Some major flaws in Evolutionary Theory

I must clarify my position before I start. This is will not be yet another creationist argument. My essay will not push any alternative theory as to why the universe is the way it is. I will merely point out problems, and grave ones.

One of the reactions I expect will come up can roughly be stated as follows: "Hey, the theory is not perfect, but it is scientific, and it's the best we have!" To which my answer, let it be known beforehand, is the following:

If Evolutionary Theory truly is the best theory we have to explain the diversity of species, then it can only mean that all our theories suck.

With this out of the way, let's dive into the suckiness.

Is Natural Selection a tautology?

The short answer is: it depends on what you take the relationship between mathematical and logical truth to be. Of course, this only reveals that the question is the wrong one to ask. The correct question is rather the following: is Natural Selection an empirical theory? And the answer is a clear and resounding no.

Of coruse, defenders of evolutionary theory, by presenting a refutation of a couple of weak arguments that Natural Selection is a tautology, leaves its readers thinking that the principle has some actual empirical content. But this is plainly false, as follows from their own argument.

Let's quote their own words:

The current understanding of fitness is dispositional. That is to say, fitness is a disposition of a trait to reproduce better than competitors. It is not deterministic. If two twins are identical genetically, and therefore are equally fit, there is no guarantee that they will both survive to have equal numbers of offspring. Fitness is a statistical property. What 'owns' the fitness isn't the organism, but the genes. They will tend to be more often transmitted so far as what they deliver is better 'engineered' to the needs of the organisms in the environment in which they live.

The mathematical model being invoked implicitly here is a generational model, where each gene is marked with a fitness value, and this value determines its expected number of sucessors in the following generation. Within such a model, it logically follows from the laws of probability that the genes with the higher tendency towards leaving offspring will command a higher share of the total population in each successive generation. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever empirical in this argument-- it is a purely mathematical proof. Natural Selection is mathematically true. Thus, it is impossible to present empirical evidence against it, and this disqualifies it as a scientific theory.

Please note what this argument is not. It is not an argument that specific hypotheses about how a species evolved are unfalsifiable. Such arguments invoke contingent hypotheses or facts in addition to Natural Selection, and thus are subject to refutation. For example, the famous early peppered moth experiments fall clearly within the range of empirical science. But, contrary to what is claimed, they never provided any sort of empirical support to Natural Selection nor did the principle run the risk of being refuted if the experiment failed. Had the experiment failed, the theorists would have had to reject some assumption(s), but rejecting Natural Selection is tantamount ro rejecting the laws of probability and statistics themselves!

Can Natural Selection really change organisms as extensively as claimed?

A very common complaint of the skeptic against Evolutionary Theory, and in particular to the very peculiar claim that all life is derived from a common ancestor, is to question the possibility that Natural Selection can actually produce all the change in populations over time that the theory would require to account for the current diversity in organisms. In layperson terms, can Natural Selection really take some claimed ancient lizards, and through a series of mutations that inflict gradual changes on its offspring, through an extended period of time, turn the lizards into dinosaurs, birds, and human beings, and all through the process, keep the intermediate forms well adapted to their environments?

This has to do with the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. One can accept the first without having to accept the second. Indeed, the first one is supported by facts quite extensively and convincingly; even creation scientists accept it. But can we question macroevolution?

A typical evolutionist answer is to laugh away the question by claiming that the person asking it "does not grasp the enormity of the time scale involved", or by subtler arguments:

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

I'm sorry, but this is clearly among the worst arguments ever made in support of anything. Instead of answering the challenge with an actual model of how gradual microevolutinary change can result in macroevolutionary change, not only do the evolutionists decline responsibility for doing so, but to top it off place the responsibility of showing that their unsupported process can't happen on the people who point out that it's unsupported!

This is simply ridiculous. If you want people to believe you that X happens, you actually have to offer evidence that it does happen. You can't claim that unless the skeptics can prove that it doesn't happen, then it happens. It is intellectually dishonest, and logically inconsistent.

Sure, the talk.origins crowd has put forward more detailed arguments about why you should believe in macroevolution. But don't bother reading that document just yet. Not until you read my next section, which outlines the fallacy underlying all evolutionary reasoning, and will enable you to refute it point-by-point yourself.

Do greater than chance similarities prove common origin?

One of the classic arguments in favor of the evolutionist claim that all species have a common origin is that species show all sorts of similarities which can't be due to chance. Indeed, the enormous mass of odd similarities that he found in his studies of nature around the world is what convinced Darwin of the common origin of all species, and he didn't know half of the similarities that we know today. Thus, the standard evolutionist argument is: If all those species are much more similar than mere chance would allow, then they must be related.

However, a greater than chance similarity between organisms only proves precisely that: greater than chance similarity between organisms. There exist other possible non-evolutionist explanations for the same facts, the most popular of which is that species were designed by some kind of ultra-powerful being. However, we don't need to go to such extremes to put the argument under stress.

An aside: Historical Linguistics

Let's start out by discussing a different but methodologically related field: Historical Linguistics. This is the original branch of modern linguistics; it started with the discovery in the late 18th century of systematic (way greater than chance) sound-meaning correspondences between the vocabularies of Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. This led to the theory that the three languages are descended from a common ancestor language, Proto-Indoeuropean. As the topic was explored during the 19th century, more and more languages were shown to belong to the family, additional families were discovered, and a powerful method arose for proving such relations: the Comparative Method.

If you strip away the linguistic details, the comparative method looks suspiciously alike to the methods of evolutionary biology. This is no surprise, since Darwin actually was inspired and influenced by the methods of Historical Linguistics, and mentions their methods and findings as an important analogy to his theory.

But there is a question that remains unasked here: how do linguists actually know that the systematic correspondences observed in the relevant languages are actually due to common descent, and not due to some other reason? For example, could it just not be the case that the correspondences are due to some undiscovered natural relationship between certain sounds and meanings?

The answer to this is three-fold:

We actually have records of one language diverging over time and geography, with several distinct languages as a result. We have ample documentation of this happening in Latin, to give only one example.
Linguists ahdere to a theoretical principle called the abritrariness of the linguistic sign, due to Ferdinand de Saussure, which states that the relationship between sound and meaning is arbitrary.
More crucially, we have thousands of languages for which one can't show common descent. We even know about at least one language that is not related to any other, Nicaraguan Sign Language

This last point is very important. Having languages that are very different from the languages of one family shows indeed that the similarities in the related languages can't be due to chance. If we had no languages that differed wildly from the Indoeuropean ones, we would have no empirical basis for the arbitrariness principle. The fact that such languages actually outnumber the Indoeuropean languages boosts the likeliness of the common descent explanation.

What does this mean for Evolutionary Theory?

So here comes the point: evolutionary biology has nothing corresponding to the three factors just mentioned:

The fossil record is famously incomplete.
Biologists have not explicitly formulated a theoretical principle that states that the relationship between phenotypes and genotypes is arbitrary enough for historical explanation to be the preferred option. For all we know, this relationship could be tighter than appreciated due to some undiscovered natural law (the hypothetical biological analogue to the rejected linguistic hypothesis of "Iconiciy", which states that sound and meaning stand in a natural rather than arbitrary relation), and the genotypic similarity of organisms with similar phenotypes is explained by this law, not common descent.
Biologists, by insisiting that all species are related, can't bolster their arguments about relatedness by pointing to unrelated species, like linguists can do with languages.

The argument is essentially a challenge based on probability theory: evolutionists claim that the probability of what we observe is much greater than chance in order to support their theory. But there is something which is left implicit, unaddressed, yet is crucial to such an argument: to be able to assess the probability of a particular outcome in some event, you need to know what is the set of possible outcomes. Yet evolutionists make their arguments without examining the structure of possibilities within which their argument should be framed. But, just as you need to know how many sides a die has in order to know how likely one particular number is to be rolled, you need to know the structure of possible heredity/phenotype pairings in order to claim that a certain pattern is unlikely to arise by chance.

Let's do a thought experiment to clarify this further. First, we shall conceptualize the range of heredity (genotype), environment and phenotype as multi- or infinite-dimensional spaces, in which each dimension represents some variable among which genotypes, developmental environments or organism traits can in principle differ. This gives us a measure of "distance" for each of these domains.

Now, we consider the range of possible mappings from genotype-environment pairs to phenotypes. Now, there are two relevant poles towards which such mappings can tend:

A mapping could be such that for each phenotype we may find wildly differing genotype-environment pairs which map to the same phenotype.
On the other hand, a mapping could be such that only a very restricted set of proximate genotype-environment pairs could code for a given phenotype.

Each of these mappings gives an undelying structure of possibilities within which the question of whether correspondences between organisms are due to common heredity can be posed. But the answer in each case is different:

If the structure of possibilities is indeed like #1 (as it is demonstrably the case for natural languages), then the most likely explanation is common origin. For if you were to take two very similar organisms at random, then the mapping gives you relatively little information about what genotype and enviroment could have produced it-- very different combinations of these could have produced each of the two organisms.
On the other hand, if the structure is more like #2, then the historical argument is weakened, and the most likely cause is just eternal laws of nature. Phenotypes are highly informative about genotype and environment, and indeed, to the degree where you can actually explain genetic similarity on terms of phenotypic similarity.

Which underlying structure of possibilities does our world resemble the most, #1 or #2? We don't know. This is a question the evolutionists simply don't talk about; they just assume #1. But then, the crucial problem is that to assume #1 almost amounts to assuming that common descent is the right explanation for similarities between species, which is the "conclusion" they claim to be supporting! It is not a tautology, however, since the whole argument is probabilistic; first of all, #1 and #2 are not discrete possibilities, but rather extremes in a scale; second, both explanations are available in each kind of world, it's just their relative plausibility that shifts. Still, the assumption biases the whole research project in favor of their preferred answer.

Another linguistic diversion

Recently, but still after I developed the argument I just presented, I became aware of the dissertation work of the linguist Brett Kessler on Estimating the Probability of Historical Connections Between Languages (published by CSLI Publications under the title The Significance of Word Lists), which, as it turns out, deploys an argument similar in spirit to mine, but in the field of Historical Linguistics. Kessler argues that historical linguists have no mathematical methods for estimating the chances of similarities between word lists for languages, which leads to controversies: what one linguist will take to be uncontrovertible evidence of a relationship, another will dismiss as resulting out of mere chance. Kessler investigates methods of actually making such calculations. This, of course, requires making mathematically explicit what the evolutionists don't: you have to make explicit assumptions about what the range of forms and meanings is, how likely one form or meaning is to mutate into a different one, and so on. In other words, you have to make the structure of possibilities explicit; only then can you make any sort of calculation about how likely a relationship is.

Biologists would do well to pick up an introduction to Historical Linguistics or two. After all, that's where the evolutionist's methods came from.

Conclusion

Clearly we are before yet another instance of the post-Enlightentment scientistic ideology, intent on the rape of nature for profit, and used to support some of the worlds most disgusting politics.

Behind all these unfounded theories of blind watchmakers is simply a refusal to acknowledge that the range of our knowledge is limited. There are plenty of things we will simply never know about our world. How life arose (if it ever did, of course; it could have been around forever for all we know) and why it is so diverse and similar is simply one of them.

But the scientists, in their drive to "understand", control, and bend nature to their will, will have none of that. And since science is performed by those in power, it will be used to maintain the status quo, building flimsy story upon flimsy story upon flimsy story to keep the people down.

	Holy Shit (2.50 / 2) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 11:13:07 AM PST

	is this LONG! How on earth do you expect me to have the attention span to read something that is a) this long and b) has so many big words in it?

	We don't (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by dmg on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 11:33:50 AM PST

	How on earth do you expect me to have the attention span to read something that is a) this long and b) has so many big words in it? If you have ADD then adequacy is not for you. Adequacy aims to discuss controversial ideas of the day, in an in-depth and intelligent fashion. This means some articles may not be chopped into the convenient bite-sized pieces that you are used to from your MTV Gen-X no-attention-span conventional media. If you cannot cope with the intellectual demands of the site, you owe it to yourself to go elsewhere. The average US college student has a seven-second attention span. Suffice it to say that we at adequacy are somewhat on a higher plane that the average US college student. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	hey dmg (none / 0) (#32)
	by Husaria on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 07:44:13 PM PST

	I take insult to that (is a cs major at UB taking Evolutionary Bio) Maybe I should print this and bring to to bio tomorrow Sig sigger

	Would you, please? (none / 0) (#38)
	by nathan on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 08:59:19 PM PST

	Pretty, pretty please? pant pant Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	*yawn* (3.00 / 1) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 07:53:06 PM PST

	Right, I have ADD and I had no problem getting through this peice of drivel. I'd hardly call it intellectually challenging. This is a well-trodden argument that's not really all that interesting. First paragraph: "Natural Selection is mathematically true. Thus, it is impossible to present empirical evidence against it, and this disqualifies it as a scientific theory." Special and General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum Mechanics are all also mathematically true, and weren't derived from direct observation. Rather, they were mathematically derived, and found to be consistent with reality. Similarly, natural selection plus mutations is a mathematical model that has been shown consistent with reality. To deny that the mathematical model can have empirical validation is to deny the entirety of modern science. Similarly, the premises of the second section are flawed, "In layperson terms, can Natural Selection really take some claimed ancient lizards, and through a series of mutations that inflict gradual changes on its offspring, through an extended period of time, turn the lizards into dinosaurs, birds, and human beings, and all through the process, keep the intermediate forms well adapted to their environments?" You presume that evolution is required to produce such a things. There may have been any number of paths through the fitness landscape. Look at any number of genetic and evolutionary algorithms in computer science. Given different runs, you can produce many solutions, but no one solution must be produced. You presume that the current state of the planet is the only possibility, which is quite fallacious. Mr em's attempts to force a divergence between micro and macro evolution are an excercise in diversion, somewhat remnescent of arguing "Sure we observe small change in pictures, but that doesn't prove that a long series of pictures produce the appearance of motion". Similarly, very minor phenological changes treated as "frames" would produce some appearance of motion over time, even if you don't accept that it can produce new species. It just so happens that when we look at the "frames" of the evolutionary movie that we do have, we see species changing into new species. Mr em's third section emphasizes chance in evolution. Indeed, statistical analysis and cladestic play a large role in producing a tree of life, and that tree does change over time. I do not see this as significant as Mr em believes. As he alludes, there is the possibility of creator being. However, this falls to the very argument he is making, that there is no empirical evidence to support such a hypothetical, and that any investigation into the mechanics of such a creation rely on the very statistical techniques that he is criticizing. Mr em then finishes his shining example of Popular Science level understanding of biology by continuing on the probability argument, with such bizarre assertions such as "Biologists, by insisiting that all species are related, can't bolster their arguments about relatedness by pointing to unrelated species, like linguists can do with languages." However, ask any biologist what a potential falsifier for natural selection + mutation would be, and most will tell you a) find a rabbit in a Cambrian fossil bed, or b) find species that don't share a genetic heritage. "Biologists would do well to pick up an introduction to Historical Linguistics or two. After all, that's where the evolutionist's methods came from." Mr em would do well to do some study into population genetics and molecular biology, which would not exist without an evolutionary context to interpret them. He bemoans the lack of an objective mathematical context, while accusing evolution of being mathematical only; establishes a flawed analogy to linguistics and a false dichotomy of the relationship between genotype and phenotype; and presents nothing but contrived thought-experiments and extraneous links while not once addressing the facts that support evolution, preferring to keep to the shadows of the philosophy of science. That's the meat of his argument, the "philosophy of science". I once read a very apropos description of "philosophers of science". They are the janitors of the workshop, cleaning up the dust after the real work is done. They might suggest that the workers do their task differently to make the mess smaller, but they're biased torwards cleanliness rather than results, and should be given due respect in getting useful results. Let me invite anyone who wants to have their questions answered to post on the message board at www.infidels.org. There are plenty of biologists and others well versed in evolution for you to educate and correct. Or, if you'd prefer to argue philosophy, there is a rather good philosophy forum there as well. Nialscorva

	sir.. (none / 0) (#35)
	by Husaria on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 08:15:22 PM PST

	ADD does not exist, it is just a farce for poor disciplined people Sig sigger

	you miss the point, repeatedly. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
	by em on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 08:37:19 PM PST

	Special and General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum Mechanics are all also mathematically true Please derive the theories from the axioms of real analysis, then. Thousands of people will be impressed. Rather, they were mathematically derived, and found to be consistent with reality. Similarly, natural selection plus mutations is a mathematical model that has been shown consistent with reality. To deny that the mathematical model can have empirical validation is to deny the entirety of modern science. You seem not to understand what "mathematically true" means. Natural Selection is "consistent" with reality because it logically follows from the underlying mathematics (probability theory). The other theories you mention were induced from facts, and do not follow from mathematical premises alone. There may have been any number of paths through the fitness landscape. Look at any number of genetic and evolutionary algorithms in computer science. Given different runs, you can produce many solutions, but no one solution must be produced. You presume that the current state of the planet is the only possibility, which is quite fallacious. Strawman. The argument is not that one evolutionary path must be taken and not other possible ones, but rather that it has not been established that there really can be an evolutionary path for the kind of change that has been claimed. Mr em's attempts to force a divergence between micro and macro evolution are an excercise in diversion, somewhat remnescent of arguing "Sure we observe small change in pictures, but that doesn't prove that a long series of pictures produce the appearance of motion". With a film, you can observe all the stages. Any contiguos sequence of frames which produces the appearance of motion proves the point. Same applies to evolutionary stages. The problem is that, simply, nobody has "frames" spaced closely enough to produce the appearance of motion in anybody, save for those that want to believe in it in the first place. However, ask any biologist what a potential falsifier for natural selection + mutation would be, and most will tell you a) find a rabbit in a Cambrian fossil bed, or b) find species that don't share a genetic heritage. No, those would not falsify natural selection + mutation. They would falsify specific claims about how life evolved on Earth, namely (a) the claim that rabbits (and thus, mammals) didn't exist in the Cambrian period, and (b) monogenesis. Daniel Dennett once said that if evolutionists were presented with proof that the current variety of species could have evolved on Earth in the conditions given, they could always retreat to the claim that life came to Earth from space. This, of course, goes back to Kuhn's incomparability of scientific paradigms idea-- if your theory fails to explain some data, you can always make up some story to explain it away. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	Occam? (none / 0) (#41)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 10:31:45 PM PST

	"if your theory fails to explain some data, you can always make up some story to explain it away." Isn't that largely what your article accomplishes? It admits to the existance of microscopic evolution, but denies that the same principle applies to larger changes. Occam's razor would insist that the simplest explanation (i.e. the identical nature of micro and macro evolution) is most probably correct. --Milton

	not quite (none / 0) (#42)
	by em on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 10:40:24 PM PST

	Isn't that largely what your article accomplishes? It admits to the existance of microscopic evolution, but denies that the same principle applies to larger changes. Occam's razor would insist that the simplest explanation (i.e. the identical nature of micro and macro evolution) is most probably correct. You are assuming that one has accepted the existence of macroevolution in the first place. But the point is precisely to put this "fact" (as evolutionists like to call their theory) in question. More explictly: evolutionists claim natural selection made, over time, organisms of a hypothesized type A end up with remote offspring of observed type B. Unless they can support that the process can make those changes, then we should be skeptical about the existence of organism A. Also, since organism A is hypothetical, claiming it exists also goes against Occam's Razor. Anyway, appealing to "Occam's Razor" is kinda problematic. It is an ultimately unjustifiable philosophical principle. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	Non-hypothetical organisms (none / 0) (#103)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 08:50:19 AM PST

	Let's get specific about how science works. Whales, for example, are related to other mammals. All the earliest mammals have four legs and walked on land. Therefore, according to the ideas of common descent, whales undoubtedly had a legged ancestor. What would an intermediate whale look like? And where would it be found? According to the ideas of common descent, a transitional ancestor should have intermediacy in the loss of legs useful for motion on land (as is also the case in the independently marine seals and manatees) -- there should exist some ancestor whose form identifies them as whales, but which also have legs. Now such fossils have been found. They are not hypothetical. Indeed, they clearly demonstrate that the modern whales arose from ancient artiodactyls, since the useless (for walking, they could have been used as sexual claspers) hind legs on some of these intermediates have hooved toes. Recent finds have presented ancient 'legged' whale fossils with the uniquely identifying artiodactyl ankle. Moreover, analysis of DNA and protein sequences also independently show that hippos, in particular, are the whales closest living kin. Hippos and whales also share some very similar adaptations to underwater hearing that are probably ancestral to both. A similar 'legged' fossil Sirenian (manatee) has been found. The 'intermediate' status of seal limbs (neither fully adapted to the marine nor to land motility) is obvious to any that look carefully. Other real (rather than hypothetical) theoretically expected intermediates have been found: feathered theropod dinosaurs, therapsid reptilian-mammals. Occam's razor is a core philosophical principle of natural science. It is not a core philosophical principle of theology. So perhaps you would be more satisfied by going into theology. You might be better at that discipline anyway.

	More on Occam's razor (none / 0) (#108)
	by Mendax Veritas on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:08:41 AM PST

	Occam's razor is a core philosophical principle of natural science. Occam's razor -- "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity" (Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate), or, in somewhat degraded popular form, "The simplest explanation is probably the right one" -- is strictly a tool of convenience; it cannot prove anything. It is a good basis for preferring, for example, a heliocentric model of planetary motion to a geocentric model, simply because it is easier to calculate planetary motion with simple ellipses than with the much more complex figures required by a geocentric model. But either model will work. (Another benefit, of course, of a heliocentric model is that it harmonizes nicely with the theory of gravity. But this is a separate issue; the fact remains that it is quite possible to calculate planetary motions using a refined Ptolemaic model, even though actually doing so would be more of a clever stunt than a useful technique.) So, while it is perfectly legitimate to invoke Occam's razor as a justification for preferring one of a set of theories, any of which are equally supported by physical evidence, it is not a viable tool for claiming that one theory is "correct" and the others are "wrong". Only an analysis of whether the theories are consistent with the available evidence can do that, and then only provisionally, subject to revised analysis when more evidence becomes available.

	Ockham's Razor (none / 0) (#154)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 08:04:14 AM PST

	I agree entirely that Occam's Razor does not determine which hypothesis is "true". It only determines which hypothesis is "better". I have, as you know, done exactly what you ask. I have presented several hypotheses that are consistent with the evidence: evolution, the magic poofer of species who does so in a pattern mimicing a historical record, and the god who made the world last thursday with false evidence of a past that never existed. One of these hypotheses does not require (but also does not deny) the presence of unevidenced supernatural omnipotent powerful agents acting by unknown mechanisms to produce very complex features. That makes it the "better" hypothesis by Occam's Razor. I would be happy to entertain alternative hypotheses that are also consistent with the evidence for common descent and that are also simpler than modification of pre-existing organisms (by mechanisms of neutral drift, founder effects, natural selection) to produce slightly different organisms. The ball is in your court. You need to present a hypothesis or explanation for the fossil record, the DNA sequence record, organismal relatedness in the present (despite your confusion, there is absolutely no question but that whales are mammals and thus are related to them -- anyone who would think otherwise is very, very confused) that is more consistent with the evidence and is simpler.

	Vastly more ancestors are hypothetical than fossil (none / 0) (#122)
	by em on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:01:04 PM PST

	Let's get specific about how science works. Whales, for example, are related to other mammals. So, science works by assuming the conclusion you want to arrive at? All the earliest mammals have four legs and walked on land. Therefore, according to the ideas of common descent, whales undoubtedly had a legged ancestor. This is not "undoubtedly"; historical argument is of a probabilistic nature: "The similarity is such that is is more likely to arise from common ancestry than from chance". You are sorely misstating your argument. The way it goes is that you state a set of similarities between whales and species that you have already classified as mammals. Then you examine the similarities, and discard those which are likely to arise from chance (e.g. the fact that the direction in which they move is the same direction in which their feeding mechanism is, the fact that sensory organs like eyes are at that end, etc.). To the degree that the whales then share remaining similarities to mammals, then they are more or less closely related to those mammals. If they are more closely related to mammals than to fish, reptiles and birds, then they must be mammals. Another sort of argument you are invoking is that by which you reconstruct the form of the ancestor. It is by that argument (which I don't know much details about in biology, but know a fair amount when it applies to languages) that you conclude that proto-mammals were more likely to have legs than not. I know all this. I still believe it is far from convincing. Why? Because the critical assumption that range of possibility is such that the similarities must be attributed to ancestry. Occam's razor is a core philosophical principle of natural science. It is not a core philosophical principle of theology. You may want to check who Occam was. Again, evolution posits countless hypothetical organisms, given that it requires a continuous line of descent that connects a common ancestor to all observed life; one observed fossil is just a drop in an ocean. Note that in my account, the account of similarity in world types #1 and #2 replace one sort of hypothetical entity with another; in world type #1, the hypothetical entities are common ancestors; in world type #2, the hypotheticals are laws of nature. If we are in a #2 type world, then evolution violates Occam's Razor. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	what point? (none / 0) (#75)
	by NialScorva on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 12:51:44 PM PST

	You seem not to understand what "mathematically true" means. Natural Selection is "consistent" with reality because it logically follows from the underlying mathematics (probability theory). The other theories you mention were induced from facts, and do not follow from mathematical premises alone. There are two parts to any mathematical model of reality, the mathematical representation (syntactical and lexical representation, and their relations with each other), and the isomorphism by which we map the empirical experience to the model, and vice versa. The former piece is soley tautological, in that it generates no truth that is not already present in it's axioms. For example, given F=ma and a=ds/dt, the truth of F=mds/dt is contained within the truth of the axioms and the rules of manipulation. This is the mathematical consistency and truth of the situation. "F=mds/dt" is a theorem of the system, and is mathematically true. The latter half of a logical model is the empirical process of forming a valid isomorphism between what we observe, and what is mathematically true. Physics does this by observing that the force required is indeed related to the mass and acceleration, and that the mathematically true theorems have valid isomorphism to true observables. General relativity and special relativity were inspired by the the inadequacy of Newtonian physics for explaining phenomenon such as the orbit of Mercury. A new model (paradigm if you would like to be Kuhnian) was needed to replace the inadequacy of the former one. A model was developed, and mathematically true consequences of the initial assumptions have been repeatedly verified. Modern evolutionary theory, darwinian or punctuated equilibrium, is similar. It makes predictions such as "we should find fossils with characteristics of species both before and after it in the geological record" and we continue to find such fossils. "We should find similar genotypical features in species with similar phenotypical lineages", which again, we do. Even if you don't see these features as leading to evolution, you cannot deny that they are consistent with evolutionary predictions. Further refinement of those predictions is irrelavent, change does not invalidate the paradigm, it merely makes it more consistent with empirical observation. Strawman. The argument is not that one evolutionary path must be taken and not other possible ones, but rather that it has not been established that there really can be an evolutionary path for the kind of change that has been claimed. What kind of change are you refering to? I haven't seen you make any definate claims as to which transition paths are impossible. You seem to aknowledge "microevolution", perhaps you'd care to define the difference between micro- and macro- evolution? Generic objections to an oversimplified "lizards into dinosaurs, birds, and human beings" evolutionary pathway aside, we do see the existence of such pathways still existing. Take many known ring species, where there is a clear path of related and interbreeding populations occupying a circle of fitness plateaus, with either end of the circle being different species for any possible definition of the word. Yet, there is an existing connection of breeding animals between the two. This is completely consistent with evolutionary predictions. Not only that, but it is a living record of the film strip-like change in a population. Ah, but that's micro-evolution, right? How about higher order records of change such as the evolution of cetaceans or hominid skulls (and more). A quick search on the net will turn up many more. Now, the differences between those records are barely larger than the variation that we see within some populations. This is evidence. Not necessarily of evolution, but there's definately something fishy going on here. The question is how do those peices fit together, and the only answer we have right now is evolution. Daniel Dennett once said that if evolutionists were presented with proof that the current variety of species could have evolved on Earth in the conditions given, they could always retreat to the claim that life came to Earth from space. This, of course, goes back to Kuhn's incomparability of scientific paradigms idea-- if your theory fails to explain some data, you can always make up some story to explain it away. And back to the philosophy of science... Funny you should mention Kuhn, I'm more of Quinean myself, with a dash of the logical positivists (yes, I know it's a bad word). Not too many people seem to like those traditions. The reason I think it's funny is that Kuhn argued that the dominant paradigm stays dominant until a sudden overthrow by a new paradigm. How does that apply here? There is no new paradigm which evolution is in conflict with. Right, wrong, indifferent, Kuhn's philosophy of sciencedoes not support you in the slightest. Kuhn differentiated between the tweaking of a paradigm and the complete overthrow of a paradigm, you have not done so. Do you have a reference for that Dennett quote? Was this the same man who said: "The evidence of evolution pours in, not only from geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy (Darwin's chief sources), but from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant -inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write. Doubts about the power of Darwin's idea of natural selection to explain this evolutionary process are still intellectually respectable, however, although the burdern of proof forsuch skepticism has become immense..." --Daniel C. Dennett, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ (1995) --- NialScorva

	You're still confused about mathematical truth. (none / 0) (#87)
	by em on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 03:44:59 PM PST

	For example, given F=ma and a=ds/dt, the truth of F=mds/dt is contained within the truth of the axioms and the rules of manipulation. This is the mathematical consistency and truth of the situation. "F=mds/dt" is a theorem of the system, and is mathematically true. No, it's not mathematically true. F=ma and a=ds/dt are not mathematical nor logical axioms. If you want to claim otherwise, you will have to cite an axiomatization of real analysis where those formulas are taken to be axioms. Again, you are confusing the notions of a mathematically true statement and that of a statement true in virtue of an extramathematical set of axioms. This relation is akin to the relation between, say, the axioms of first order logic and the Peano axioms for arithmetic; the Peano axioms are extralogical relative to those of logic (unless you're a logicist, like, say, Russell and Whitehead), and likewise, the "axioms" of a physical theory are extramathematical relative to those of real analysis. Generic objections to an oversimplified "lizards into dinosaurs, birds, and human beings" evolutionary pathway aside Heh. You toss aside the whole argument in order to "refute" it? Whatever you may say about ring species is besides the point (your salamanders look like a likely case of microevolution, FWIW). Can natural selection account for the changes that are claimed for it? There is no* new paradigm which evolution is in conflict with. Right, wrong, indifferent, Kuhn's philosophy of science does not support you in the slightest.* The point in bringing up Kuhn is simple. In the absence of such a paradigm, evolutionists can keep up making stories to patch up their BTW the Dennett comment is from the same book. And Dennett just sounds like raving lunatic in the quote you give. May I ask you what you think of Dennett's characterization of Natural Selection as an "algorithm" in that book? It essentially makes my point about NS being mathematically true, although in a very contrived and unperceptive way. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	What Natural Selection Is (none / 0) (#159)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 07:11:20 AM PST

	Natural selection started out as a simple observation of the way biological organisms work. It was observed, even by pre-scientific societies led by goat-herders, that organisms in the same species vary in their phenotypes. This variation was also observed to be, in part, heritable (although no mechanism was known for this heritablity). It was also an observation, clearly made even by pre-scientific societies, that not all organisms born survive. And it was a further observation of nature that the organisms least able to perform the functions of life were the first to die off. It is these basic observations of how nature works that led to the modern ideas and mathematical description (which are subtlely different from the crude pre-scientific observation) of natural selection. In the same way, it was observed that gases expanded when heated and contracted when cooled well before this was described mathematically in the gas laws. And it was observed, as a matter of "objective reality" that when people walk out the 23rd story window (or off a cliff), they did not levitate indefinitely, but rather went in a rapid descent (until abruptly stopped by a surface) well before the mathematics of gravity's effect were worked out. From those initial observations grew the current understanding of natural selection. It did so by being tested and looking at what appeared to be anomolous findings. In particular, observations of sexual selection pointed out that "survival" was not the real goal of the selection process, "reproductive success" was. That evolutionary relevant selection only affected that part of phenotype that is genetic. The finding of phenotypes that are favored in one environment and disfavored in another showed that the findings of selection are conditional upon the environment. There are also other findings that demonstrate frequency-dependent selection. For example, in some plants, having a new variant for a self-sterility surface factor is highly favorable, but only so long as the factor is rare. One remaining open question in understanding selection is whether there is group selection as opposed to selection acting on the level of the individual organism (as most selection seems to work). In short, NS started out, like many scientific ideas, as a crude observation of reality (nature favors some phenotypes over others), but that crude definition has changed and NS has become refined to the point where it can be described mathematically and fits a broader spectrum of observations such as sexual selection and frequency-dependent selection. The conditions under which it occurs (the need to specify a specific environment) and the conditions under which selection will have an evolutionary effect (the phenotypic differences must have an underlying genetic basis) also have become better understood.

	Too Much Thinking (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by Right Hand Man on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 11:30:14 AM PST

	You have clearly thought far too much about this issue. For the life of me I cannot understand why some people have to complicate matters that are so simple. Read the bible. The first book will explain all of this stuff. God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them, how hard is that to understand? Of course, I am not railing against the author of this piece, because his heart is in the right place, I just don't see why anyone would need to read a piece this deep to believe in something that is explained in the Good Book in just a few paragraphs, without all of the examples and comparisons and such. The maniacal drive to rid everyone's life of God is what brought about this argument against creation, not sound thinking. That should be obvious to anyone who even glances at the facts. The people who espouse these blasphemous theories should be languishing in a home for the criminally insane rather than standing at the front of a lecture hall. ------------------------- "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

	This is tripe (none / 0) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 02:26:32 PM PST

	I might agree with you, if your "Good Book" had any sort of credible evidence in its favor.

	Or (none / 0) (#15)
	by westgeof on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 02:57:25 PM PST

	Or if this book didn't contradict itself right from the beginning. (i.e., in exactly what order do you think the various things were created?) As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	the point of the story (5.00 / 1) (#20)
	by momocrome on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 04:36:32 PM PST

	the point of the story is that there is no credible evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is, however, credible evidence of veracity in the Holy Scriptures. The testimony of say, the indefatigable and unimpeachable Moses cannot be casually dismissed. Or take your pick: Ibraham, Jesus, Isaac, Ezekiel, John, John TB, Tomas Aquinas, Dante Aligheiri, Isaac Newton etc are some of the wisest and revered men in all of history. Each of these men offer voluminous (copious) amounts of perfectly acceptable testimony in favor of the explanation proffered in the Holy Bible throughout the scope of their life's works. Detractors of your ilk are merely skirting around with the circumstantial evidence and heresay, while many of the abovementioned men of good name have direct knowledge of the events and concepts in question. On the flip side, we have one 19th century Isrealite Pedant after another offering 'plausable hypothoses' like evolution, theories that in reality do little more than justify the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent enslavement of countless millions in the service of impersonal 'corporations' therewith. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didn't exist, and you my friend are buying the whole thing COD, gulping down the heady broth of diabolic justification like a parched mudskipper. I pity your soul, but moreover, I pity the innocents you will surely corrupt over the course of yor life with such seemingly entrenched conceptions in the service of pure evil. Please think before you spout off thx.

	Religion, the USA and the civilized world (3.33 / 3) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:22:11 PM PST

	I assume you're USian. Here's something to ponder: Nowhere else in the developped world do you see so much exposure for creationism and related idiocies. Nowhere. In Europe, creationists are relegated in the same niche as tin-foil helm wearers, flat earthers and the like. As for your bible junk -- I say junk because I'm an atheist and I believe it to belong to the same corner of the library as "Mein Kampf": the Hate, Racism, Lies, Myths and Intolerance corner ... Well as far as the bible is concerned, here's a newsflash for you: John Paul II, head of the Catholic church, who is recognized as their spiritual leader by hundreds of millions of christians, has publically recognized the theory of evolution as being both valid AND compatible with christianity. Tell me, how do you think you're better at that bible business than the pope himself? Oh yeah I guess he's the antichrist or something according to your degenerate protestant bullshit. So there you go. The world vs the USA. Science vs. Idiocy. Fundamentalism vs. Humanism. Creationism is not a fraud, it's an insult to humanity, it's an insult to intelligence, it's a shame on the USA.

	"civilized." (5.00 / 1) (#28)
	by nathan on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:30:11 PM PST

	Oh, boy. I'm so sorry that the gentle ways of Jesus aren't good enough for you. I guess turning the other cheek and loving your neighbour are too wimpy and effete for you. Listen, buddy, your aggressive, atheistic materialism isn't for me. If all there is to life is conquering and destroying, we might as wll call a spade a spade and embrace nihilism (as did the USSR and the Roman Empire.) You just go ahead and bomb Afghanistan. Your violence and wrath sickens me. Just remember that you can change by letting God into your heart. I'll pray for you. Nathan PS - I am not and have never been an American. -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I'm pretty sure... (none / 0) (#93)
	by noah Oneye on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 09:56:54 PM PST

	the guy bombing Afghanistan is a Christian. And I reckon Jesus's teachings were dead on, unfortunately I've yet to find a church who agrees. "...and in your free time you can make me sandwiches..."

	my friend, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
	by nathan on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:24:20 PM PST

	The best evidence for the existence of God is the behaviour of those who deny Him. Materialism has taken us to the edge of the abyss. Good books make good men. Darwin makes monkeys out of us. Are you a man or a monkey? Choose wisely, I implore you. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Man or Monkey? (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 07:44:55 PM PST

	Personally, I'd rather throw in my lot with monkey than man. Man's tendancy to slaughter his brother a thousand at a time has always put me ill at ease. It seems a good deal more pleasant to lounge about in the trees all day, dealing with the occasional territorial dispute, gathering fruit, and copulating at will. Monkey, after all, has the doctrinal upper hand on man; he is unfallen! And far better to live without knowledge of good and evil than to misuse that knowledge as it has here been misused to such ill effect. What harm is there in seeking further knowledge? This need not have become a doctrinal debate. Where does the original article, here under discussion, reference religion in more than a passing fashion in order to provide an alternative to the evolutionary viewpoint. Instead of proceeding in an academic fashion, this discussion quickly degenerated to a level most base and irrelevant. Is it necessary to call someone evil under these circumstances? Certainly it is no evil to disagree, and, if it be sin, sin is man's original folly, so what of it? Certainly I think you evil, for your cruel and hurtful words. For one who quotes "turn the other cheek," certainly your cheek could here have been turned without causing undue distress, without rudeness, and without un-Christian virtue. Sadly, your perception of evil has turned to face you, and you have become, in this case, its instrument. And while I, pronouncing you evil, may paint myself a hypocrite, remember, as Milton says, that only God can truly distinguish hypcrisy from earnesty. I am thus bound to commit this folly of man by my very nature. I am, after all, only human. --Milton

	This kind of thing (5.00 / 1) (#37)
	by nathan on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 08:56:47 PM PST

	is exactly what Augustine was to repent of when he got older. I'm referring, of course, to sophistry. Sophistry is the subversion of logical evaluation through rhetoric, and boy is it ever all over this post. Monkeys are not 'unfallen,' they lack free will. I'm assuming you're aware of the distinction, because otherwise you wouldn't be quoting Milton (who was a Puritan, if you'll recall, and quite familiar with the Bible.) Monkeys are not capable of becoming saved, any more than are bugs, grass, dirt, or bacteria. Knowledge of good and evil is the problem, because for evil to exist, we must already have separated from God. Trying to 'extend' this knowledge is monstrous, because it's turning away from God and trying to become your own god. This is not the same thing as attempting to extend scientific knowledge, which is merely exercising our God-given stewardship over the material world. Your paragraph about turning the cheek doesn't make any sense at all. We're not called on to turn our lower cheeks on evil and walk away. We're called to accept abuse unflinchingly in order that we might spread the Good News. That's what I'm trying my best to do here, with God's help, of course. My reading of your last paragraph is that you claim that my knowledge of good and evil has led me to commit evil acts. Of course, the knowledge of good and evil is already all the evil that one could imagine, and of that we're all guilty, but I don't see how I'm evil just because I stand up for truth and salvation. Your flippant post wasn't nearly as smart as it was trying to be. I assume that you ren't trolling, because Adequacy.org has a very strict no-trolling policy. In future, I advise you to be a bit more civil to your elders, and to approach the discussion as seriously as I am. There's more at stake than you may be willing to admit. Yours in love, Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	No Troll. (none / 0) (#40)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 10:14:35 PM PST

	Just a little sparring, with a point. Your evil act, as I see it (of course committed with knowledge of good, and, it seems, with, presumably, intent to do good -- I don't wish to call anyone a monster) was to respond with an accusation, or, more precisely, an implication out of proportion to the context of the discussion. The leap from a discussion of the credibility of the Bible to an accusation wherein someone is labeled as "evil" is quite prodigious. Surely you recognize that Moses, a biblical source, cannot be seen as a source of authentication for the Bible, as he is contained within it. And, if you point to historical accounts of the man, it is as easy to point to the Bible's encapsulation of many Historical elements, none of which prove the rest of its content. Certainly Fredrick Douglass's autobiography draws its basis from fact, though many of the events within it were exaggerated and/or fictionalized. Certain truthful elements do not prove the whole. And, while proof denies faith, you seem to indicate that there is proof through many of these sources. I would say that equal proof exists through multiple learned sources for a number of different views of the universe, including all the world's great religions. The earlier "Anonymous Reader" (and I am not that reader, in case you had thought otherwise) hadn't framed his argument so neatly, but that, I imagine, was the crux of his point. However, instead of responding with civility, as you did to my post (which I honestly appreciate), you attacked his character and accused him of deluding masses into the service of Satan, which seemed a little disproportionate, and quite tactless. I acted to correct a percieved wrong. And it was a wrong. You knew enough to spot sophistry in my arguments; certainly you recognize the condescending tone in your own. The attacking one's character and insulting one's core beliefs is not an effective method by which to "spread the word" -- in fact, that person probably now harbours an even deeper resentment for the Christian faith than he or she did before. No post which had the best interest of the addressee at heart would have been phrased in that way. Your knowledge of my rhetorical tactics certainly betrays a knowledge of them on your part, as well, and they were at work here with a profoundly negative intent, whether intentional or not. And while I do not appreciate the lecture about civility, or your assumptions about my age (isn't the internet supposed to be about an egalitarian exchange of ideas, regardless of "real world" identity?), I do, believe it or not, respect your opinions and arguments, as I hope that you accord at least a passing respect to mine. --Milton (with apologies for the left turn this has all taken. . . my original version of this post was much closer to the original evolutionary topic, but it rambled and was weighted down with theological idealism. This, hopefully, speaks much more to the now-tangental point.)

	IMHO (none / 0) (#48)
	by momocrome on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 12:16:34 AM PST

	it's a simple question of whether or not you think you are calling Moses a liar. Moses is the single most respected human in all of history. RES IPSA LOQUITUR: There is no civilized culture or peoples worth mention that do not hold this simple truth dear to heart. You mean to say I should believe Carl Sagan or Charles Darwin over Moses? I don't get that at all.

	Moses (none / 0) (#56)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 05:53:45 AM PST

	No he is not.

	Linux Torvalds (none / 0) (#64)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 08:21:47 AM PST

	Yes he is. How many people read the bible? The Internet that Linux built? I rest my case.