will become obvious that it is grotesquely 
inadequate.

NPS models are much better able to roll with the punches and 
assimilate discrepancies. These only have to be 'explained away' and 
not tested out.
Classic Gradualism, Hopeful Monsters, Punctuated Equilibria and even 
Directed Panspermia can rub shoulders, albeit uncomfortably, and 
present a uniform enough face to the world that they can say 
"Evolution is proven fact". And, given what we have all too often come 
to accept the meaning of 'proven fact" to be, they'd be correct.

Is "Evolution" fact.
I don't know.
I don't think so.
I may be wrong.
But I advise you to run screaming from the room if anyone ever tells 
you that it certainly is.

Am I attacking Evolution per se?
Not really (although every robust theory should welcome fair minded 
attack)
But I am attacking the concept of demanding that our children (or we) 
should have to think in mental straight jackets. That they should be 
told that some lines of thought are unnacceptable. That some unfounded 
beliefs are definitely wrong.

- Are some unfounded beliefs wrong? - absolutely !!!.
- Are some founded beliefs wrong? - of course.
- Should we warn our children about the dangers of uncritical 
thinking?- you know the answer.
- Are blind leaps of faith logical? - by definition, probably not, in 
reality probably sometimes yes.
- Should we warn people that certain things are blind leaps of 
faith? - certainly.
- Should be prevent the leapers? - Not if they are of an age to decide 
for themselves and have been given every opportunity to be discerning 
along the way. [[See recent discussion and arguments re pornography 
:-) ]]

- Should we pursue and harry the leapers who get it wrong :-) ? - it's 
up to you to decide :-)




            Russell McMahon
































-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist