The Scientific Theory of Co-evolution
The Darwinists charge that criticisms of Darwinism are not scientific. OK, I will try to make my theory of co-evolution sound more scientific:
Fundamental Theorem of Co-evolution of Total Co-dependence of Two Organisms:
First Corollary:
.
Second Corollary:
Third Corollary:
Fourth Corollary:
=============================================
Evolutions of predator-prey and parasite-host relationships are often presented as false proof of co-evolution. Evolution in these relationships does not require simultaneous mutations in the other organisms, and often it is better for the first organism if there is no corresponding defensive change in the other organism.
Actually, though, if "theory" is defined as a complete scientific explanation for some observed phenomenon, then these principles of co-evolution do not constitute a "theory" -- they are just criticisms of evolution theory. The same goes for Intelligent Design. However, there is no rule that says that a scientific theory may not be criticized without presenting a plausible alternative theory at the same time.
.
Fundamental Theorem of Co-evolution of Total Co-dependence of Two Organisms:
In co-evolution of a co-dependent trait -- unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, and air -- there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be locally absent.
First Corollary:
.
Co-evolution by means of random mutation is virtually impossible where the co-dependent traits in both organisms are fatal in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism.
Second Corollary:
Even a co-dependent trait that is not fatal or harmful in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait provides no benefit in natural selection when the corresponding co-dependent trait is absent.
Third Corollary:
Two totally co-dependent organisms may have irreducibly complex sets of pairs of co-dependent traits involving multiple organ systems in one or both organisms -- for example, a bee must be able to both digest nectar and find flowers.
Fourth Corollary:
The Fundamental Theorem of Co-evolution of Total Co-dependence may be a barrier to evolution even where irreducible complexity is not.
=============================================
Evolutions of predator-prey and parasite-host relationships are often presented as false proof of co-evolution. Evolution in these relationships does not require simultaneous mutations in the other organisms, and often it is better for the first organism if there is no corresponding defensive change in the other organism.
Actually, though, if "theory" is defined as a complete scientific explanation for some observed phenomenon, then these principles of co-evolution do not constitute a "theory" -- they are just criticisms of evolution theory. The same goes for Intelligent Design. However, there is no rule that says that a scientific theory may not be criticized without presenting a plausible alternative theory at the same time.
.
Labels: Non-ID criticisms of evolution
posted by Larry Fafarman | 3/29/2008 06:47:00 PM
4 Comments:
Not so curiously, given Larry's well known intellectual uhm... shortcomings (see other posts on this blog), wikipedia makes no reference of anything contradicting evolution or Darwinism in its article on the subject. In fact, it cites the book of Erich Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe, which argues that the evolution of the universe (not a biological evolution, but analogous to one, at least according to the article), is the product of co-evolution.
Oh yeah, predator and prey relationships do not constitute co-evolution. Many snakes eat rodents like rats and mice, but just because the snakes eat them all doesn't mean that they're going to die (unfortunately, as I live in the south) -- so long as they find something else to eat. Like squirrels. Poor squirrels, though. So it goes.
Off topic, but I'm still saddened by the passing of Vonnegut. We lost a good guy when he left.
>>>>>wikipedia makes no reference of anything contradicting evolution or Darwinism in its article on the subject. <<<<<
Duh. Wickedpedia is dominated by control-freak Darwinist administrators, so that comes as no big surprise.
>>>>> Oh yeah, predator and prey relationships do not constitute co-evolution. <<<<<<
That depends on how "co-evolution" is defined. Predator-prey "arms races" and the "Red Queen hypothesis" are often considered to be examples of co-evolution.
My eponymous hypothesis leads to fascinating manifestations.
< cites the book of Erich Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe >
Thanks for the "heads-up" -- it seems to be a very important and well-regarded tome. Unfortunately it is out of print, and it seems no one is willing to part with a copy for less than $75. Time to pressure the publisher (Pergamon) to reprint it!
Check out the reviews at Amazon.
Post a Comment
<< Home