There are no pro-evolutionists
Kalkidas
misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along the line.
But in all fairness, it must be said that the reason for this
misunderstanding of ToE by its proponents is embarassment over its childlike
absurdity, followed by the compensatory desire to complicate it -- to make
an idea which originated solely from naive intellectual speculation sound
more like a scientific discovery based purely on empirical evidence.
There is, of course, Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism), which is quite well
defined. It is, however, also quite broad, and as is well known, a theory
which explains everything is a weak theory. So those who claim to accept ToE
almost uniformly deny that they are accepting Darwinism, or that there's
even any such thing as Darwinism. (There are a few exceptions. For example,
Richard Dawkins may be mad as a hatter but at least he admits that he is a
Darwinist).
Haphazard, undesigned, undirected genetic variations, culled by haphazard,
undesigned, undirected selection pressures, eventually produce all the
millions of species present on earth by linear descent from a simple
primitive cell over a couple billion years. That's the essence of Darwinism
(or neo-Darwinism).
Unfortunately, since Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism) is the closest thing to a
"theory" that the ToE adherents could have, denying it creates a situation
in which there are as many different ToEs as there are adherents to ToE.
This is convenient in a way: if an evolutionist is put on the spot by a
creationist, he can temporarily switch to someone else's version and accuse
the creationist of misstating ToE.
But after one has encountered a number of these different versions of ToE,
one notices that, in spite of the claimed dissociation with Darwinism, once
the layers of complicated obfuscation are pierced, they in fact all look
just like Darwinism.
Many attempts have been made to cover up the simplicity of Darwinism.
Commonly, an evolutionary interpretation is forced on some area of
descriptive biology or paleontology, and it is then circularly claimed that
the area constitutes "new evidence" confirming ToE. What was a mere
description then becomes a "principle" and is incorporated into ToE.
This is similar to how the old communists would force a Marxist
interpretation onto every aspect of human behavior and then claim that this
confirmed Marxism.
But when all the slicing and dicing is done, what you have is sliced and
diced Darwinism.
Grandbank
Isn't that cute! He's lathered up his face and is pretending to
shave, just like daddy does.
KP
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Probe anybody on why they claim to accept ToE, and they'll eventually
> misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along the line.
How can you possibly know that when by your own admission you prefer
to remain ignorant of evolutionary theory than to educate yourself in
the subject?
>
> But in all fairness, it must be said that the reason for this
> misunderstanding of ToE by its proponents is embarassment over its childlike
> absurdity, followed by the compensatory desire to complicate it -- to make
> an idea which originated solely from naive intellectual speculation sound
> more like a scientific discovery based purely on empirical evidence.
>
> There is, of course, Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism), which is quite well
> defined. It is, however, also quite broad,
Nonsense. If by neo-darwinism you are referring to the modern
synthesis, it is a theory of *how* biological evolution occurs. It is
very specific to what happens in successive generations of biological
organisms.
> and as is well known, a theory
> which explains everything is a weak theory.
Such as "God did it"?
The reason why science rejects that as an explanation is not that all
scientists are atheists, but that it is unfruitful as a scientific
explanation.
> So those who claim to accept ToE
> almost uniformly deny that they are accepting Darwinism,
What do you mean by "Darwinism"?
>or that there's
> even any such thing as Darwinism. (There are a few exceptions. For example,
> Richard Dawkins may be mad as a hatter but at least he admits that he is a
> Darwinist).
For someone who you claim to be " mad as a hatter", he is
significantly more erudite, educated and well-informed than any
creationist.
>
> Haphazard, undesigned, undirected genetic variations, culled by haphazard,
> undesigned, undirected selection pressures, eventually produce all the
> millions of species present on earth by linear descent from a simple
> primitive cell over a couple billion years. That's the essence of Darwinism
> (or neo-Darwinism).
Ah, that explains it. If you were not dogmatically ignorant of
evolutionary theory, you'd realise that this description bears little
resemblance to any theory ever proposed by any scientist.
Why not educate yourself in the subject to avoid making a public
display of ignorance?
>
> Unfortunately, since Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism) is the closest thing to a
> "theory" that the ToE adherents could have, denying it creates a situation
> in which there are as many different ToEs as there are adherents to ToE.
> This is convenient in a way: if an evolutionist is put on the spot by a
> creationist, he can temporarily switch to someone else's version and accuse
> the creationist of misstating ToE.
As you are so confused that you are both misstating evolutionary
theory and confusing it with "Darwinism", it seems a rather apt
comment.
>
> �But after one has encountered a number of these different versions of ToE,
> one notices that, in spite of the claimed dissociation with Darwinism, once
> the layers of complicated obfuscation are pierced, they in fact all look
> just like Darwinism.
...whatever that might be.
>
> Many attempts have been made to cover up the simplicity of Darwinism.
How about a few examples?
> Commonly, an evolutionary interpretation is forced on some area of
> descriptive biology or paleontology, and it is then circularly claimed that
> the area constitutes "new evidence" confirming ToE. What was a mere
> description then becomes a "principle" and is incorporated into ToE.
So how do you explain the predictions evolutionary theory has made
which have been supported by new fossil finds? How do you explain the
discovery of Tiktaalik, for example?
>
> This is similar to how the old communists would force a Marxist
> interpretation onto every aspect of human behavior and then claim that this
> confirmed Marxism.
You should know that when you bring Marxism (or Hitler for that
matter) into a thread it is a clear indication that you have no
argument to offer.
>
> But when all the slicing and dicing is done, what you have is sliced and
> diced Darwinism.
...and all you have succeeded in doing is making yet again a display
of your own ignorance.
RF
Desertphile
wrote:
> Probe anybody on why they claim to accept ToE, and they'll eventually
> misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along the line.
ISKCON crimes, for which its leaders were sent to prison: murder,
rape of little girls, kidnapping, torture, extortion, robbery,
battery against children, drug trafficking. When Prabhupada died
and went to Hell, his capo mobsters fought over the criminal
business' property, slaves, and money. Nearly 600 victims of the
criminal enterprise, some of them three years old, were subjected
to beatings and sexual molestation.
So, "Kalkidas," why did not chanting a god's name stop these
mobsters from that behavior?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
CUTS
> There is, of course, Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism), which is quite well
> defined.
No. You cult nuts *REFUSE* to define "darwinism." When Phillip
Johnson came to talk.origins he was asked many scores of times
what he meant when he wrote "darwinism:" he evaded and fled the
question every single time.
You stupid clowns know better than to define what "darwinism" is
(in your substandard brains) because you know damn well that once
you define what you mean by "darwinism" that opens you up to
refutation. You use the word "darwinism" because you know it
doesn't mean anything and thus it cannot be deunked.
CUTS
marks...@yahoo.com
Its good when a layman has enough of a basic understanding of a theory
to say they support it. The details of it may escape them but there
are enough biologists and such to fill the gaps.
descent from common ancestor, mutation and selection.
When people like Ben Stein say that TOE doesnt explain formation of
galaxies, gravity or why women dont like Die Hard movies you know
that person hasnt got a clue.
Garamond Lethe
> Probe anybody on why they claim to accept ToE, and they'll eventually
> misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along the line.
I thought you were going to develop this along the lines of "no
scientific theory is ever complete", but it turns out you're simply
aping your betters.
> But in all fairness, it must be said that the reason for this
> misunderstanding of ToE by its proponents is embarassment over its childlike
> absurdity, followed by the compensatory desire to complicate it -- to make
> an idea which originated solely from naive intellectual speculation sound
> more like a scientific discovery based purely on empirical evidence.
It's great fun to sound authoritative, isn't it?
But when a child announces that she's the Queen of England, most of us
have enough background knowledge to understand that the child is,
probably innocently, making things up, regardless of how convincing
she sounds and how good her accent is.
Based on the classes I've taken, the textbooks I've read, the
experiments I've helped to conduct, the fossils I've handled and the
extended collaborations I've had with biologists at two universities,
I'm comfortable saying that you've got a nice accent, but you're no
Queen of England.
<snip>
> Haphazard, undesigned, undirected genetic variations, culled by haphazard,
> undesigned, undirected selection pressures, eventually produce all the
> millions of species present on earth by linear descent from a simple
> primitive cell over a couple billion years. That's the essence of Darwinism
> (or neo-Darwinism).
Yep. And to make your counterargument, you have your own personal
incredulity. And Cremo. Your incredulity, Cremo, and no experience
in a university biology classroom where you might bump into some
evidence. Which is to say AMONG your counterarguments are your own
personal incredulity, gullibility, ignorance, and lack of mathematical
sophistication. I'll come in again.
<snip>
Kalkidas
<marks...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:15fc6f98-85f9-4f89...@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
But it's "bad" when the same layman with the same basic understanding says
they *don't* support it. Lay supporters of Darwinism are hailed as
scientifically enlightened by Darwinists, whereas lay opposers are condemned
as "not understanding science". Belief in Darwinism is the shibboleth of the
materialists.
> descent from common ancestor, mutation and selection.
>
> When people like Ben Stein say that TOE doesnt explain formation of
> galaxies, gravity or why women dont like Die Hard movies you know
> that person hasnt got a clue.
Actually, Darwinism should in principle be able to explain why women don't
like Die Hard movies. After all, Darwinism is based on naturalism, which
postulates that all the properties of things, including people, are solely
the result of material interactions according to the laws of physics, which
in the case of biological organisms are expressed in terms of "descent from
common ancestor, mutation and selection." So all properties of the organisms
called "women" should in principle be predicted by Darwinism. That includes
their personal tastes in movies.
Unless, of course, naturalism is really bullshit (which it is).
richardal...@googlemail.com
> <marks542...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Actually, what's bad is when laymen claim to understand evolutionary
theory, make assertions which demonstrate that they don't have a clue
about evolutionary theory, and claim that all those scientists who
actually *do* understand evolutionary theory are wrong.
>Lay supporters of Darwinism are hailed as
> scientifically enlightened by Darwinists, whereas lay opposers are condemned
> as "not understanding science".
If you are proposing yourself as an example of such a "lay opposer",
it is perfectly clear that you understand neither evolutionary theory
nor science in general.
> Belief in Darwinism is the shibboleth of the
> materialists.
What on earth is "Darwinism"?
>
> > descent from common ancestor, mutation and selection.
>
> > When people like Ben Stein say that TOE doesnt explain formation of
> > galaxies, gravity or why women dont like Die Hard movies you know
> > that person hasnt got a clue.
>
> Actually, Darwinism should in principle be able to explain why women don't
> like Die Hard movies.
Why?
> After all, Darwinism is based on naturalism,
So is all science.
> which
> postulates that all the properties of things, including people, are solely
> the result of material interactions according to the laws of physics, which
> in the case of biological organisms are expressed in terms of "descent from
> common ancestor, mutation and selection." So all properties of the organisms
> called "women" should in principle be predicted by Darwinism. That includes
> their personal tastes in movies.
So you don't understand science. Glad we're clear on that.
>
> Unless, of course, naturalism is really bullshit (which it is).
How do you know that?
It's somewhat ironic that the device on which you are communicating
your rejection of naturalism operates on purely naturalistic
principles and was developed by using the tools of science - which
operate on the assumtion of naturalism to investigate the workings of
the universe.
What has the rejection of naturalism produced which has benefited
humanity?
RF
Stuart
<snip>
Bottle that whine.
Stuart
bpuharic
>Probe anybody on why they claim to accept ToE, and they'll eventually
>misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along the line.
>
>But in all fairness, it must be said that the reason for this
>misunderstanding of ToE by its proponents is embarassment over its childlike
>absurdity
meaningless generalization. creationists are just upset that, for
3000 years, they've made NO progress at understanding the universe.
it's a case of sour grapes
>
>There is, of course, Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism), which is quite well
>defined. It is, however, also quite broad, and as is well known, a theory
>which explains everything is a weak theory
gee...'god did it' explains everything includoing my flat tire. if
that's your criteria for failure, creationism is stone cold dead
>
>Haphazard, undesigned, undirected genetic variations
which are observed...
, culled by haphazard,
>undesigned, undirected selection pressures, eventually produce all the
>millions of species present on earth by linear descent from a simple
>primitive cell over a couple billion years. That's the essence of Darwinism
>(or neo-Darwinism).
fine. you go find us a 'direction' in evolution and you'll have an
argument. otherwise you're just drooling into your lobster bib.
>
>Unfortunately, since Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism) is the closest thing to a
>"theory" that the ToE adherents could have, denying it creates a situation
>in which there are as many different ToEs as there are adherents to ToE.
>This is convenient in a way: if an evolutionist is put on the spot by a
>creationist, he can temporarily switch to someone else's version and accuse
>the creationist of misstating ToE.
anyone know what he's babbling about? he seems to have read something
on a creationist website that's upset him and now he's ranting like a
98 year old alzheimer's sufferer.
>
> But after one has encountered a number of these different versions of ToE,
>one notices that, in spite of the claimed dissociation with Darwinism, once
>the layers of complicated obfuscation are pierced, they in fact all look
>just like Darwinism.
and religion? gee. how many religions are there? if god exists and his
existence explains so much
why cant the god freaks even agree on who god is?
oh. you forgot to look at that aspect of your stupid idea
>
>But when all the slicing and dicing is done, what you have is sliced and
>diced Darwinism.
you want an idea that's failed?
start with 'god exists'
>
bpuharic
>
>
>But it's "bad" when the same layman with the same basic understanding says
>they *don't* support it.
gee. why dont they support it?
well umm...well, there's, ya know....there's....uh...
Lay supporters of Darwinism are hailed as
>scientifically enlightened by Darwinists, whereas lay opposers are condemned
>as "not understanding science". Belief in Darwinism is the shibboleth of the
>materialists.
gee. i'm a scientist who's a non biologist. i dont have a dog in this
fight. yet i look at the evolutionary biologists and their methods...
they're scientific.
the creationists? hemming and hawing..handwaving...smoke and
mirrors...appeals to magic and unproven assertions.
and inability to recognize that, for 3000 years, their ideas have
failed.
it's not rocket science to make a decision about which is real and
which is false.
>
>Actually, Darwinism should in principle be able to explain why women don't
>like Die Hard movies. After all, Darwinism is based on naturalism, which
>postulates that all the properties of things, including people, are solely
>the result of material interactions according to the laws of physics
meaningless. your bizarre cult beliefs about science reflect your
desire to have your pathetic religion considered as science
no wonder you're so bitter. you're a failure
Stuart
> <marks542...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Well I guess angels make the wind blow and other deities make it rain
and thunder.
We know this is true, because we can't predict the weather more than a
few days
in advance.
That and Kalkidas said so.
Will creationists ever learn the difference between prediction in
science and
prognostication? I doubt it.
Stuart
marks...@yahoo.com
Christians believe that thunder is angels bowling , and the rain must
be angels tears, so they must nor bowl well. Non-christians have THOR
doing the thundery bits. Which would you believe , a mob of crybaby
bowlers, or the Mighty Thor !
Michael Young
> Actually, Darwinism should in principle be able to explain why women don't
> like Die Hard movies. After all, Darwinism is based on naturalism, which
> postulates that all the properties of things, including people, are solely
> the result of material interactions according to the laws of physics
Wrong. That's materialism. Materialism claims the only thing that
exists is matter, and intangible things like thoughts and souls are
only products of that. Naturalism does not say this. Look up
definitions before you use words.
> ...in the case of biological organisms are expressed in terms of "descent from
> common ancestor, mutation and selection." So all properties of the organisms
> called "women" should in principle be predicted by Darwinism. That includes
> their personal tastes in movies.
What? Absolutely not! That's a complete bastardization of what
evolutionary theory should be able to predict, if the ToE is what you
mean by "Darwinism," whatever that is. You're twisting things and
making totally inaccurate conjectures to try and make the ToE sound
stupid. Or Darwinism...well, alright, maybe Darwinism should be able
to predict these things, because I have no idea what it is or what it
stipulates.
But anyway, assuming for the sake of argument you mean ToE, you're
still way, way off the mark. Ever hear of nature versus nurture? I'm
going to assume you haven't, based on that totally illogical paragraph
quotation above.
Kalkidas
"Michael Young" <young...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9767a2d-6a84-4d14...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 6, 3:05 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> Actually, Darwinism should in principle be able to explain why women
>> don't
>> like Die Hard movies. After all, Darwinism is based on naturalism, which
>> postulates that all the properties of things, including people, are
>> solely
>> the result of material interactions according to the laws of physics
>
> Wrong. That's materialism. Materialism claims the only thing that
> exists is matter, and intangible things like thoughts and souls are
> only products of that. Naturalism does not say this. Look up
> definitions before you use words.
Suit yourself. Here's what I looked up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism
"Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances wherein all
phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural, are either false
or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses"
>> ...in the case of biological organisms are expressed in terms of "descent
>> from
>> common ancestor, mutation and selection." So all properties of the
>> organisms
>> called "women" should in principle be predicted by Darwinism. That
>> includes
>> their personal tastes in movies.
>
> What? Absolutely not! That's a complete bastardization of what
> evolutionary theory should be able to predict, if the ToE is what you
> mean by "Darwinism," whatever that is. You're twisting things and
> making totally inaccurate conjectures to try and make the ToE sound
> stupid. Or Darwinism...well, alright, maybe Darwinism should be able
> to predict these things, because I have no idea what it is or what it
> stipulates.
>
> But anyway, assuming for the sake of argument you mean ToE, you're
> still way, way off the mark. Ever hear of nature versus nurture? I'm
> going to assume you haven't, based on that totally illogical paragraph
> quotation above.
You're welcome to cite something from the literature of evolutionary biology
wherein the causal relationship between God and the world, or spirit and
matter, or the natural and the supernatural, is rigorously discussed.
Garamond Lethe
> "Michael Young" <youngms...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a9767a2d-6a84-4d14...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 6, 3:05 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, Darwinism should in principle be able to explain why women
> >> don't
> >> like Die Hard movies. After all, Darwinism is based on naturalism, which
> >> postulates that all the properties of things, including people, are
> >> solely
> >> the result of material interactions according to the laws of physics
>
> > Wrong. That's materialism. Materialism claims the only thing that
> > exists is matter, and intangible things like thoughts and souls are
> > only products of that. Naturalism does not say this. Look up
> > definitions before you use words.
>
> Suit yourself. Here's what I looked up:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism
>
> "Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances wherein all
> phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural, are either false
> or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses"
Darwinism (and evolution) are not based on naturalism. Methodological
naturalism, yes. When you learn the difference you'll stop making
this error.
>
>
>
> >> ...in the case of biological organisms are expressed in terms of "descent
> >> from
> >> common ancestor, mutation and selection." So all properties of the
> >> organisms
> >> called "women" should in principle be predicted by Darwinism. That
> >> includes
> >> their personal tastes in movies.
>
> > What? Absolutely not! That's a complete bastardization of what
> > evolutionary theory should be able to predict, if the ToE is what you
> > mean by "Darwinism," whatever that is. You're twisting things and
> > making totally inaccurate conjectures to try and make the ToE sound
> > stupid. Or Darwinism...well, alright, maybe Darwinism should be able
> > to predict these things, because I have no idea what it is or what it
> > stipulates.
>
> > But anyway, assuming for the sake of argument you mean ToE, you're
> > still way, way off the mark. Ever hear of nature versus nurture? I'm
> > going to assume you haven't, based on that totally illogical paragraph
> > quotation above.
>
> You're welcome to cite something from the literature of evolutionary biology
> wherein the causal relationship between God and the world, or spirit and
> matter, or the natural and the supernatural, is rigorously discussed.
"Theistic evolution" is the term you're looking for, e.g.,
http://rifters.com/real/articles/Science_Public_Acceptance_of_Evolution.pdf
Michael Young
> Suit yourself. Here's what I looked up:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism
>
> "Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances wherein all
> phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural, are either false
> or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses"
Aha. There's the problem. First off that was a quick summary from
doing s search on wikipedia, that wasn't actually in the page itself
that I found (and that you linked to). And the problem here is that
you're referring to ontological or metaphysical naturalism, which is
strikingly similar to materialism (maybe it's the same thing, I can't
really tell the difference). But what I was referring to, and any
other science-minded person on TO, is the scientific or methodological
naturalism, which essentially says "we can't really know this stuff
for sure unless it can be measured and/or tested." We were just
thinking of two different definitions of the same word. Personally I
think ontological naturalism should just be called materialism, I
think it's kind of dumb that it's not, but that's only my opinion.
> >> ...in the case of biological organisms are expressed in terms of "descent
> >> from
> >> common ancestor, mutation and selection." So all properties of the
> >> organisms
> >> called "women" should in principle be predicted by Darwinism. That
> >> includes
> >> their personal tastes in movies.
>
> > What? Absolutely not! That's a complete bastardization of what
> > evolutionary theory should be able to predict, if the ToE is what you
> > mean by "Darwinism," whatever that is. You're twisting things and
> > making totally inaccurate conjectures to try and make the ToE sound
> > stupid. Or Darwinism...well, alright, maybe Darwinism should be able
> > to predict these things, because I have no idea what it is or what it
> > stipulates.
>
> > But anyway, assuming for the sake of argument you mean ToE, you're
> > still way, way off the mark. Ever hear of nature versus nurture? I'm
> > going to assume you haven't, based on that totally illogical paragraph
> > quotation above.
>
> You're welcome to cite something from the literature of evolutionary biology
> wherein the causal relationship between God and the world, or spirit and
> matter, or the natural and the supernatural, is rigorously discussed.
First, I won't ever find anything like that and neither will you,
because nothing of what you listed can be measured or tested, and
second, how is that question relevant to what I responded to? The
statement was made that "Darwinism," whatever that is, should be able
to predict a specific woman's taste in movies. And that's just
insanity. Short of mind-reading, nothing would be able to do that. But
anyway, back to your point, I'm sorry, but I won't be able to find
anything like that if I searched all my life through scientific
literature. God, spirits, and the supernatural are simply not able to
be measured or tested in lab conditions, and so they're outside the
realm of science, and is why many people are skeptical of things like
ghosts or telekinesis.
bpuharic
>
>
>
>You're welcome to cite something from the literature of evolutionary biology
>wherein the causal relationship between God and the world, or spirit and
>matter, or the natural and the supernatural, is rigorously discussed.
>
it's ironic that creationists who say evolution is atheistic dont
realize this very challenge posed by kalkidas works against their
argument.
evolution says nothing about god. that's one reason it's scientifiic
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:04:13 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> You're welcome to cite something from the literature of evolutionary biology
>> wherein the causal relationship between god and the world, or spirit and
>> matter, or the natural and the supernatural, is rigorously discussed.
As soon as evidence for the gods existing is produced, science and
scientists will examine it. So.... got any evidence your gods
exist?
> it's ironic that creationists who say evolution is atheistic dont
> realize this very challenge posed by kalkidas works against their
> argument.
>
> evolution says nothing about god. that's one reason it's scientifiic
Evolution is not scientific: no scientist thinks or believes it
is. Evolutionary theory is scientific.