Discussing common descent with Jonathan Sampson

One thing about falsifiable/unfalsifiable theories is that a true theory will appear unfalsifiable because it agrees with all the evidence available already.

Excellent work, Jack, as always.

As Euan underscored with his comment, the charge of "unfalsifiability" will nearly always lead to a rebuttal that is likely to be deemed "humiliating" to the creationist apologist because at this rather late date in the history of biology the only evidence capable of overturning the evolution apple cart is evidence that will turn over most of the world's apple carts.

The other brand of humiliating evidence involves, e.g., the appearance of the Indian deity Ganesh, simultaneously on every TV set in the world (including those that had previously been turned off), informing every one simultaneously in their own language that the Hindus have it right, life didn't evolve, and put down your hamburgers NOW.

I suppose the least humiliating evidence is the return of the anonymous mysterious alien beings in their golden ships, piloted by cats a la the revelatory descriptions of Cordwainer Smith. Or perhaps the surprising discovery that starting January 11, the genome of every as-yet unsequenced creature we attempt to sequence consists of a chemical other than nucleic acid.

One way to help the creationists understand the difficulty of answering their question in 2005 by posing another question: what evidence would falsify the theory that the moon rotates around the earth because the earth has the larger mass by far?

Yes, evidence that some organisms' biochemistry or genetic code is radically different from the common one would be evidence against common descent.

Another piece of evidence would be that one species gave birth to a completely different one (say, birds coming out of lizard eggs). This is still "common descent", strictly speaking, but it would be a tough one for the present model of evolution.

organisms can arise ex nihilo -- such an event would totally circumvent the laws of physics

So the poliovirus created in a lab in 2002 circumvented the laws of physics?

Jack,

Excellent post as usual, but why do you avoid the word "abiogenesis" and grant them the weasel word "special creation"? Why not at least get them to define "special creation"? Does it mean assembly of molecules into a cell? For sexually reproducing species, is it a gamete or zygote, or perhaps something later in development. Or, does new (not previously existing) matter arise specifically for these "blessed events"? When pressed, some anti-evolutionists admit that it's not likely the latter. But the point is to get them to explain what they mean, or at least show their evasion tactics more clearly.

These two brave (but misguided) souls at least attempted to define and support "special creation.":

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof58.htm

I find it fascinating how "standard" anti-evolutionists (creationists and IDers) rarely mention those authors. The few references I saw misrepresented them.

DaveScot prehaps you should brush up on your latin. "ex nihilo" means "from nothing" the manufacturing of a virus or even the creation of a Thylacine embro from man does not effect evolution. I've long said, and most scientists would probably agree, that we will be able to create life in the future. Heck we already create new "kinds" of life from via genetic engineering. Building a life from scratch will happen if we don't wipe are selves out. That doesn't effect evolution. Just because we can do it doesn't effect history.

Now life being created "from nothing" is another matter. This implies we had nothing to do with it. Thus some unknown "designer" or force must be at work. That would make us look at things a bit differently. But in the end we still see evolution occuring before our eyes.

I think those scientist at the University of New York would have a big laugh at you if you really thought that they created the virus "from nothing"

Much as some may not like to hear it, there is some ambiguity as to how scripture is to be interpreted with respect to ex nihilo. In one interpretation, nothing existed at all, and God created space, time, matter, energy, forces and whatnot in a kind of 'micromanaged big bang' scenario. But a more careful reading describes all these things not as nonexistent, but as disorganized. There was chaos, rather than 'nothing', and God did not make the heavens and earth from nothing, but rather differentiated them out of what was previously all glommed together. So the first creation story (Genesis has two, mutually contradictory, but you can't be a True Believer without taking the mutually contradictory literally, right?) at least is one of increasingly fine differentiation. Even Adam was created from dirt, and Eve created from Adam's rib. Not from 'nothing'.

So either DaveScot's position is supportable and the formation of a virus from something else counts, or else God Himself did not create ex nihilo but rather fabricated from raw materials already available to Him. The Genesis account doesn't necessarily violate modern physics.

Back to the OP, there is some indication (we don't see Sampson's side in any detail) that the notion of 'falsifiable' isn't understood the same way by both sides. On the scientific side, it means that in principle, it is possible to find evidence paradoxical to the theory; something the theory says is impossible. To the creationist, 'unfalsifiable' means "a term we can level at evolution because we have learned that it means 'unscientific'. We can then reject all proposed examples as unsuitable because they are hypothetical and not real."

I was one of the 47, too, and my response was to ignore him. I think that was the best idea, since he was clearly just trolling for material that he'd cut and paste into a mangled misrepresentation, but aside from that, your answers were excellent. Posting them publicly is also good strategy, since if Sampson does try to play games with your words, there will be an open record for comparison.

I'll also be interested in seeing if Sampson links back here with his article. Given the creationist track record, I suspect not -- they like to control what their readers see too much.

You've probably seen it before, but the Talk Origins Archive has an excellent article that includes many examples of evidence that could falsify common descent and evolution by natural selection. (Warning: it's rather long.)

Excellent exchange, Jack.

Although many readers probably already know this, let me add that the accumulated evidence prior to the publication of "Origin" was already pointing in the direction of common descent. Darwin and Wallace were simply the first to have laid out a clear mechanism to explain it. If the truth had had nothing to do with common descent, it seems unlikely that Darwin and Wallace would have proposed natural selection. It would have been falsified while still in an embryonic hypothesis state. Because Darwin waited to publish until he had overwhelming evidence to guide his thinking, he assured himself of giving birth to a healty theory. I think that makes Darwin one of the most credible scientists to have ever lived.

" . . . see what kinds of things the anti-evolutionists don't want to talk about---despite the talk of teaching 'other theories,' they really don't want their "theories" subjected to any scrutiny."

"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to Intelligent Design. The Origins of Life is not taught."

Read it carefully. The policy calls for students being " . . . made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories . . . including . . . Intelligent Design."

— Keanus

Read it more carefully. It doesn't call for students being made aware of gaps/problems in other theories of evolution. It calls for students being made aware of other theories of evolution. You left out an important 'of'.

"...made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories...including...Intelligent Design."

Rewriting the sentence to make the meaning more clear:

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory, and students will be made aware of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to Intelligent Design.

"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to Intelligent Design. The Origins of Life is not taught."

—

Read it carefully. The policy calls for students being " . . . made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories . . . including . . . Intelligent Design."

— Keanus

Dear Jack,

Great post!! Thanks for taking the time to do the dirty work in the trenches.

I have one question if I might. If all organisms come into existence by being born, then isn't it still logically possible that life originated in two distinct places on earth and extant organisms descend from either primordial organism #1 or primordial organism #2? Just because all organisms are born from genetically related parents simply means that they are descended from an ancestor, but not necessarily a common universal ancestor.

Let me give an example (this example is pure rubbish by the way). Let's say that protostomes are all descended from a protostome ancestor that can be traced all the way back to some conglomeration of events during the origin of life and the deuterostomes can also find their origins in a separate group of events that occurred at about the same time frame. Protostomes are all related because they have the basis of their evolutionary lineage in Event A whilst the deuterostomes are all related, but have their genesis in Event B. The protostomes and deuterostomes make new protostomes and deuterostomes by means of giving birth, but the two groups would not be related.

It seems to me that we need to go beyond just making progeny via giving birth, but show that the whole of like is 1) made of the same basic stuff (L-amino acids liked together with peptide bonds to make proteins, nucleic acids for information storage molecules and phospholipids for membranes) and 2) do business in about the same way (common glycolytic pathway, fatty acid biosynthetic pathway, citric acid cycle, beta oxidation, polysaccharide biosynthetic processes, ad infinitum). These biochemical commonalities, which are simply too strong and coincidental to ignore, form the "gotta" argument for common descent, at least as I see it. Just making progeny by giving birth is, at least in my opinion, not quite enough.

Sorry for troubling you,

MB

One thing about falsifiable/unfalsifiable theories is that a true theory will appear unfalsifiable because it agrees with all the evidence available already.

This is missing the point. Evolution is considered unfalsifiable by creationists NOT because no contradictory evidence can be found in principle, but because every time scientists learn something new and unexpected (and everything new is at least a little unexpected), they keep modifying the theory to fit the evidence! And obviously, this means the theory can't possibly be falsified -- it is infinitely malleable. But this also means it can't possibly be truth, because truth cannot be modified. If it could, it wouldn't have been true! Therefore, anything that changes as evidence changes is not true. Anything not true is false. Therefore, evolution is false. Each new piece of evidence causes scientists to say "well, evolution wasn't as true as we wanted, so NOW it's true" -- until the next time.

For a creationist, this is exasperating, maddening! Find some legitimate reason why evolution is false, and they just change the rules, modify what evolution means, and even though obviously evolution was false (otherwise they wouldn't have had to change it), it is STILL evolution. You falsified it and they still claim it's true! Like cutting a head off the hydra, only to have two new ones grow back.

Regardless of how well-drafted or ill-drafted is the statement from the Dover school board, it is certain that the advocates of "intelligent design" would cringe to see several lesson plans drafted by good educators and experts which point out the flaws and problems with intelligent design as science, and especially as a competitor to Darwin.

Here in Texas the state standards require that anything proposed as a theory in science have its downside explored, too. Consequently, advocates of intelligent design were careful to avoid having ID proposed as a hypothesis -- I suspect to avoid exactly that sort of scrutiny.

My experience is that lesson plans are readily available to introduce all the creationist/ID shibboleths about Darwin into a classroom. A teacher who wishes to stick to the science, however, does not readily find expertly-crafted lesson plans that point out the errors, flaws, gaps and misses of ID.

Such a lesson plan might cause a school board member who still has a functioning synapse to rethink the idea of putting ID into the classroom.

Wasn't it Twain who said, "First God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He made school boards" ?

Flint,

No one ever said that Evolutionary Theory is TRUTH! By definition a Theory is never done... it only exists to explain the observations, and as more evidence and observations come along, the Theory will be modified.

It's the anti-evolutionists that want someone to declare... OK it's done!

Don

DonM:

The creationist mentality is foreign to you, eh? Do you want YOUR children being taught Truth, or falsehoods? So evolutionary theory is not true? You said so yourself! So your children are being taught falsehoods, deliberately, by atheists! You are HAPPY with this? Are you daft?

A teacher who wishes to stick to the science, however, does not readily find expertly-crafted lesson plans that point out the errors, flaws, gaps and misses of ID. Such a lesson plan might cause a school board member who still has a functioning synapse to rethink the idea of putting ID into the classroom.

I was also one of the 47 he sent it too. I gave him one possible bit of evidence that could falsify evolution and in three successive emails, he distorted what I said three times in three different ways. At that point I realized that the chances of him actually giving an accurate and honest portrayal of what was said to him was about equal to the chances of me being elected president. PZ was right, we should have ignored him in the first place.

Flint: I'm not sure you mean for your last commment to be taken seriously, as it really is a bizarre thing to say. Are you familiar at all with modern physics? The physics taught in high schools, for instance, is 'Classical' or 'Newtonian' physics, a theory which was supereseded by special and general relativity and quantum physics nearly a hundred years ago (both of which are probably also not completely correct). Like all good scientific theories, it is quite useful (used to build bridges, etc...), and in some sense appoximates a correct description of nature. Nonetheless, it is literally false, in that nature is just not how the theory says it is. So it is, I suppose, strictly speaking a 'falsehood'- but would you ask physics teachers (some minority of whom may be, *gasp* atheists or agnostics) to stop teaching it? That hardly seems reasonable.

As has been mentioned, Evolution, like all scientific theories, is a method for describing reality in a manner which approximates truth and is useful for a variety of purposes (I won't list these- but living as I do not far from CDC in Atlanta, epidemiology comes to mind). The appropriate predicates for complex scientific theories are probably more like 'truer' or even 'truest' than literal capital-T 'Truth.'

SeanD:

Yes, I know all that. I was trying to show what the issue looked like through creationist eyes. Remember that the creationist believes in absolute truth, as revealed through authoritative texts written by God. To the creationist, absolute truth cannot change. It is not based on evidence, but on faith and the Word of God. This Word is to be taken literally and not to be questioned, because once you question anything, nothing stops you from questioning everthing. The result of that terrifying process is immorality and dissolute living, trust me! (I'm still the Voice of the Creationist here, OK?)

And so scientific theories are suspect BECAUSE they are subject to change, and obviously Truth is never subject to change, without becoming false. In admitting that their theories are subject to improvement, scientists are admitting these theories are FALSE! To the creationist, this is smack-your-forehead obvious.

William Dembski has written that "any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out must be deficient...the conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from
Christ. A scientist, in trying to understand some aspect of the world, is concerned with that aspect as it relates to Christ."

What Dembski is telling you is where Truth comes from, and how it must be respected. We may disagree with him, but we'd be foolish not to listen.

Flint,

All I can say is WOW! We are trying to communicate where no common language exists.

Please give me an example of an Absolute Truth, that we can all agree on.

Don

Flint: Sorry- should have looked at some of your other comments more closely and realized that you were playing devil's advocate. That last observation ("we'd be foolish not to listen") is a good one, and I think that considerations you've brought up in this thread point to an interesting question- clearly more and better science education is needed- but is that all? It seems to me that the issues discussed here point to a need for more and better (largely secular, by which I mean not specifically 'anti-religious' but rather 'areligious') philosophical education as well (I shoud disclose that I am a graduate studet in philosophy that would like a job someday- *ulterior motives*). For instance, while some scientists continue to use falsification as a criterion for 'sciencehood,' a broad consensus of professioanl philosophers of science have rejected this principle for more than 50 years.

I am not certain why philosophy is no longer taught in high schools (it does, I suppose, often dicuss controversial subject matter), but however it is accomplished, it seems to me that better public awareness of these sorts of metascientific issues would significantly improve the quality of public discourse regarding policy issues relating to science (certainly science education policy, but also climate change and other scientific controversies).

Flint: Sorry- should have looked at some of your other comments more closely and realized that you were playing devil's advocate. That last observation ("we'd be foolish not to listen") is a good one, and I think that considerations you've brought up in this thread point to an interesting question- clearly more and better science education is needed- but is that all? It seems to me that the issues discussed here point to a need for more and better (largely secular, by which I mean not specifically 'anti-religious' but rather 'areligious') philosophical education as well (I shoud disclose that I am a graduate studet in philosophy that would like a job someday- *ulterior motives*). For instance, while some scientists continue to use falsification as a criterion for 'sciencehood,' a broad consensus of professioanl philosophers of science have rejected this principle for more than 50 years.

I am not certain why philosophy is no longer taught in high schools (it does, I suppose, often dicuss controversial subject matter), but however it is accomplished, it seems to me that better public awareness of these sorts of metascientific issues would significantly improve the quality of public discourse regarding policy issues relating to science (certainly science education policy, but also climate change and other scientific controversies).

Don:

Don't ask me, ask a Believer. He can stuff you with a whole Bible full of them.

My personal philosophy is that the objective universe is what it is, and that therefore it is in principle possible to make absolutely true statements about it, but that in principle we can never know for sure what those statements are. YMMV.

I am really enjoying and appreciating this conversation, and hope to have some time to respond to a number of points that have been made.

But here I'd like to say that I think Flint is trying to show us what things look like from the creationist point of view - not because he wants anyone to adopt that viewpoint but rather because it is important to understand some of the underlying psychological and metaphysical differences between us. Creationists (of at least some stripe) are profoundly unsettled by the unsettledness of science, so to speak, and we might improve the conversation with htem by speaking directly to that point.

Flint,

Yes, I realize what you are pointing out, but it was Sampson who approached the "scientists" in this group wanting to discuss evolution, not the denizens of PT asking to discuss Absolute Truths.

If a Creationist wants to debate Science he has to do it within the scientist's framework and if a Scientist intends to debate Truth he must do it within the Believer's.

I think that you have answered my question... there is no such thing as an Absolute Truth that we can agree on.

Don

I think e-mail 1 contains one of the post simple and logical cases for common descent I have read, and I congratulate you for that.

Well, I'll admit I only took two years of Latin in school. I'd guess that's two more years than most of y'all here but I could be wrong.

The "ex nihilo" I referred to was not used in a vacuum (pun intended). It was used in reference to an organism i.e. creation of an organism ex nihilo.

Ex nihilo in that case refers to creation of an organism where no organism existed. It doesn't mean creation of an organism where nothing (vacuum) existed before.

Therefore creation of an organism (polio virus) ex nihilo is quite true. There was no organism prior to the creation event, there were only non-living chemical precursers where strung together in a gene splicing machine according to a predetermined sequence and presto an organism where none existed before.

Intelligent design is a proven possibility for creation of organisms ex nihilo as well as for unnatural tampering with the genome of existing organisms. The question is thus not if ID is possible but rather the date of the first time it was done. Popular consensus puts that date in the Holocene epoch. Popular consensus is often wrong.

Anthropocentricity evidently didn't die when we discovered the earth wasn't the center of the universe...

DaveScot brags (again):
"Well, I'll admit I only took two years of Latin in school. I'd guess that's two more years than most of y'all here but I could be wrong."

I took 3, at the same time I was taking English and French. Not that I consider that a fact that strengthens my argument, unlike you do.

"Ex nihilo in that case refers to creation of an organism where no organism existed. It doesn't mean creation of an organism where nothing (vacuum) existed before."

OK, so every time a child is conceived, there is creation ex nihilo, according to your definition. After all, there was no organism before (or do you consider sperm and ovules organisms? in which case, what's the difference between starting with those as opposed to other complex chemicals?).

In fact ex hinilo means "from nothing" - literally from no components (no chemicals, no materials, no energy. Nothing). If you want to mean something else, come up with a new word. Privately changing the meaning of a word is not appropiate for discussion.

"Therefore creation of an organism (polio virus) ex nihilo is quite true. There was no organism prior to the creation event, there were only non-living chemical precursers where strung together in a gene splicing machine according to a predetermined sequence and presto an organism where none existed before."

And there was no child before the conception, only complex chemicals incapable of self-reproduction or even virus reproduction. Yes, if you put them together just right, you get a child - but then, as demonstrated, if you put the chemicals together just right you get a virus.

"The question is thus not if ID is possible but rather the date of the first time it was done."

Actually, the question is *if* it happened. You have yet to give proof of that. You might start by specifying who, when , where in a testable hypothesis. Or admit that you have nothing and that you're just using an argument from incredulity.

"Popular consensus puts that date in the Holocene epoch. Popular consensus is often wrong".

Scientific consensus, however, tends to be right on the money at most points. Since we find traces of life after that point, I'd say that at the latest that's when life started.

Tell you what, find a case of your invisible intelligent creator creating these days (or do you say that it only happened once?). That would be a very nice boost to your hypothesis - maybe even turn it into a theory. Until then, admit you have no proof, thank you.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

I love this line:

"Intelligent design is a proven possibility"

This has to be among the most meaningless phrase I have ever read. Heck its a proven possibility that Elvis is still alive and performing in Vegas, but I'm not buying tickets.

Is the traditional Christian belief in creatio ex nihilo, God's creation of the universe out of nothing, one that is inherent to biblical doctrine or one that is simply compatible with it? Is creatio ex nihilo nothing more than a defensive theological reaction to Gnosticism? Moreover, does the well-accepted Big Bang theory confirm the allegedly biblical doctrine of creation out of nothing? Is it solely up to science rather than Scripture to point us toward the nature of God's creation - whether it is finite or eternal? Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination Of Gerhard May's Proposal

It is generally agreed that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo - that God created all things out of nothing - is taught implicitly rather than explicitly in Scripture. Genesis 1:1 tells us that it was God who created the world in the beginning. The question of what the cosmos was made from is not one that this verse was intended to answer.(9) However, at least one prominent modern Old Testament scholar has argued persuasively that the verse speaks of an absolute beginning and therefore creation ex nihilo.(10) Creation ex nihilo (Out of Nothing)

However, there is no evidence that organisms can arise ex nihilo -- such an event would totally circumvent the laws of physics

I am reasonably certain that many of you believe that the entire universe was created ex nihilo. If not, please tell me what you believe was around prior to the big bang.

Is it a fair paraphrasing to say that (a) only a supernatural creation of a new species would overthrow common descent and (b) even such a miracle wouldn't really overthrow it, because we don't know if it was used for every new species.

Many people who are theists believe that the universe was created ex nihilo

I still don't see a definitive answer about how evolution could be falsified.

Quantum Mechanics does allow for something from nothing.

Does Quantum Mechanics allow for organisms arising from nothing? If not, then I don't see why you should find the comment that However, there is no evidence that organisms can arise ex nihilo – such an event would totally circumvent the laws of physics is so "highly amusing." (Sorry, but I think you've given us a calssic example of what is called "equivocation.")

This is a rabbit trail not worth persuing--but yes, technically QM allows for for anything to be created from nothing. But enough said. I only found it amusing because the majority of theists and atheists AGREE that the universe was created ex nihilo.

This is a rabbit trail not worth persuing--but yes, technically QM allows for for anything to be created from nothing. But enough said. I only found it amusing because the majority of theists and atheists AGREE that the universe was created ex nihilo.

We are diverging (perhaps not?) from the topic, but atheists would not agree that the universe was created ex nihilo, if by created one means that therefore a creator was involved.

Also, I'm not sure that the claim is that the universe arose from nothing, but rather that whatever it arose from, if anything, was (is?) something of a different sort than what is in the universe now.

To some extent this is a semantic problem that reminds me of the Taoist saying that "the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao." If we define "something" as things in our universe, then does that mean that things "outside" our universe (included some hypothetical cause of our universe) are "nothing"? Not necessarily. We just don't know what they might be like, because whenever they impose or manifest themselves in our universe (if they do), they become something other than what they were (or are) before they manifested.

This is a rabbit trail not worth persuing—but yes, technically QM allows for for anything to be created from nothing. But enough said. I only found it amusing because the majority of theists and atheists AGREE that the universe was created ex nihilo.

As Mr. Krebs said, "created" might not be the best choice of words. But let's say the majority do agree, sort of.

1. Evolution is not a theists versus atheists issue.

2. Theists and atheists agree about lots of things. Do you find those things are also highly amusing? :-)

I agree strongly with 1. and 2. - except I don't think I know what the amusing part here is.

Flint,

I am not trying to be disingenuous -- in the question of falsifiability I am probably easier on you guys than you are on yourselves.

I don't like the rabbit in the Cambrian example--its like saying we can test classical mechanics by firing a bullet at a tissue, if the bullet bounces back, then classical mechanics is wrong.

I like the non-similar genes organism, but it still leaves me with the taste in my mouth that there are no real tests other than "if something really outrageous shows up, then we know we are wrong."

In other words, there are no subtle tests, similar to the slight anomalies in Mercury's orbit that tested relativity.

As I said, I don't think that's a flaw, but more of the fact that biology isn't like physics, and vice versa.

I do think it provides you with the opportunity to adapt to almost anything (apart from something really weird) -- it's just the nature or your business.

David said:
"I don't like the rabbit in the Cambrian example---its like saying we can test classical mechanics by firing a bullet at a tissue, if the bullet bounces back, then classical mechanics is wrong.

I like the non-similar genes organism, but it still leaves me with the taste in my mouth that there are no real tests other than "if something really outrageous shows up, then we know we are wrong."

In other words, there are no subtle tests, similar to the slight anomalies in Mercury's orbit that tested relativity."

David, I don't think you realise that you're asking for two different things. Think of it like this: the "rabbit in Pre-Cambrian" is to "bullet rebounding on tissue" like "anomaly in Mercury's orbit" is to "evidence of puntuated equilibrium". You ask for a falsifiable test of evolution, and as an example put the falsifiable test of a slight change in physics. The extremelly small anomalies (they look big because they happen to huge things) that Newton's physics couldn't predict in heavenly bodies were subtly altered by the introduction of the Theory of relativity. Equally, the changes in the rate of evolution that weren't predicted (I think) by Darwin's evolution were slightly changed by the introduction of puntuated equilibrium.

So what do you want? A falsifiable test for *all* of evolution? Find out that creatures don't, in fact, reproduce imperfectly. Or find that some of the creatures of the world are not DNA-based (that would kill common descent only, though). Yes, it is as unprobable as falsifying Newton's physics - because the evidence is so huge that it is a fact by now that they were both right. You might be able to show that some small part of it is wrong. After all, that's what the modern scientists amuse themselves with: the little details. But it has been obvious for 100 years and more that Darwin had the general picture correct.

Or, in the "comparison that will be taken too far" department, you can discuss if the small picture in the corner is a duck or a dog, but the picture will remain a farm.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

I don't like the rabbit in the Cambrian example---its like saying we can test classical mechanics by firing a bullet at a tissue, if the bullet bounces back, then classical mechanics is wrong.

In other words, there are no subtle tests, similar to the slight anomalies in Mercury's orbit that tested relativity.

Grey,

I understand your point. You see, I don't think the kind of tests the creationists demand are possible. The Mercury experiment, in a sense, demonstrated that Newtonian mechanics was absolutely wrong--although a practical approximation. It effectively falsified Newtonian mechanics. I don't think there is a similar experiment for evolution, and I'm not asking for one.

In other words, there are no subtle tests, similar to the slight anomalies in Mercury's orbit that tested relativity.

— David Heddle

The Mercury experiment, in a sense, demonstrated that Newtonian mechanics was absolutely wrong---although a practical approximation.

Science seems to be largely about developing a theory that can accurately explain the mean and variance of some set of data and hopefully tie the result into other existing theories. Creationist often take the approach that finding some anomaly way out in the tail of the distribution somehow invalids the mean and variance.

The mean and variance are established from a large set of data, so the anomaly can have no effect. There is no such thing as invalidating the distribution thus constructed. It may well be that the anomaly is very interesting in its own right, and will lead to some new theory that explains it. An example I can think of is creationist attempts to discredit radioactive dating methods with the anomaly of young volcanic rock samples from Hawaii. The anomaly was indeed worth investigating, and good science produced an answer.

Jack Krebs: I agree strongly with 1. and 2. - except I don’t think I know what the amusing part here is.

I was just trying to understand why Mr. Heddle would things amusing that are rabbit trails. His rabbit trails, mind you.