Evolution: Pick One

Con's case, part 1Con states that MaE, as he defined it, being change above the species level (as opposed to speciation itself, which most people count as MaE and which has been observed in the wild) has not been directly observed. He concludes, "By only use of observance and not estimations, One can conclude that Macro evolution is nothing more than a modern invented concept (sic). "However, in evaluating any scientific theory, there is no reason why we should limit ourselves to direct observation. No human has ever seen an atom, yet nobody disputes atomic theory. No one has observed a red dwarf star in the Virgo A galaxy, but we know they're there. In the same way, while human lifespans are too short to directly observe more than the most rudimentary MaE, we know, from the evidences already given, that it happens. Preliminary ArgumentIn this argument I made a rather critical typographical error. Proposition (3) should read,(3) The Earth is not too young for MiE changes to have accumulated to macro scale. As for the other propositions, Con agrees that (1) is true. About (2) he is much more ambivalent; he agrees that we have reason to believe it's true, but then goes on to say that "(a)ll the supporting information" suggests that (2) is incorrect. Which is it? If Con means the latter, then he must specify what information suggests the existence of a genetic barrier which prevents the accumulation of a certain number of MiE changes in all organisms, no matter how much time passes. As it stands, we still have no reason to believe it. As for (3), I will allow Con a chance to comment on the corrected version before commenting on its status, or that of the argument as a whole. Common DescentCon states, "My opponent suspects that if CD is true, then MaE has obviously happened on a massive scale. I ask why? " Because the common ancestor of all organisms would only have one taxonomic classification, from phylum on up, from which all other organisms have diverged. Con asserts that the evidence for CD can be used to support competing hypotheses such as intelligent design (hereafter ID), defined as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. "[17] But Con does not explain how this is the case. How does ID predict all organisms on Earth using only three out of the hundreds of naturally occurring polymers? How does it predict nested hierarchies? How does it predict vestiges? How does it predict the biogeographical distribution of life? And so on. Con has given no answer. At this point, it seems that the most significant difference between CD and ID is that CD predicts the observed evidence, and ID does not. Similarly, Con proposes that the observable evidence can be explained by "an entity that possesses the property the physical forces and laws lack that the obvious design manifested by the code in dna (sic). " Con has not shown, however, that physical forces lack the ability to create the observed characteristics of DNA. Con mentions "wobbling stability," by which I assume he means gene populations oscillating. This is easily explained by environmental conditions oscillating. [18]Con states that mutation and natural selection have been observed, but is "not anything like what is proposed by Naturalistic or Darwinist theories. " He does not state what he means by this, however. Another Digression on ScienceAn example of how the scientific method works was given in my last statement. Newton's theory of gravity predicts that, if an astronaut drops an object on the Moon, it will fall at one-sixth the rate that it falls on Earth. This is what we observed, and this gives another degree of certainty to Newtonian gravity -- not that it needed much additional confirmation by 1969, but again, had the object fallen at a different rate, or flown away from the Moon, Newton would be in trouble. This raises another important point: we have predicted that an object dropped on the Moon should take six times as long to fall as on Earth since measuring the Earth-Moon mass ratio, which was accurately done around 1850. [19] But this prediction was not confirmed until the Apollo program. Does that mean that, for more than a century, Newtonian gravity was regarded as false? Of course not! Thus, whether a scientific theory has been defeated depends on whether a prediction has been disconfirmed, not whether it is unconfirmed. Disconfirmation of a scientific theory takes the following form:(1) If theory T is true, then it makes prediction P. (2) We observe that P is false. (3) Therefore, theory T is disconfirmed. The degree to which a theory is established as fact can be measured as the number and degree of such attempts at disconfirmation it has survived. Eventually it goes from "mere hypothesis" to "established fact. " This is the case with CD and MaE. So we see that Con's statement that "there is no need to make a example contrary to predictions actually made by MaE because it is merely a belief and not empirical," aside from blatantly committing the fallacy of question-begging, is a contradiction in terms. The fact that a theory makes testable predictions at all is what makes it empirical. If it made no testable predictions, it would not be empirical; it would be a matter of blind faith. With this in mind we turn back to . . . EvidencesIn my previous statement, I listed five major predictions made by CD: (1) that all living organisms have inherited the same basic structures for replication, heritability, catalysis and metabolism, (2) that all species should fall into nested hierarchies, (3) that vestiges should exist, (4) that the geographical distribution of species should be consistent with their genealogical relationships, and (5) that transitional forms should appear in the fossil record. All five of these predictions have been confirmed, and Con did not dispute a single one of them. CD's survival of all these opportunities for disconfirmation at a very basic level establishes CD to at least a prima facie extent; to the point where disconfirmation is needed, and Con has not identified any falsified predictions made by CD itself. Therefore, at this point in the debate, CD stands. Con's case, part 2Con contends that speciation is not observed in all primitive life-forms, and mentions several high taxa of prokaryotes in particular. MaE (or even MiE) does not predict such speciation in all current organisms; evolution predicts that stabilizing selection will occur when it is to a population's advantage to remain as it is. The point of MaE is that disruptive and directional evolution has occurred. [20]In discussing "horizontal" and "vertical" evolution, Con asserts that MaE predicts an increase in complexity from prokaryotes to modern complex species. More properly, CD predicts this -- and that only if you assume that the common ancestor was a primitive life form. But it is not good enough to simply assert that such complexity never increases; Con must show this. Read charitably, Con's attempts to disconfirm evolution via his two assertions can be read as follows:(1) MaE predicts cross-taxa evolution among all current primitive life forms. (2) We observe that such evolution never happens. (3) Therefore, MaE is disconfirmed. (1) CD predicts an increase in complexity from the common ancestor to today. (2) We observe that such an increase has never happened. (3) Therefore, CD is disconfirmed. With respect to the first argument, 1 is false; MaE allows for stabilizing selection. With respect to both arguments, Con bears the burden of proving premise 2. It's not my job, any more than I must travel to every planetoid in the universe with the size and mass of the Moon and drop an object there, else Newtonian gravity is disconfirmed. At present, the case for MaE stands.