Human Origins: Call for Proposals
Frank J
all their touting of their peer-reviewed scientific publications -
none of which refutes evolution anyway - anti-evolutionists surely
must have a much greater supply of proposals, including many that were
rejected, or perhaps not submitted for fear of rejection. If so, we
might be looking in all the wrong places for potential alternatives to
evolution.
Anti-evolutionists' charges of "Darwinist" bias may impress conspiracy
junkies, but the fact is that the only "bias" is that few agencies are
interested in funding mere arguments of incredulity, especially
recycled ones:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html
If anti-evolutionists truly have, and can reasonably defend,
alternative hypotheses, many agencies would glad to fund the research,
even if it is deemed risky.
Anti-evolutionists are thus encouraged to post their draft proposals
here, where they can be constructively critiqued by knowledgeable
people of all viewpoints. To keep it simple I recommend limiting the
topic to human origins. I chose that topic because it is of greatest
interest to the public, but has been largely ignored lately,
especially by IDers who are more interested the origin of bacterial
flagella or Cambrian phyla. Those topics have little or no bearing on
human origins, and thus provide no comfort to those seeking evidence
of independent and/or recent origin of our lineage.
This is an excellent opportunity for anti-evolutionists to back up
their claims of being scientific, for IDers in particular to back up
their claims of not being creationists, and for IDers and classic
creationists alike to boost their dismal scientific credibility by
showing some healthy competition among what appears to be radically
contradictory ideas.
The proposals should contain at least the following:
1. A clear statement of the investigators' current conclusions,
however tentative, as to whether humans are biologically related to
other species. Note that a "yes" answer does not necessarily endorse
Darwinian evolution as the mechanism of species origins.
2. If the answer to (1) is "no," a clear statement of the
investigators' current conclusions, however tentative, as to when the
two or more abiogenesis events occurred that lead to our species and
to those most genetically similar.
3. If the answer to (1) is "yes," clear statements of the
investigators' current conclusions, however tentative, as to when the
species diverged, and what alternative mechanism(s), however
incompletely understood, led to the divergence of the lineages.
4. For each hypothesis stated in (1) to (3), clear statements about
what evidence is (a) available, (b) sought, or (c) would falsify it.
5. A plan of work to gather and test evidence to support the
hypotheses in (1) to (3), and discussion of how those hypotheses could
be integrated into a new or revised theory of species origin.
6. No discussion of weaknesses, real or perceived, in current
explanations. Alternate hypotheses can and should be supported on
their own strengths.
7. No references to "design" or "creation." Not because of religious
implications, but because the words are simply unnecessary in
scientific explanations. Many theistic evolutionary biologists would
like to say that "the designer did X," but they use the more neutral
"X occurred" language to allay reviewers' suspicions that they might
abandon testing their hypotheses in favor of publishing useless
statements of incredulity. There is no reason that alternative
hypotheses cannot take the same approach.
So how about it? Instead of Gish-galloping through all those long-
refuted misrepresentations of evolution, why not once and for all,
collect, compare and defend your own competing hypotheses, starting
with one narrow but significant topic?
Mike Dworetsky
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177254600....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that you will get no serious
takers.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Robert Carnegie
> If anti-evolutionists truly have, and can reasonably defend,
> alternative hypotheses, many agencies would glad to fund the research,
> even if it is deemed risky.
Potentially spoiling your fun, I'm going to say I'm sceptical of this
funding. Who is handing out money to "anti-evolutionists"?
> The proposals should contain at least the following:
>
> 1. A clear statement of the investigators' current conclusions,
> however tentative, as to whether humans are biologically related to
> other species. Note that a "yes" answer does not necessarily endorse
> Darwinian evolution as the mechanism of species origins.
What do present beliefs have to do with scientific inquiry? Isn't it
indicative of bias that you ask this question?
maximum maypo
@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> So how about it?
pardon me for my intrusion into this thread, but...I have a question
I'd like to ask, and your post gives me (for better or worse) the
perfect opportunity:
why do you work so hard at such a pointless and thankless task?
clearly the people you're working so hard to reach and convince are
immune to the tenets of logic and science. they expend extraordinary
effort in their attempts to fend off even this most obvious and simple
scientific observations. to which I say, so be it: willful morons are
unreachable, and are therefore best ignored. but clearly you do not
agree with my position. so I wonder...what is it that inspires you
(and other, like-minded individuals) to continue to smash your head
against the wall, in the hopeless pursuit of enlightenment for these
fools?
I'm totally impressed (albeit totally baffled! :^D) by your continued
wilingness to reach out to the willfully ignorant. but what I'd
really like to understand is the "why" behind your efforts.
please believe me, this is NOT meant to be some sort of put down, or
snarky condemnation...I really would like to know HOW you can maintain
your equinamity in the face of such an abundant urge to ignorance.
best regards...
"max"
--
max
Frank J
> Frank J wrote:
> > If anti-evolutionists truly have, and can reasonably defend,
> > alternative hypotheses, many agencies would glad to fund the research,
> > even if it is deemed risky.
>
> Potentially spoiling your fun, I'm going to say I'm sceptical of this
> funding. Who is handing out money to "anti-evolutionists"?
No one yet I think, because the *pseudoscientific* anti-evolutionists
just don't submit proposals that don't have "mere argument from
incredulity" (or worse) written all over them. But if you count those
who do challenge current wisdom without pseudoscience, then plenty.
Wolpoff, for one, has had a rather minority view of human origins, but
has had no problems with funding. For evolution in general, there's
Woese, Margulis, Kauffman and others who do quite well despite
minority views. Then there's Kenneth Miller and many others who admit
all over the place that they believe a designer is responsible, and
you can't get more mainstream than him.
The irony is that, for all their "we don't need to connect no stinkin'
dots," the pseudoscientific anti-evoutionists try to connect 2 "dots"
that can't be connected, i.e. tie their "evidence" of design to the
implication that it must be something other than evolution. If they
ever stop that charade, they'd get just as much funding as everyone
else.
>
> > The proposals should contain at least the following:
>
> > 1. A clear statement of the investigators' current conclusions,
> > however tentative, as to whether humans are biologically related to
> > other species. Note that a "yes" answer does not necessarily endorse
> > Darwinian evolution as the mechanism of species origins.
>
> What do present beliefs have to do with scientific inquiry? Isn't it
> indicative of bias that you ask this question?
Those "beliefs" can be stated as testable hypotheses. For this
question it's either "yes" or "no." I phrased it specifically to
eliminate the typical "I don't know" cop-out that is common among the
"don't ask, don't tell" crowd - just pick a best guess, however
tentative. There's no bias, because a proposal that says "no" and
defends it well could certainly do better than a proposal that says
"yes" and defends it poorly.
Frank J
> Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote in news:1177254600.224367.82880
> @d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > So how about it?
>
> pardon me for my intrusion into this thread, but...I have a question
> I'd like to ask, and your post gives me (for better or worse) the
> perfect opportunity:
>
> why do you work so hard at such a pointless and thankless task?
For lurkers new to the "debate", where I was ~10 years ago. No more no
less.
I know that the scammers (<1% of the population) will just spin their
way around it, and that the hard core 20% who would not accept
evolution under any circumstances will just further compartmentalize.
I'm not interested in them. But there's another ~30% that reject
evolution but can an do change their mind after learning more, plus
another ~20% that accept evolution but fall for the nonsense that it
is fair to "teach the controversy" in science class.
bul...@bellsouth.net
> Not all proposals get funded, and not all funded ideas pan out, so for
> all their touting of their peer-reviewed scientific publications -
> none of which refutes evolution anyway - anti-evolutionists surely
> must have a much greater supply of proposals, including many that were
> rejected, or perhaps not submitted for fear of rejection. If so, we
> might be looking in all the wrong places for potential alternatives to
> evolution.
<snip>
>
> So how about it? Instead of Gish-galloping through all those long-
> refuted misrepresentations of evolution, why not once and for all,
> collect, compare and defend your own competing hypotheses, starting
> with one narrow but significant topic?
That would be too much like real science. Can't have that!
Boikat
TomS
<1177286374.2...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Frank J stated..."
A couple of more things, beyond Frank's comments. But I also
have less "altruistic" reasons.
One is that, by posting here, I've learned a lot. I try out ideas, and
people correct me. And it has also led me to read quite a bit. I
need a certain amount of structure to motivate my reading, and
creationism has given me that.
Another is that it is an interesting mental exercize. Examining
creationism is a kind of puzzle, a puzzle in detecting errors and
in explaining those errors to others.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Friar Broccoli
> "On 22 Apr 2007 16:59:34 -0700, in article
I wanted to make exactly the same points, but laziness prevented
me. I particularly enjoy the puzzle solving aspect. Also you don't
notice unless you pay careful attention, but a lot of creationists
come
through here and have their minds changed. This fact is somewhat
hidden because our regular stable of loons make so much noise.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Desertphile
> Not all proposals get funded, and not all funded ideas pan out, so for
> all their touting of their peer-reviewed scientific publications -
> none of which refutes evolution anyway - anti-evolutionists surely
> must have a much greater supply of proposals, including many that were
> rejected, or perhaps not submitted for fear of rejection. If so, we
> might be looking in all the wrong places for potential alternatives to
> evolution.
For there to be alternatives to evolution, most life in the
universe would have to be exterminated. For alternatives to
evolution on Earth, all life on Earth would first have to be
exterminated: nothing less will prevent evolution.
> Anti-evolutionists' charges of "Darwinist" bias may impress conspiracy
> junkies, but the fact is that the only "bias" is that few agencies are
> interested in funding mere arguments of incredulity, especially
> recycled ones:
>
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html
>
> If anti-evolutionists truly have, and can reasonably defend,
> alternative hypotheses, many agencies would glad to fund the research,
> even if it is deemed risky.
It would also be extremely profitable for the discoverers.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Frank J
> On 22 Apr 2007 08:10:00 -0700, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Not all proposals get funded, and not all funded ideas pan out, so for
> > all their touting of their peer-reviewed scientific publications -
> > none of which refutes evolution anyway - anti-evolutionists surely
> > must have a much greater supply of proposals, including many that were
> > rejected, or perhaps not submitted for fear of rejection. If so, we
> > might be looking in all the wrong places for potential alternatives to
> > evolution.
>
> For there to be alternatives to evolution, most life in the
> universe would have to be exterminated. For alternatives to
> evolution on Earth, all life on Earth would first have to be
> exterminated: nothing less will prevent evolution.
I'm not sure about that, but more generally the evidence at hand would
have to be radically different if the explanation was radically
different than Darwinian evolution, e.g. if it included independent
abiogenesis of many different lineages. The point I hope to make to
lurkers is that anti-evolution activists must *know* that. IOW,
they're not just honestly trying to defend an alternate theory that
they *honestly believe* occurred, but just out to misrepresent
evolution any way they can. This should be especially evident with the
"don't ask, don't tell" IDers.
>
> > Anti-evolutionists' charges of "Darwinist" bias may impress conspiracy
> > junkies, but the fact is that the only "bias" is that few agencies are
> > interested in funding mere arguments of incredulity, especially
> > recycled ones:
>
> >http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html
>
> > If anti-evolutionists truly have, and can reasonably defend,
> > alternative hypotheses, many agencies would glad to fund the research,
> > even if it is deemed risky.
>
> It would also be extremely profitable for the discoverers.
& they know that too. Behe conceded the closest thing to evolution,
but knew better than try to test it, especially when H. Allen Orr
showed how easy that would be.
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -