Replies

Remnants in the fossil record, DNA relics across species previously concluded to be closely related, imperfect replication of organisms in biological populations and reproductive success relative to environmental conditions as a result of heriditable traits leading to increased expression of those traits in future populations have all been observed.

Thank you for your reply, Dimensio. Seems like impressive evidence!

Still, it seems to me that each of the items on your list is open to question, or other interpretation. For instance, the fossil record. I understand it still has "gaps," but people are working to "fill them in" by searching for more fossils, especially from those time periods when the fossil record seems scant (e.g., the pre-Cambrian). But it seems to me that you can pile up all the fossils you want to; but that wouldn't SHOW a transition of one species into an entirely different species. Such a transition would have to be observed before we can say that it really occurred -- at least if we are going to be as "epistemologically rigorous" as Niels Bohr says a scientist must be. Because something seems intuitive enough -- and granted, macroevolution seems "intuitive" -- is not enough to establish scientific rigor.

I'm not aware Bohr directly spoke to macroevolution theory; but then I'm still studying him. (If you know something about any statements he's made on that subject, I'd be grateful if you'd fill me in.) However, based on what I do know so far, he was famous for saying that valid science is all about making descriptions of the natural world, and you can't describe what you haven't actually seen.

But maybe this is what constitutes a difference between physics and biology. Still, they are both branches of science, and both are informed by the scientific method.

As for DNA relics across species, here's a "what if" for you: What if all living species share a single, I almost want to say (but won't) universal common genome as the basic stuff of life? And that there is another, as yet undetected principle at work here (e.g., successful communication of information) that "customizes" the expression of the genome for each individual species? -- undetected because not looked for? It seems that could explain why humans and the higher apes express the genome almost identically; and it could obviate the necessity of saying that apes gave rise to humans.

That's just a conjecture, of course. It's occurred to other people as well. Are Darwinian theorists interested in looking into a proposition like that?

Ditto for the population studies. I don't know what light such truly shed on the problem of one species arising from an entirely different predecessor species. The studies may be perfectly valid for microevolution, yet not necessarily furnish evidence for macroevolution.

But then, I am a very skeptical person!

Thank you for writing, Dimensio!

... and reproductive success relative to environmental conditions as a result of heriditable traits leading to increased expression of those traits in future populations have all been observed.
----

I don't know what light such truly shed on the problem of one species arising from an entirely different predecessor species. The studies may be perfectly valid for microevolution, yet not necessarily furnish evidence for macroevolution.

An important distinction, betty boop. Dimensio's careful statement about "heriditable traits leading to an increased expression of those traits" seems to be addressing existing genetic information being expressed in varying amounts based on enviromental conditions... as opposed to the blossoming of new functions and form (e.g., new, non-prexisting genetic information) from an existing genetic base.

Thank you all so very much for your outstanding posts! What a wonderful conversation!

Thank you so much cornelis for the insights to scientism! And thank you Cicero for the mention of Whitehead who, IIRC, coined the term "scientific materialism" which is akin to methodological naturalism on steriods. LOL!

bb: But it seems to me that you can pile up all the fossils you want to; but that wouldn't SHOW a transition of one species into an entirely different species. Such a transition would have to be observed before we can say that it really occurred -- at least if we are going to be as "epistemologically rigorous" as Niels Bohr says a scientist must be. Because something seems intuitive enough -- and granted, macroevolution seems "intuitive" -- is not enough to establish scientific rigor.

So very true. The theory of evolution itself is a continuum derived from the quantization (fossils) of another continuum (geologic record.) Until or unless the discrete case and the continuous case are collapsed by empirical evidence - it remains a "just so" story and cannot rise to the scientific rigor of physics or the confidence of math.

Then again, "just so" stories are normal for all historical sciences such as archeology, anthropology and Egyptology. Then again, such historical sciences are not epistemologically pure.

bb: What if all living species share a single, I almost want to say (but won't) universal common genome as the basic stuff of life? And that there is another, as yet undetected principle at work here (e.g., successful communication of information) that "customizes" the expression of the genome for each individual species? -- undetected because not looked for?

Indeed, on both points. The second appeals to information theory the elements of which [Shannon] are not necessarily altogether spatial, temporal or corporeal per se - although the workings and effects of successful communication can be, and are, measured in molecular biology.

IOW, IMHO the answers are well beyond the scope of "matter in all its motions" aka "microscope to telescope."