From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:34:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.155205.29809@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

>>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. 

All of this, as well as your weaselly "weasel" arguments, is irrelevant.
When an analytical chemist analyzes the contents of something, and gets
an answer, does he say, "but this couldn't be, because the probability
of these two chemicals coming together is extremely low"?  No, he 
accepts the evidence he has that it happened.  In addition, you have
failed to show (in the "Methinks..." thread) that the probabilities are
as low as you say.

Finally, I must point out that you have evaded the question put to
you yet again.  Why do you not accept the definition of science as 
providing predictable, falsifiable theories and gathering evidence
to support them?

>>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. 

EVASION ALERT!  EVASION ALERT!  If the sources are bogus, then the
conclusions have no basis.

>>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. 

How is a specific example about Great Danes and Chihuahuas a "universal
rule?"  DANGER!  DANGER!  EVASION!  EVASION!  As far as I recall, we were
talking about gulls, not dogs.  You have admitted that the extreme
_Larus_ subspecies are biological species.  In addition, you have stated
that the only evidence you will accept for the definition of species is
the lack of the ability to interbreed.  EXPLAIN why _this_specific_example_
is not speciation.

>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. 

But, again, this is an EVASION. I can't even parse what you're trying
to say here:  are they different species under your definition, or not?

You seem to be saying this:  it's really difficult to define species
biologically, as is evidenced by _Larus_.  This is due to the fact
that it's not always easy to draw lines between breeding and non-
breeding populations.  But I (Antti) know that there _is_ a real
definition of species out there, so I'm going to ignore this obvious
continuum from very-well-defined species to fuzzily-defined subspecies.

Antti, this continuum which you are (somehow, in your twisted brain)
taking as evidence that scientists are biased in their interpretation
of things, is actually hard evidence that speciation is constantly
occurring.

>	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).

It is important if you continue to think that your eye example was valid.

[about our assumption that Antti doesn't understand evolution:]
>>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 ?

Your assertion that you're a field biologist is just that:  an assertion.
Unless you give us reason to believe that it's true, _and_ that you
understand evolution on top of that, we must assume that it isn't, and
that you don't (actually, the "field biologist" part is irrelevant; it's
the understanding evolution part that's really important).

As for me, I have done field projects and laboratory (greenhouse) projects
in the past; I'm currently starting research which will have a field
and lab empirical component, as well as a theoretical component.

[about Antti's belief that the existence of a variety of eye colors and
ear sizes constitutes a problem for evolution:]
>>    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. 

Huh?  As I've stated several times, the accumulation of variance in a trait
which is not under selection is an integral part of evolutionary thinking.
It's called Fisher's Fundamental Theorem (or it's one part of it, anyway).

>>    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 ?

Oh, of course, how silly of me.  You stated that you didn't accept
evolution because it couldn't explain something.  I told you that,
in fact, evolution explains that thing very well.  Then you refuse
to accept the answer because it's an evolutionary explanation.  How
silly that I would expect you to accept a direct refutation of your
assumptions.

Why, exactly, do you not accept my answer?

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint



-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg