methods in evolution

[John Grehan]

>At 07:19 AM 8/15/99 -0400, Johne Grehane wrote:
>>Curtis Clarke wrote

>A "lactating bird" would do it for me: the existence of a group of shared
>features that supported a pattern of kinship not reconcilable with the
>"accepted" pattern, and with both sets of data being solid enough that I
>could not explain either away. Of course, "extraordinary claims require
>extraordinary evidence".

I can see how an individual might impose this demarkation for oneself, but
another person might view a lactating bird as just a very abberent bird, or
a group of shared features might be accepted by invoking an ad hoc
hypothesis.


>>In evolution I was taught doctrine (of beliefs about evolution having
>taken place and how it took place).
>
>I had a similar experience. I'm sorry you weren't able to go beyond it.

I'm sorry I might have given this impression. It was not my intention.
I have my own ideas on methods, but they are rather eccentric, so I am
looking for what the mainstream might propose.


>>Agreed. But I was referring to creation theory as a science, not whether
>>people who believed in creation were doing science or not.
>
>Wait a minute. You demand evolutionary methodologies, and yet you assert
>that just because creationists can do science, that doesn't show that
>creation theory is a science. How else do we determine that? Doctrine,
>perhaps?

I am looking for the methods and principles of the theoretical framework that
establishes the kind of research activities that they carry out. So a person
might be an evolutionist in perspective, but not simply by doing science.
A person might, for example, work on the systematics of taxa, using generally
accepted methods and principles, establish monophyletic classifications etc.,
but could still be either a creationist or evolutionist.


>Even Hennig's detractors are remiss if they deny that the use of shared
>homology to infer kinship is one possible direct consequence of Darwin's
>theories. If anything, it would seem that it would have taken even less
>time to develop if it were a trivial "non-advance".

I'm not sure if I am being labelled as a hennig detractor, but I have no
problem with the above statement. In the sense that the inference arises from
Darwin, it is possible that Hennig's advance was not all that great, but my
point is that it did not take a century since the connection was already
proposed  before Hennig by systematists such as Rosa.


>>I look forward to more specifics on evolution as a research program.
>
>Sorry, you won't be getting any more from me.

It was not my intention to be so summary in my dismissal so I will try to
elaborate. I agree that the examples below do provide instances of
evolutionary theory being applied to particular patterns of biology,
but what I am interested to know is how one would describe this
application in methodological terms. Does one study endosymbiosis in
a particular way if one is an evolutionist? None of the studies themselves
require an evolutionary framework as I understand them.

An off-the-top-of-my-head list of biological studies that *require* an
evolutionary framework:

* endosymbiosis (why did God create chloroplasts and mitochondria with
bacterial genes?)

Even if a creationist would not answer that question, would a creationist
be unable to recongize endosymbiosis? My feeling is that a creationist would.

* biogeography (the distribution of each *created* species must be studied
individually; in the case of vicariance, it *must* be established whether
the vicariants are separate species or the same)

I would have thought a creationist would have no problem comparing
the distribution of species. There have been creationist biogeographers
and they did have biogeographic explanations for distributions.

* genetic engineering, especially transgenics (No a priori basis to assume
that genes artificially transfered between species will behave in the same
way as those transfered within)

I am less a geneticist, so I would like further elaboration. Are you saying that
a creationist could not be a genetic enginner?

* animal models in biomedicine (who among creationists would have ever
expected that chimps and only chimps could be infected with HIV?)

They might have if chimps and humans were seen to share a created
design plan and so have other features in common.

John Grehan