From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:38:24 GMT
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University

Here are my responses to Antti.  I've left several questions out, to
be dealt with by those who originally asked the questions.

Antti writes (through me):

>> (1) What is your definition of biology (your last non-answer to this was
>>     "I accept the criteria common to science"), and why does evolution
>>     not fit it (your last answer to this was "I read that the proof
>>     is actually zero) (In case you haven't guessed, neither of your
>>     previous answers will be accepted here)?
>
>	Biology studies living creatures in their environment. As I have said 
>	and proved

Oh, _you_ proved this.  How nice of you.

> (and most have agreed) it includes at least SOME evolution.
>	I accept those examples. BUT also there's a lot of speculation and I 
>	don't count it to biology. Empirical sciences study, what we can 
>	observe.

So what's your opinion of quantum mechanics?  Empirical, or not?

 When we can't observe the evolution of species, it's a matter
>	of belief. The question (for instance) "how life got started" belongs
>	to the ETERNAL QUESTIONS. The science can't give any good answer to 
>	them, but some kind of knowledge. But, this is not biology, this is 
>	philosophy or theology. 

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?

>> (4) What are your responses to the three very long, and several
>>     more abbreviated, criticisms of the book _Life - How did it Get
>>     Here..._?
>
>	I haven't answered and never will. The reason is that it has been 
>	discussed not long ago in another newsgroup (talk.religion.misc). It's
>	difficult to answer - I haven't got the references to my hands. 
>	Anyways my beliefs are not dependent of what is written in that book. 

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.

>> (6) Do you still insist that the _Larus_ ring species is not an example
>>     of speciation in action?  Why or why not?
>
>	I told Norrdahl that it's an intriguing example: I would easily put
>	Larus hyperboreus to evolve from Larus argentatus cachinnans and
>	Larus marinus from Larus f. fuscus, but there hasn't been found any 
>	proof to this claim. So, there is flexibility (a lot) inside a 
>	species, but there is a brick-wall separating different "real" 
>	species. 

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?

>> (8) What evidence do you have that there are two (choose _any_ two)
>>     components of human vision that show a negative linear correlation
>>     to each other?
>
>	None. Thatswhy I took the example of muscles, there I had one. 

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.

>> (9) What evidence to you have of truncated fitness functions in the real
>>     world?
>
>	I used the example of migratory birds: Some "realize" to escape the
>	cold the others don't ---> mass death to those, who doesn't. It is 
>	rare, I must admit and I use it only to simplify. 

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.

>> (10 - the $20,000 question) Do you understand evolution?  Acceptable
>>     evidence would be answering Chris's short quiz of a couple of
>>     weeks ago (heck, just answer any two questions from it), with 
>>     #11 added on:
>
>It's easy to say that anyone against evolution doesn't
>	really understand it. 

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

>3) If you have evolutionary questions, you can only
>	give evolutionary answers, and that is what I wanted to avoid. 

But the questions were all (if I recall correctly) population genetics
questions.  Microevolution - the stuff you admit happens.  This is
blatant evasion, Antti, backed up by your answer to the next question:

>> (11) What is additive genetic variance, and would you expect it to
>>      increase or decrease for a trait if there is no selection on that
>>      trait? (Hint:  the answer to this has to do with your most
>>      recent "criticism" of evolution as of this posting).
>
>	That is the point I'm criticizing. Dawkins made "Methinks it's like a
>	weasel" in about 60 steps making one letter "fixed" or "constant". In
>	the same way good properties are said to be cumulated. But I wonder 
>	why the bad properties doesn't cumulate aswell ?

Easy answer to the question as it's written:  because they've been selected 
against, you thickhead.  That's what evolution's all about.

More thoughtful, two-part answer to the question Antti might have _meant_
to ask:

(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.
(2) You keep weaselling around this point.  First you seemed to be arguing
    that tradeoffs between selected traits make optimum expression of
    every trait impossible to evolve.  It was explained to you that
    (a) your assumptions (about linear negative correlations and
    truncated fitness functions) were wrong, and were necessary for
    your argument to hold true, and (b) it is easy (and expected) in
    realistic cases (i.e. without your assumptions) to evolve to
    an optimal tradeoff point between traits.
      Then you said that wasn't what you were saying:  that you
    really wanted to know why there are traits which aren't subject
    to selection (i.e. big ears, eye color, hair color).  It was
    explained to you that, in fact, this is not a problem for evolution.
    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).
      Now you seem to be back to your first argument, which has been
    thoroughly refuted.

>			Andreas
-- 
* 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
Newsgroups: talk.origins