From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:52:05 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>So what's your opinion of quantum mechanics?  Empirical, or not?

	It's difficult for me to say when I don't know the subject very well.  I
	would guess that physics is more reliable when quantum mechanics is    
	quite mathematical. I can't say more with my knowledge. 

>Interesting.  You are completely ignoring mounds and mounds of evidence
>because you say the question cannot be approached by science. Your
>definition of science is off.  Science requires a predictive, falsifiable
>theory, and it requires that evidence be gathered to support or falsify
>that theory.  Do you disagree with that definition?  Or do you think
>that evolution does not fit it?  Why or why not?

	Science usually gives probabilities. I know people that claim that 
	it's not 100% sure that smoking causes lung-cancer, and thatswhy it's
	probable that it doesn't. The probability is 99 %. They are right: It's
	not 100 %, but I think it's ridiculous to grab to that 1 %. The same is
	with evolution: some people here say that the small possibility is still
	existing. No, I think that evolution isn't simply possible, the value of
	probability approaches zero. 

>Yet you cited it as a good introduction to evolutionary biology, a claim
>which has been refuted, and will remain so until you respond.  If you
>do not either respond to the criticisms, or admit they were correct, then
>you prove to those of us who had any doubt that you do not understand
>evolution.

	Actually they criticized only sources, not the conclusions. 

>You're not answering the question.  Perhaps you've forgotten the original
>question:  if the intermediate subspecies were to go extinct, would you
>consider them to be new species?  Since your definition of species
>is based entirely on reproduction (as you state quite forcefully in
>a part of this post which I seem to have deleted), why not?  Once the
>intermediates have gone extinct, is that not the "brick-wall" you're
>looking for?  What evidence do you have that the "wall" between the
>new _Larus_ species would be any less "brick" than between any other
>two species?

	No - and that is the biggest problem we have with evolution. I follow
	the universal rule that Great Dane and Chihuahua are only races of 
	dogs, were there intermediate races or not. 

	About Larus-species: Larus fuscus fuscus doesn't breed with Larus 
	marinus and Larus argentatus cachinnans doesn't breed with Larus 
	hyperboreus.  It hasn't ever occurred - they act like different species,
	although they look very much alike. 

>In case you missed the post, I told you why this wasn't good enough:
>there is no reason to assume that negative linear correlations are
>general, so you need to give evidence specific to the example being
>discussed.  You have failed to do so.

	I admit this. 

>Again, I have explained why this is not a truncated fitness function.
>The fact is that, without such functions, your eye example completely
>collapses, because it is easily demonstrated that an optimal tradeoff
>will evolve.  The truncated function does more than simplify, it
>is necessary to make your example work.

	I don't understand why you find it so important... But I wanted just 
	to point that there are more properties than the nature demands, why
	do we have that luxury ? (I think it's not so importaqnt to discuss,
	why or whether the fitness function is truncated or not).

>And we continue to be justified in assuming so in your case, because
>you refuse to prove otherwise.

	No, I'm a field-biologist. Are you ?

>(1) If you were attempting to answer the question, you failed miserably,
>    once again supporting our assumption that you don't know diddly
>    about evolution.

	No, I weren't. I do one-liners so you could READ them. I said I don't 
	answer quizes, because I have more important things to do. 

>    explained to you that, in fact, this is not a problem for evolution.

	In that case it seems you're not an orthodox Darwinist. Dawkins admired
	Lamarcks theory that something is "drawing" species to evolve more than
	needed. 


>    tHAt, in fact, large variation is expected in traits on which
>    there is little selection operating (btw, that's where the
>    additive genetic variance comes in).

	You don't expect me to accept that answer, do you ?
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !