I'm flattered that you considered my brief article on evolution worth the obvious effort you put into annotating it. Overall I think your notes and comments are fair and valuable, especially in each place you suggested a reference would have improved the article.
There are a few places I'm not in total agreement with you which I'll mention. We're not going to agree on those points so we'll just have to agree to disagree about them.
There is perhaps a misunderstanding of the purpose of the article. It is not an attempt to repudiate the concept of evolution itself. I do not know of any reason some form of evolution could not be possible. Other perfectly natural explanations for the existence of life and the species is also possible, though I do not think any such explanation, including evolution as currently define and deliniated is probable. Certainly no supernatural explanation is correct. My main concern is that evolution is used to promote ideas which are wrong.
You point about, "'most people' is a strong claim," is not a claim. It really wouldn't matter whether it were most people or not. The fact is that evolution is now taught as settled science in every university (with the exception of some religious schools), in public schools, and except for some religious individuals I do not know of more than a handful of individuals who question evolution. I don't think that is controversial.
I did not define every term, like hypothesis, because those who are not familiar with the common meaning of such terms aren't going to understand the article anyway. Those who call evolution a theory are among those who do not know the difference between hypothesis and theory. Until a hypothesis has been proven without question or caveat it remains a hypothesis. A possiblity, no matter how great that possiblity might be believed to be, remains possibly wrong.
I did make reference to the scientific method in the article Science. It was meant to be a link, and I will correct that in the article.
"This is an example of the limitations of assertion, and of the rhetorical danger of reification. In this passage, each 'Evolution asserts' could well be accompanied by a reference to an actual publication or claim."
Rhetorically the assertions are not about particular claims, but any claims of knowledge about what no one has or can ever observe because they are in the past. Nothing that evolution claims occurred can possibly be observed except for the very unlikely possiblity that it happens again. The assertions would also pertain to most of cosmology as well.
"This is mistaken. The/A theory of evolution is not the theory of 'How life began.'"
It is interesting that when evolutionists confront creationists they argue for the abiogenic origin of life, but when confronted with the question of how life began they deny it being part of evolution. Yet evolutionists to make guesses about when life began (3.8 billion years ago, for example). They make no claim about how life began and deny evolution addresses the question but they are sure it began, sometime. I'm sorry. Do not tell me something happened if you can tell me neither how it happened and how you know it.
I wrote: "Mutation the only answer. Evolution claims to be the explanation for where all different forms of life came from."
You wrote: "This is incorrect. Evolution is not an explanation of life's origins."
Notice, I said, "all different forms of life," not life itself.
"Did you look up and scan/skim/read Wood and Eagly? If you did, maybe you can venture an answer to the implied question: 'Why does anyone take seriously the notion that evolutionary theory can expand knowledge of sex-differences in behaviour?'"
I didn't and I wouldn't. Nothing makes human beings think or do anything except conscious choice, not heredity, not environment, not evolution, and not feelings.
I do not agree with 004, your illustrated version of the scientific method. For instance, in the diagram, the last step, "Develop General Theories." Theories are not developed. Hypostheses are developed, but something is a theory only after a hypothesis has been conclusively validataed, meaning there no more anomalies or unanswered questions. The suggestion that the scientific method is some kind of continuous process that keeps getting closer to the truth but never quite reaches it is a terrible mistake.
Ohms law is not some kind of approximation, it is an absolute law of electric current in a DC circuit. E=IR, absolutely, not almost or probably or what most scientists agree is the case. The chemical properties of the chemical elements listed in the periodic table are absolute. They are not established statistically or by concensus but by direct experimental verification. The properties of chlorine are always the properties of chlorine and anything that has different properties is not chlorine and whatever has the properties of chlorine is chlorine.
"From Wikipedia: 'There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing an endosymbiotic origin of the nucleus, that eukaryotes arose without endosymbiosis, and that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing a simultaneous endosymbiotic origin of the flagellum and the nucleus, in addition to many other models, which have been reviewed and summarized elsewhere.'"
This is a perfect picture of why evolution is not a science. It is the same way all the way up and down. "There is no consensus among biologists," "current opinon on the origin ...," "in addition to many other models." If you seek a specific answer to any question of evolution like how did creatures that metamorphosize evolve, it's always the same, several models and various conjectures but never a specific definitive answer to anything. They have no idea how butterflies or dragon flies evolved but know for certain how human nature and human traits and psychology evolved.
But then they study voles and discover certain chemical changes in the brain that seem related to their mating behavior which they hope will help them understand human social behavior. Good grief!
Thank you again for the comments and suggestions. It doesn't matter that we don't agree on everything. Except for whatever choices individuals make based on their acceptance of evolution, I don't think the question of evolution much matters. What's here is here, however it got here, that is certain. One cannot go wrong studying the nature of what is here. That is why I have total confidence in the theories of the physical sciences. I'm only mildly interested in whatever proports to study what is not here as a means of guessing how it got here. I really don't care how it got here.
Annotating Regi Firehammer's essay on Evolution
in Friends and Foes
A blog by william.scherk in General
Posted
Hi William,
I'm flattered that you considered my brief article on evolution worth the obvious effort you put into annotating it. Overall I think your notes and comments are fair and valuable, especially in each place you suggested a reference would have improved the article.
There are a few places I'm not in total agreement with you which I'll mention. We're not going to agree on those points so we'll just have to agree to disagree about them.
There is perhaps a misunderstanding of the purpose of the article. It is not an attempt to repudiate the concept of evolution itself. I do not know of any reason some form of evolution could not be possible. Other perfectly natural explanations for the existence of life and the species is also possible, though I do not think any such explanation, including evolution as currently define and deliniated is probable. Certainly no supernatural explanation is correct. My main concern is that evolution is used to promote ideas which are wrong.
You point about, "'most people' is a strong claim," is not a claim. It really wouldn't matter whether it were most people or not. The fact is that evolution is now taught as settled science in every university (with the exception of some religious schools), in public schools, and except for some religious individuals I do not know of more than a handful of individuals who question evolution. I don't think that is controversial.
I did not define every term, like hypothesis, because those who are not familiar with the common meaning of such terms aren't going to understand the article anyway. Those who call evolution a theory are among those who do not know the difference between hypothesis and theory. Until a hypothesis has been proven without question or caveat it remains a hypothesis. A possiblity, no matter how great that possiblity might be believed to be, remains possibly wrong.
I did make reference to the scientific method in the article Science. It was meant to be a link, and I will correct that in the article.
"This is an example of the limitations of assertion, and of the rhetorical danger of reification. In this passage, each 'Evolution asserts' could well be accompanied by a reference to an actual publication or claim."
Rhetorically the assertions are not about particular claims, but any claims of knowledge about what no one has or can ever observe because they are in the past. Nothing that evolution claims occurred can possibly be observed except for the very unlikely possiblity that it happens again. The assertions would also pertain to most of cosmology as well.
"This is mistaken. The/A theory of evolution is not the theory of 'How life began.'"
It is interesting that when evolutionists confront creationists they argue for the abiogenic origin of life, but when confronted with the question of how life began they deny it being part of evolution. Yet evolutionists to make guesses about when life began (3.8 billion years ago, for example). They make no claim about how life began and deny evolution addresses the question but they are sure it began, sometime. I'm sorry. Do not tell me something happened if you can tell me neither how it happened and how you know it.
Timeline: The evolution of life
I wrote: "Mutation the only answer. Evolution claims to be the explanation for where all different forms of life came from."
You wrote: "This is incorrect. Evolution is not an explanation of life's origins."
Notice, I said, "all different forms of life," not life itself.
"Did you look up and scan/skim/read Wood and Eagly? If you did, maybe you can venture an answer to the implied question: 'Why does anyone take seriously the notion that evolutionary theory can expand knowledge of sex-differences in behaviour?'"
I didn't and I wouldn't. Nothing makes human beings think or do anything except conscious choice, not heredity, not environment, not evolution, and not feelings.
I do not agree with 004, your illustrated version of the scientific method. For instance, in the diagram, the last step, "Develop General Theories." Theories are not developed. Hypostheses are developed, but something is a theory only after a hypothesis has been conclusively validataed, meaning there no more anomalies or unanswered questions. The suggestion that the scientific method is some kind of continuous process that keeps getting closer to the truth but never quite reaches it is a terrible mistake.
Ohms law is not some kind of approximation, it is an absolute law of electric current in a DC circuit. E=IR, absolutely, not almost or probably or what most scientists agree is the case. The chemical properties of the chemical elements listed in the periodic table are absolute. They are not established statistically or by concensus but by direct experimental verification. The properties of chlorine are always the properties of chlorine and anything that has different properties is not chlorine and whatever has the properties of chlorine is chlorine.
"From Wikipedia: 'There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing an endosymbiotic origin of the nucleus, that eukaryotes arose without endosymbiosis, and that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing a simultaneous endosymbiotic origin of the flagellum and the nucleus, in addition to many other models, which have been reviewed and summarized elsewhere.'"
This is a perfect picture of why evolution is not a science. It is the same way all the way up and down. "There is no consensus among biologists," "current opinon on the origin ...," "in addition to many other models." If you seek a specific answer to any question of evolution like how did creatures that metamorphosize evolve, it's always the same, several models and various conjectures but never a specific definitive answer to anything. They have no idea how butterflies or dragon flies evolved but know for certain how human nature and human traits and psychology evolved.
But then they study voles and discover certain chemical changes in the brain that seem related to their mating behavior which they hope will help them understand human social behavior. Good grief!
Thank you again for the comments and suggestions. It doesn't matter that we don't agree on everything. Except for whatever choices individuals make based on their acceptance of evolution, I don't think the question of evolution much matters. What's here is here, however it got here, that is certain. One cannot go wrong studying the nature of what is here. That is why I have total confidence in the theories of the physical sciences. I'm only mildly interested in whatever proports to study what is not here as a means of guessing how it got here. I really don't care how it got here.
Randy