It seems that science is
> incapable of disproving one or the other because we lack observational
> data. We are left with inferences, making our world view presuppositions
> have an even greater role in conclusion making. One person prefers the
> monophyly philosophy so interprets all commonality as evidence for it.
> Another prefers the polyphyly philosophy so interprets all commonality
> as evidence for intelligent design.
> Both
> sides believe what they want to believe and can interpret the data to
> fit their own philosophy or world view. I propose that we give freedom
> to have differences, respecting one another, while having our own
> preferences. Both monophyly and polyphyly are reasonable within their
> own presuppositions and science is incapable of disproving one over the
> other.
> Dave Netzly
> Hope College
>
I can't let Netzly have the last word on this discussion. I would like to
remind him and the rest of you what Pun's original question was:
>My question is:
>
>What molecular and paleontological evidence we have that would support a
>monophyletic rather than a polyphyletic model of evolution or both?
>
Note that Pun is asking "what evidence", not "what beliefs" or "what
presuppositions...". That's why, in my first response, I stated that this
was a good scientific question. I suggested that perhaps there is some
evidence in the archaebacteria, which have some significant differences in
biochemistry from other known life. There also has been a recent discovery
of hydrocarbon-metabolizing bacteria living deep in the earth that have no
dependence on photosynthesis. I'm not knowledgeable enough about biology
to say whether this is evidence for polyphyly, but at least I am talking
about possible evidence.
All this incessant talk about presuppositions merely plays into the hands
of the Zeitgeist, which is Relativism. Those of us in the hard sciences
have no desire to play these word games; the main reason we got into
our professions is because we are seeking the one, unique, universal,
objective truth of what is actually the case.
Paul Arveson
arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil 73367.1236@compuserve.com
Radar Cross Section and Target Physics Branch (Code 724)
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Bethesda, MD 20084-5000
Voice (301) 227-3831 FAX (301) 227-1914