the FACT of evolution
Manan Shah
this before.
Most scientists now regard Evolution is a fact. It is a proven FACT that we
have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved. There is an
overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation.
But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or
observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep
testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense
is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification
occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong. "
"The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to
the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists
out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However,
examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually
disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution
occurred. "
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html
Dave Woetzel
Manan Shah <aru...@home.com> wrote in message
news:BXgl4.95543$j63.1...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> I am kinda new to this newsgroup, so I don't know if you've been through
> this before.
Just a few times. :)
> Most scientists now regard Evolution is a fact. It is a proven FACT that
we
> have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved. There is
an
> overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
<snip>
I agree with your definition of a scientific fact. (Though my personal
favorite is from Gould: Scientific Fact is a theory that is so thoroughly
confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.) The
disagreement is going to be over the definition of evolution. If you define
it to be merely variation within a population (ala Mendelism), than you are
correct it is a fact. But then you aren't making any contribution to the
public origins debate and are merely going for a quick fool's mate by
redefining the term. In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules to man
transformation. Anything less requires a supernatural creation act of some
kind.
In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact. It is a smorgasbord
of conflicting theories and special definitions that involve metaphysical
assumptions and unfalsifiable tenets. Take the fundamental concept of
natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just So" story to
explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that could falsify
survival of the fittest. It is metaphysical (or depending on the
definition, perhaps tautologous). Evolution adapts to data like fog to a
landscape. This comfortably shelters the particular portion of the theory
from the scientific arena. But if it is unfalsifiable, it ceases to be
science. Therefore it can not be a scientific fact.
Dave
Paul Allen Panks
Manan Shah (aru...@home.com) wrote:
: I am kinda new to this newsgroup, so I don't know if you've been through
: this before.
No worries. We will try to help you the best we can.
: Most scientists now regard Evolution as a fact. It is a proven FACT
: that we have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved.
: There is an overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
Show me this "evidence" and I'll buy you dinner for the rest of your life!
: "Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation.
: But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or
: observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep
: testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense
: is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification
: occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong. "
Perhaps weaker than one might fathom.
: "The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to
: the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists
: out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However,
: examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually
: disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution
: occurred. "
: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html
Sure...If you go to Dallas, the consensus around The Dallas Cowboys is
overwhelming. If you go to church, the consensus for Jesus of Nazareth is
overwhelming. Depends on the filter you look through, man!
Regards,
Paul Allen Panks
dun...@yahoo.com
--
--
********************************************************************************
Few cats act their age, while most just cough up fur balls.
********************************************************************************
Boikat
>
> Hi-
>
> Manan Shah (aru...@home.com) wrote:
> : I am kinda new to this newsgroup, so I don't know if you've been through
> : this before.
>
> No worries. We will try to help you the best we can.
>
> : Most scientists now regard Evolution as a fact. It is a proven FACT
> : that we have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved.
> : There is an overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
>
> Show me this "evidence" and I'll buy you dinner for the rest of your life!
Is this open to everyone?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> : "Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation.
> : But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or
> : observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep
> : testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense
> : is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification
> : occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong. "
>
> Perhaps weaker than one might fathom.
Sounds like a proclamation. Got anything to back
it up?
>
> : "The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to
> : the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists
> : out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However,
> : examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually
> : disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution
> : occurred. "
> : http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html
>
> Sure...If you go to Dallas, the consensus around The Dallas Cowboys is
> overwhelming. If you go to church, the consensus for Jesus of Nazareth is
> overwhelming. Depends on the filter you look through, man!
It also depends upon the evidence, and not
opinion, man.
Boikat
>
mcoo...@my-deja.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Manan Shah <aru...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:BXgl4.95543$j63.1...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
through
> > this before.
>
>
FACT that
> we
> > have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved.
There is
> an
> > overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
>
> I agree with your definition of a scientific fact. (Though my
personal
> favorite is from Gould: Scientific Fact is a theory that is so
thoroughly
> confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.) The
> disagreement is going to be over the definition of evolution. If you
define
> it to be merely variation within a population (ala Mendelism), than
you are
> correct it is a fact. But then you aren't making any contribution to
the
> public origins debate and are merely going for a quick fool's mate by
> redefining the term. In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules
to man
> transformation. Anything less requires a supernatural creation act
of some
> kind.
>
smorgasbord
> of conflicting theories and special definitions that involve
metaphysical
> assumptions and unfalsifiable tenets. Take the fundamental concept of
> natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just So"
story to
> explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that could
falsify
> survival of the fittest. It is metaphysical (or depending on the
> definition, perhaps tautologous). Evolution adapts to data like fog
to a
> landscape. This comfortably shelters the particular portion of the
theory
> from the scientific arena. But if it is unfalsifiable, it ceases to
be
> science. Therefore it can not be a scientific fact.
>
> Dave
Dave. I've been lurking about and I've seen a number of your posts
lately. You have an engaging style, I'll say that.
But I've only one question for you; why do you think it is a problem
that a scientific theory changes when new data or new interpretations
of data comes about?
I really am having a hard time with this. I mean, as a scientist
myself, I find this to be THE single most compelling reason why I trust
the scientific method. So why are you uncomfortable with this aspect of
science?
As they say on the radio, I'll take my answer off the air.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dave Woetzel
>Dave. I've been lurking about and I've seen a number of your posts
> lately. You have an engaging style, I'll say that.
>
> But I've only one question for you; why do you think it is a problem
> that a scientific theory changes when new data or new interpretations
> of data comes about?
Good question. I'll answer on the air and copy you off the air in case you
want to follow up that way.
There is a fundamental difference between science changing theories
(rejecting portions of classical physics as the evidence for relativity
becomes overwhelming, etc.) and accepting a theory that is immune to
falsification. If a theory can explain *anything,* it really explains
nothing. It is untestable and hence unscientific. Now I want to be careful
at this point and distance myself from those that simplistically call
evolution a religion. There are portions of evolution (in the broad sense)
that are metaphysical, portions that are scientific but rigorously
challenged by the evidence, and portions that are tautologous. If we want
to include microevolution, there are portions that are factual. But it is
counterproductive and confusing to mix mere genetic variation into the
origins debate as "evolution" when both sides incorporate that into their
position.
Dave
tweedyd
<mcoo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:874geb$qqq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Piggy backing::
> In article <874c8d$o4u$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > Manan Shah <aru...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:BXgl4.95543$j63.1...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > > I am kinda new to this newsgroup, so I don't know if you've been
> through
> > > this before.
> >
> > Just a few times. :)
> >
> > > Most scientists now regard Evolution is a fact. It is a proven
> FACT that
> > we
> > > have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved.
> There is
> > an
> > > overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
> > <snip>
> >
> > I agree with your definition of a scientific fact. (Though my
> personal
> > favorite is from Gould: Scientific Fact is a theory that is so
> thoroughly
> > confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.)
Why does Dave continue to be perverse?
> The
> > disagreement is going to be over the definition of evolution. If you
> define
> > it to be merely variation within a population (ala Mendelism), than
> you are
> > correct it is a fact. But then you aren't making any contribution to
> the
> > public origins debate and are merely going for a quick fool's mate by
> > redefining the term. In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules
> to man
> > transformation. Anything less requires a supernatural creation act
> of some
> > kind.
I see Dave is trying to pull the the old creationist
"microevolution/macroevolution" crap once again. He is also trying to throw
in abiogenesis into the mix again. Evolution is not "molecules to man"
Evolution is change over time, or as Darwin put it, "Descent with
modifications" How life arose on earth is a problem for biochemists, not
biologists.
> > In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact. It is a
> smorgasbord
> > of conflicting theories and special definitions that involve
> metaphysical
> > assumptions and unfalsifiable tenets.
This is another example of Dave telling baldfaced lies. The theory of
evolution is internally consistent, testable, and falsifiable.
>Take the fundamental concept of
> > natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just So"
> story to
> > explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that could
> falsify
> > survival of the fittest.
As David surely knows survival of the fittest is not Darwin's term. Be that
as it may, if every last offspring of an organism survived, that would
falsify survival of the fittest. Alternately, if organisms produced NO
offspring, that would falsify the concept also. The fact that creatures
produce more offspring than can survive, and that the ones who do survive to
the next generation are the ones that best fit their enviroment, validates
the concept.
> It is metaphysical (or depending on the
> > definition, perhaps tautologous). Evolution adapts to data like fog
> to a
> > landscape. This comfortably shelters the particular portion of the
> theory
> > from the scientific arena. But if it is unfalsifiable, it ceases to
> be
> > science. Therefore it can not be a scientific fact.
Evoution is testable, and is falsifiable. Dave's pathetic web site he was
promoting last week was an attempt to falsify Evolution. Just because you
can''t come up with anything that DOES fasify the theory does not mean the
theory cannot be falsified.
The fact that a theory adapts to data, means the theory is sound. If
the theory demanded that the facts adapt to fit its beliefs ( such as
Creationism requires) it would be unscientific. That is why Creation is
not science, and Evolution is science.
--
Dana J. Tweedy
(animal bipes implume)
Peter Nyikos
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> writes:
>Manan Shah <aru...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:BXgl4.95543$j63.1...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
>> I am kinda new to this newsgroup, so I don't know if you've been through
>> this before.
>Just a few times. :)
>> Most scientists now regard Evolution is a fact. It is a proven FACT that
>we
>> have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved. There is
>an
>> overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
><snip>
>I agree with your definition of a scientific fact. (Though my personal
>favorite is from Gould: Scientific Fact is a theory that is so thoroughly
>confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.) The
>disagreement is going to be over the definition of evolution. If you define
>it to be merely variation within a population (ala Mendelism), than you are
>correct it is a fact. But then you aren't making any contribution to the
>public origins debate and are merely going for a quick fool's mate by
>redefining the term.
Excellent choice of words.
> In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules to man
>transformation. Anything less requires a supernatural creation act of some
>kind.
>In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact. It is a smorgasbord
>of conflicting theories and special definitions that involve metaphysical
>assumptions and unfalsifiable tenets. Take the fundamental concept of
>natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just So" story to
>explain any scenario.
Not any more. The more sophisticated evolutionists in this
newsgroup adamantly refuse to do such things, preferring
to simply claim that "the mechanism of natural selection"
explains so much, it should be assumed to explain everything
unless there proof of alien intervention
that only a crashed alien spaceship, or something equally
revolutionary, can provide.
> One can't conceive of a situation that could falsify
>survival of the fittest. It is metaphysical (or depending on the
>definition, perhaps tautologous). Evolution adapts to data like fog to a
>landscape. This comfortably shelters the particular portion of the theory
>from the scientific arena. But if it is unfalsifiable, it ceases to be
>science. Therefore it can not be a scientific fact.
An amusing illustration of all this played out in the thread
on polydactyly. Ultra-Darwinists were saying that the reason frogs have
five toes is that natural selection had no special reason for
favoring any other number, and five was the number their
ancestors had.
Once I pointed out that frogs had *four* toes in front
(and five in the back), the
dyed-in-wool Darwinists quickly changed their tune and said
that there may have been other factors at work besides
natural selection--random chance, etc.
You see this kind of retreat in the thread on protozoan DNA too.
It is an undeniable fact that some amoebas have genomes
over 100 times the size of human genomes. Here, NOBODY
has the foggiest idea why natural selection would favor
the larger genome, and since there are several people asking
that very question, the favorite
"explanation" is that there is no reason to think natural
selection favored any particular size over any other,
and it could all be due to chance.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
PZ Myers
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> An amusing illustration of all this played out in the thread
> on polydactyly. Ultra-Darwinists were saying that the reason frogs have
> five toes is that natural selection had no special reason for
> favoring any other number, and five was the number their
> ancestors had.
I'm a little mystified by this. Why would you call someone who is
arguing that natural selection is NOT favoring a particular number an
ultra-darwinist?
>
> Once I pointed out that frogs had *four* toes in front (and five in
> the back), the dyed-in-wool Darwinists quickly changed their tune and
> said that there may have been other factors at work besides natural
> selection--random chance, etc.
How is that changing the tune? If one is arguing that there is no
special reason for natural selection to favor one number over another,
how is it different to say that the number is the product of other
factors?
>
> You see this kind of retreat in the thread on protozoan DNA too. It
> is an undeniable fact that some amoebas have genomes over 100 times
> the size of human genomes. Here, NOBODY has the foggiest idea why
> natural selection would favor the larger genome, and since there are
> several people asking that very question, the favorite "explanation"
> is that there is no reason to think natural selection favored any
> particular size over any other, and it could all be due to chance.
Are the people who are saying that also ultra-darwinists?
--
PZ Myers
Dave Woetzel
> I see Dave is trying to pull the the old creationist
> "microevolution/macroevolution" crap once again. He is also trying to
throw
> in abiogenesis into the mix again. Evolution is not "molecules to man"
> Evolution is change over time, or as Darwin put it, "Descent with
> modifications" How life arose on earth is a problem for biochemists, not
> biologists.
Yours is a preposterous definition. By your definition, the act of creation
was evolution! But I'll let you argue this out with the "most eminent
evolutionist of the twentieth century."
"The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to
Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted from Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin: ...'Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a
trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.' ...From today's
perspective, Dobzhansky appears as perhaps the most eminent evolutionist of
the twentieth century."Ayala, Francisco J., "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense
Except in the Light of Evolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky: 1900-1975,"
_Journal of Heredity_, vol. 68, January/February 1977, pp. 3-10.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
"Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has
brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue doing
remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the evolutionary
process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the
Cosmos, become conscious of itself. .Evolution comprises all the stages of
the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or
cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to
biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic
nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." (Dobzhansky,
Theodosius, "Changing Man," _Science_, vol. 155, no. 3761, January 27, 1967,
p. 409)
> > > In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact. It is a
> > smorgasbord
> > > of conflicting theories and special definitions that involve
> > metaphysical
> > > assumptions and unfalsifiable tenets.
>
> This is another example of Dave telling baldfaced lies. The theory of
> evolution is internally consistent, testable, and falsifiable.
OK, Dana. Let's talk about the problem with the naive view of natural
selection that is so often presented. Gould articulates well the problem of
polygeny. "Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly.
It must use bodies as an intermediary.. Hundreds of genes contribute to the
building of most body parts and their action is channeled through a
kaleidoscopic series of environmental influences. Parts are not translated
genes, and selection doesn't even work directly on parts. It accepts or
rejects entire organisms because suites of parts, interacting in complex
ways, confer advantages." (Gould, S.J., 1980, _The Panda's Thumb_, pp.
89-90) Now, let's say that a given organism is moving up the fitness
terrain and becomes stuck on a hill that keeps it from moving up the
improbable mountain. What scenario do you want to attempt to defend to get
the organism off: the "stationary hypothesis," the "Red Queen hypothesis,"
"small population/in-breeding scenario"? Once you tell me, I will
demonstrate for you that it conflicts with the special solution that
Darwinists propose to solve other problems.
> >Take the fundamental concept of
> > > natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just So"
> > story to
> > > explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that could
> > falsify
> > > survival of the fittest.
>
> As David surely knows survival of the fittest is not Darwin's term. Be
that
> as it may, if every last offspring of an organism survived, that would
> falsify survival of the fittest. Alternately, if organisms produced NO
> offspring, that would falsify the concept also. The fact that creatures
> produce more offspring than can survive, and that the ones who do survive
to
> the next generation are the ones that best fit their enviroment, validates
> the concept.
Contrary to what Dana suggests, it would be trivially easy for Darwinists to
explain NO offspring. It would be the ultimate in natural
selection...selecting that organism for extinction. One could envision a
whole world of organisms becoming extinct and leaving other planets upon
which life survives. But all this is beside the point. We are assuming
there is survival. That was observed quite a bit before Darwin. :) The
question at hand involves survival of the *fittest*. I'd like Dana to begin
by defining fitness. Then we'll discuss if survival of the fittest is
falsifiable.
Dave
Dave Woetzel
> >In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact. It is a
smorgasbord
> >of conflicting theories and special definitions that involve metaphysical
> >natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just So" story
to
> >explain any scenario.
>
> newsgroup adamantly refuse to do such things, preferring
> to simply claim that "the mechanism of natural selection"
> explains so much, it should be assumed to explain everything
> unless there proof of alien intervention
> that only a crashed alien spaceship, or something equally
> revolutionary, can provide.
Peter! Shame on you for not having a bit more imagination. If the alien
spaceship were discovered, it would merely be a Exhibit A for the new theory
of Survival of the Fittest Alien Spaceship. This could be a fruitful new
inquiry for cosmic evolution. (Incidentally, I once read an article
entitled "Origin of the Species by Devolution" in which an alien spaceship
crash-landed leaving no evidence. All the organisms that currently exist
devolved from these super-intelligent aliens...all the way down to the
amoeba. The simpler organisms were more adept at surviving widespread
catastrophes, etc. It was a pretty good "Just-So" story. Your amoeba DNA
observation would fit in nicely...)
Dave
Wade Hines
Dave Woetzel wrote:
<snip>
> In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules to man
> transformation.
<snip>
That this homocentric perspective is pervasive in most
critics of evolution is noted, again ... and again and again!
I understand something of the barriers to stepping outside
of this human centered perspective. They are large and steps
most are not prepared to take. Interestingly, once outside that
perspective, few seem to maintain their neovitalistic or
creationist stance.
Just an opinionated observation.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact. It is a smorgasbord
>of conflicting theories and special definitions that involve metaphysical
>assumptions and unfalsifiable tenets.
since you are biased, such a statement is not credible...
Take the fundamental concept of
>natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just So" story to
>explain any scenario.
backed up, of course, by evidence...lacking for creationism
unfortunately. we've seen speciation. we've seen evolution. we've
never seen creation. we have a mechanism for evolution. creationists
cant tell us word one about how creationism works. they keep saying
its science, but like a shifty card player, they keep their cards
close to the vest...that's not science...it's bad poker.
One can't conceive of a situation that could falsify
>survival of the fittest.
yeah you can. you put a bacterial culture in a petri dish and expose
'em to antibiotic. some mutants will be resistant to the drug. they
wont die. other bacteria will die...
thus the mechanism of evolution
1. variation through mutation
2. selection
3. differential reproduction
so dave, tell us, what's the mechanism of creation??
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
If a theory can explain *anything,* it really explains
>nothing.
evolution does not explain why the sky is blue. it does explain
biological diversity
creationism doesnt. and dave has provided no info that it can.
way to go dave!!
Andy Groves
>
> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> writes:
>
> >Manan Shah <aru...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:BXgl4.95543$j63.1...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> >> I am kinda new to this newsgroup, so I don't know if you've been through
> >> this before.
>
> >Just a few times. :)
>
> >> Most scientists now regard Evolution is a fact. It is a proven FACT that
> >we
> >> have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved. There is
> >an
> >> overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
> ><snip>
>
> >I agree with your definition of a scientific fact. (Though my personal
> >favorite is from Gould: Scientific Fact is a theory that is so thoroughly
> >confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.) The
> >disagreement is going to be over the definition of evolution. If you define
> >it to be merely variation within a population (ala Mendelism), than you are
> >correct it is a fact. But then you aren't making any contribution to the
> >public origins debate and are merely going for a quick fool's mate by
> >redefining the term.
>
> Excellent choice of words.
>
> >kind.
>
> >of conflicting theories and special definitions that involve metaphysical
> >natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just So" story to
> >explain any scenario.
>
> newsgroup adamantly refuse to do such things, preferring
> to simply claim that "the mechanism of natural selection"
> explains so much, it should be assumed to explain everything
> unless there proof of alien intervention
> that only a crashed alien spaceship, or something equally
> revolutionary, can provide.
>
> >definition, perhaps tautologous). Evolution adapts to data like fog to a
> >landscape. This comfortably shelters the particular portion of the theory
> >from the scientific arena. But if it is unfalsifiable, it ceases to be
> >science. Therefore it can not be a scientific fact.
>
> on polydactyly. Ultra-Darwinists were saying that the reason frogs have
> five toes is that natural selection had no special reason for
> favoring any other number, and five was the number their
> ancestors had.
>
> (and five in the back), the
> dyed-in-wool Darwinists quickly changed their tune and said
> that there may have been other factors at work besides
> natural selection--random chance, etc.
>
> It is an undeniable fact that some amoebas have genomes
> over 100 times the size of human genomes. Here, NOBODY
> has the foggiest idea why natural selection would favor
> the larger genome, and since there are several people asking
> that very question, the favorite
> "explanation" is that there is no reason to think natural
> selection favored any particular size over any other,
> and it could all be due to chance.
>
Or, put more succinctly, uncritical teleology is bad science.
--
Andy Groves
Andy Groves
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> news:BXgl4.95543$j63.1...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > I am kinda new to this newsgroup, so I don't know if you've been through
> > this before.
>
> Just a few times. :)
>
> > Most scientists now regard Evolution is a fact. It is a proven FACT that
> we
> > have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved. There is
> an
> > overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
> <snip>
>
> I agree with your definition of a scientific fact. (Though my personal
> favorite is from Gould: Scientific Fact is a theory that is so thoroughly
> confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.) The
> disagreement is going to be over the definition of evolution. If you define
> it to be merely variation within a population (ala Mendelism), than you are
> correct it is a fact. But then you aren't making any contribution to the
> public origins debate and are merely going for a quick fool's mate by
> transformation. Anything less requires a supernatural creation act of some
> kind.
>
> In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact.
You have yourself chosen to define the term to your own satisfaction.
But accepting that, do you know of any scientist who would describe your
definition as a fact? I don't.
So what's your point? Evolution as defined by biologists (or "Mendelism"
as you call it) is a fact, whilst evolution as defined by you is not a
fact?
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
That was observed quite a bit before Darwin. :) The
>question at hand involves survival of the *fittest*. I'd like Dana to begin
>by defining fitness. Then we'll discuss if survival of the fittest is
>falsifiable.
>
>Dave
>
>
what's very typical of creationist dave's dodges is that he discusses
at length the mechanisms of darwinian evolution.
and never once...ever...discusses the 'mechanism' of creation. of
course, no creationist ever does because it's not science...
mcoo...@my-deja.com
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> [posted and e-mailed]
>
> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> writes:
>
>
> > In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules to man
> >transformation. Anything less requires a supernatural creation act
of some
> >kind.
>
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
> University of South Carolina
> Columbia, SC 29208
Grrrrr. I'm breaking my promise to myself not to respond to Nyikosian
pettifoggery, but great jumping jesus man, you really are a hoot.
You think you've got it all worked out, eh? You think that because
there are no simple answers and that there are several possible
explanations of events in natural history that that somehow invalidates
an argument? Do you really think that your interpretation of other's
usenet arguments pertains at all to the factual basis of evolution?
More to the point, with the exception of certain lap dogs, do you
really think anyone reading your posts sees you as an authority on this
subject? Especially after such a deliciously fallacious post as the
above?
Good grief, just because there is more than one way to explain part of
the natural world with evolutionary theory does not in any sense make
the theory, or the theorists, suspect.
My god, you are a piece of work.
Dave Woetzel
Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:875bae$fsu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <874c8d$o4u$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
man
> > transformation. Anything less requires a supernatural creation act of
some
> > kind.
> >
> > In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact.
>
> But accepting that, do you know of any scientist who would describe your
> definition as a fact? I don't.
Then you need to get out and about a bit more...
"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological
fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars and the
formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand
subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and
religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are
enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process. Evolution
in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially
irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an
increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its
products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole
of reality is evolution-a single process of self-transformation." (Huxley,
Julian, "Evolution and Genetics," in _What is Science?_ edited by J. R.
Newman, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955, pp. 272-278)
"Twentieth century biology rests on a foundation of evolutionary concepts..
The evolutionary basis is also apparent in peripheral independent fields
such as chemistry, geology, physics and astronomy. No central scientific
concept is more firmly established in our thinking, our methods, and our
interpretations, than that of evolution." (Beck, Stanley D., "Natural
Science and Creationist Theology," _Bioscience_, vol. 32, October 1982, p.
738.)
Marsden, George M., "Creation versus Evolution: No Middle Way," Nature, vol.
305 (October 13, 1983), pp. 571-574.
p 572
"Such folk epistemology is close to that which works best for engineers,
straightforward, consistent, factual, with no nonsense. In fact, there are
an unusual number of engineers in the creation science movement.
"Most contemporary scientists have difficulty understanding the appeal of
alleged scientific arguments of creation science to popular common sense.
Evolution may have scientific experts on its side, but it strains popular
common sense. It is simply difficult to believe that the amazing order of
life on Earth arose spontaneously out of the original disorder of the
Universe."
p 573
"The American folk epistemology, then, is by no means anti-scientific in
principle. Rather it is based on a naive realism plus popular mythology
concerning proper scientific procedure and verification. These procedures
are essentially Baconian, favouring simple empirical evidence."
p 574
"In any case, creation scientists are correct in perceiving that in modern
culture 'evolution' often involves far more than biology. The basic
ideologies of the civilization, including its entire moral structure, are at
issue. Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy
that functions as a virtual religion.. Dogmatic proponents of evolutionary
anti-supernaturalistic mythologies have been inviting responses in kind."
"Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has
brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue doing
remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the evolutionary
process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the
Cosmos, become conscious of itself. .Evolution comprises all the stages of
the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or
cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to
biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic
nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." (Dobzhansky,
Theodosius, "Changing Man," _Science_, vol. 155, no. 3761, January 27, 1967,
p. 409)
"... I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that 'the reductionist
explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades - Evolution is a change in
gene frequencies in populations - is not only not explanatory, but is in
fact misleading.'" (Mayr, E., _Toward a New Philosophy of Biology_, 1988, p.
162. )
"This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly
faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and
stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and
values--indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution.... In the
evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for
the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the
animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and
soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.... Finally, the
evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the
lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the
needs of the coming era." (Julian Huxley during the 1959 celebration of 100
years of _Origin_ in Chicago. Cited in Phillip Johnson, _Darwin on Trial_,
1993, 152-3.)
Regards,
Dave
Dave Woetzel
> Good grief, just because there is more than one way to explain part of
> the natural world with evolutionary theory does not in any sense make
> the theory, or the theorists, suspect.
No, you're absolutely right it doesn't immediately disqualify the theory.
But what DOES begin to make it suspect is when it can explain (with pompous
authority) that natural selection can "see" a tooth inside an organism and
eliminate those individuals whose molars lack the proper shape. This is
alleged to have caused many examples of convergence in mammalian molars.
Yet, as ReMine says, natural selection was unable to see the mammal-like
reptiles in the midst of having their jaw bones radically displaced into the
middle ear to form the delicate mammalian hearing apparatus. Allegedly the
whales evolved form four-legged mammals who returned from the sea. The
waters were already full of advanced predators and competitors. Imagine the
challenge as land-roving animals lost their legs and underwent total body
transformation. Natural selection somehow could not eliminate these
misfits. By all rights, such animals should have been wiped out soon after
they entered the sea. Moreover evolutionists claim this awkward transition
occurred many times independently. Natural selection is said to have superb
"vision" to see down to the level of proteins, creating convergence on the
molecular level. Yet it passes by large vestigials left from bygone eras.
The incongruous stories go on and on and on. If it doesn't get suspect to
MCoon after awhile, it is because of a high tolerance for "Just-So" stories.
Dave
Matt Silberstein
<dwoe...@juno.com>:
[snip]
|Then you need to get out and about a bit more...
|
|"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological
|fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars and the
|formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand
|subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and
|religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are
|enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process. Evolution
|in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially
|irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an
|increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its
|products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole
|of reality is evolution-a single process of self-transformation." (Huxley,
|Julian, "Evolution and Genetics," in _What is Science?_ edited by J. R.
|Newman, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955, pp. 272-278)
If we take evolution (root meaning unfolding) to mean "descent with
modification" then it is, in essence, a synonym for time. For the
process of time does seem to be that each "moment" is a slight
variation of the moment before. Please note that this is an
observation, not a tautology. The world could work some other way. For
example, things could have a sudden beginning, a creation event. But
they don't see to, they seem to have history and to develop via a
process. If we observed things that did not seem to have a history, if
we observed sudden creation, then we would have different ways to
describe and explain the world.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's
back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are
self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there
ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I
believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas
morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that
last three days. [pause] Goodnight.
Crash Davis
Larry Handlin
Dave Woetzel wrote:
> Manan Shah <aru...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:BXgl4.95543$j63.1...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > I am kinda new to this newsgroup, so I don't know if you've been through
> > this before.
>
> Just a few times. :)
>
> > Most scientists now regard Evolution is a fact. It is a proven FACT that
> we
> > have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved. There is
> an
> > overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
> <snip>
>
> I agree with your definition of a scientific fact. (Though my personal
> favorite is from Gould: Scientific Fact is a theory that is so thoroughly
> confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.) The
> disagreement is going to be over the definition of evolution. If you define
> it to be merely variation within a population (ala Mendelism), than you are
> correct it is a fact. But then you aren't making any contribution to the
> public origins debate and are merely going for a quick fool's mate by
> redefining the term. In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules to man
> transformation. Anything less requires a supernatural creation act of some
> kind.
>
As usual confusion reigns. No, the biological theory of evolution using the
idea of common descent makes an assumption that life exists for evolution to
occur. This is perhaps the most unchallenged assumption around. So starting
with non-life is a non-issue. Now many who accept the biological theory of
evolution also advocate abiogenesis as the most plausible theory for the
beginnings of life. However, the biological theory of evolution in no way
requires such a theory to be true for evolution to be true.
>
> In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact. It is a smorgasbord
> of conflicting theories and special definitions that involve metaphysical
> assumptions and unfalsifiable tenets.
> Take the fundamental concept of
> natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just So" story to
> explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that could falsify
> survival of the fittest.
You should change the word "One" above to I.
One possible falsification of survival of the fittest is if extinction didn't
occur. You can't conceive of it because the evidence of extinction is so
overwhelming. But if every species ever alive were still alive, evolutionary
theory would be false. Or perhaps if most were.
>
Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil record or
no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed this out
actually.
This claim is rather bizarre. It seems to rest on the notion that since there
is strong evidence for evolution, the theory cannot be falsified. Well, it
could be falsified, it is just that under the basic axioms of the theory and the
evidence collected, there is no evidence to falsify it. There is a significant
difference between able to be falsified and falsified.
The objection is kind of fun because it really admits that the theory is very
strong.
> It is metaphysical (or depending on the
> definition, perhaps tautologous). Evolution adapts to data like fog to a
> landscape. This comfortably shelters the particular portion of the theory
> from the scientific arena. But if it is unfalsifiable, it ceases to be
> science. Therefore it can not be a scientific fact.
>
Perhaps you should read a very basic introduction to evolution not written by
Creationists. Claiming that evolutionary theory requires things that it does
not posit is not a very effective strategy.
Bye now,
Larry Handlin
By the way, I haven't been playing close attention to your posts. Have you
offered a competing theory? I'm always interested in Creationists claiming that
evolution is incorrect and assuming that means Creationism is yet never
providing an actual theory to support Creationism.
>
> Dave
Larry Handlin
Dave Woetzel wrote:
> <big snip to the essence>
> > Good grief, just because there is more than one way to explain part of
> > the natural world with evolutionary theory does not in any sense make
> > the theory, or the theorists, suspect.
>
> No, you're absolutely right it doesn't immediately disqualify the theory.
> But what DOES begin to make it suspect is when it can explain (with pompous
> authority) that natural selection can "see" a tooth inside an organism and
> eliminate those individuals whose molars lack the proper shape. This is
> alleged to have caused many examples of convergence in mammalian molars.
> Yet, as ReMine says, natural selection was unable to see the mammal-like
> reptiles in the midst of having their jaw bones radically displaced into the
> middle ear to form the delicate mammalian hearing apparatus. Allegedly the
> whales evolved form four-legged mammals who returned from the sea. The
> waters were already full of advanced predators and competitors. Imagine the
> challenge as land-roving animals lost their legs and underwent total body
> transformation. Natural selection somehow could not eliminate these
> misfits.
No, it did not would be the theory. Why should they have not survived? Why
were they not fit? You haven't answered this question so your objection is
largely nonsense.
> By all rights, such animals should have been wiped out soon after
> they entered the sea.
WHY? What specific problem do you have with the ancestor? Which ancestor was
not fit and how so? You are on both sides of this one. This shows that
evolution could be falsified which you claimed it is not earlier. You are
wrong. You just proved it yourself. Thank you. Now provide some falsifying
evidence for your assertion.
> Moreover evolutionists claim this awkward transition
> occurred many times independently. Natural selection is said to have superb
> "vision" to see down to the level of proteins, creating convergence on the
> molecular level.
No vision is needed. If a mutation occurs that makes one less fit it
disappears. A mutation that is positive generally sticks around.
Larry Handlin
ummmmm....what if there wasn't extinction? You seem to change the
subject before dealing with it. Why?
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> <big snip to the essence>
> > Good grief, just because there is more than one way to explain part
of
> > the natural world with evolutionary theory does not in any sense
make
> > the theory, or the theorists, suspect.
>
> No, you're absolutely right it doesn't immediately disqualify the
theory.
> But what DOES begin to make it suspect is when it can explain (with
pompous
> authority) that natural selection can "see" a tooth inside an
organism and
> eliminate those individuals whose molars lack the proper shape. This
is
> alleged to have caused many examples of convergence in mammalian
molars.
> Yet, as ReMine says, natural selection was unable to see the mammal-
like
> reptiles in the midst of having their jaw bones radically displaced
into the
> middle ear to form the delicate mammalian hearing apparatus.
Apparently ReMine ignored Diarthrognatus (the beastie with *both* a
reptilian and mammalian jaw joint) - or that reptiles record vibrations
with their jawbones, IIANM.
(This blunder should be sufficient to disqualify anyone as a voice to
be taken seriously, IMHO).
Allegedly the
> whales evolved form four-legged mammals who returned from the sea.
The
> waters were already full of advanced predators and competitors.
Imagine the
> challenge as land-roving animals lost their legs and underwent total
body
> transformation. Natural selection somehow could not eliminate these
> misfits. By all rights, such animals should have been wiped out soon
after
> they entered the sea.
Luckily enough, what ReMine imagines is not binding upon nature.
Moreover evolutionists claim this awkward transition
> occurred many times independently. Natural selection is said to have
superb
> "vision" to see down to the level of proteins, creating convergence
on the
> molecular level.
I smell another strawman. Who claimed that natural selection created
convergence on the *molecular* level ?
Yet it passes by large vestigials left from bygone eras.
> The incongruous stories go on and on and on. If it doesn't get
suspect to
> MCoon after awhile, it is because of a high tolerance for "Just-So"
stories.
You realize, of course, that to refute a claim like "natural selection
is *unable* to do X" a Just-So Story is quite sufficient.
Regards,
HRG.
> Dave
Arklier
<lbha...@nospam-my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>Dave Woetzel wrote:
>
>> <big snip to the essence>
>> > Good grief, just because there is more than one way to explain part of
>> > the natural world with evolutionary theory does not in any sense make
>> > the theory, or the theorists, suspect.
>>
>> No, you're absolutely right it doesn't immediately disqualify the theory.
>> But what DOES begin to make it suspect is when it can explain (with pompous
>> authority) that natural selection can "see" a tooth inside an organism and
>> eliminate those individuals whose molars lack the proper shape.
Natural selection can't "see" anything. The teeth are there. If an
animal develops teeth that are better suited to processing what it
eats, then that animal has an advantage over those that don't. The
animal would get more energy out of the food at less cost than those
that don't have the adaptation.
>>This is
>> alleged to have caused many examples of convergence in mammalian molars.
>> Yet, as ReMine says, natural selection was unable to see the mammal-like
>> reptiles in the midst of having their jaw bones radically displaced into the
>> middle ear to form the delicate mammalian hearing apparatus.
The jawbones were there in reptiles. Now, which is stronger, a rod
made of four segments, or a rod made of just one? Over time, the
largest of the bones became ever larger, gradually taking over from
the others, which degenerated and were pushed back. After they
degenerated so far as to not be useful in capturing food, they
gradually were incorporated for another use. Contrary to what people
seem to think, these bones are not essential for hearing. Reptiles,
amphibians, and birds all hear perfectly fine without them.
>>Allegedly the
>> whales evolved form four-legged mammals who returned from the sea. The
>> waters were already full of advanced predators and competitors. Imagine the
>> challenge as land-roving animals lost their legs and underwent total body
>> transformation. Natural selection somehow could not eliminate these
>> misfits.
>
>No, it did not would be the theory. Why should they have not survived? Why
>were they not fit? You haven't answered this question so your objection is
>largely nonsense.
As are much of his arguments, I've noticed.
>> By all rights, such animals should have been wiped out soon after
>> they entered the sea.
>
>WHY? What specific problem do you have with the ancestor? Which ancestor was
>not fit and how so? You are on both sides of this one. This shows that
>evolution could be falsified which you claimed it is not earlier. You are
>wrong. You just proved it yourself. Thank you. Now provide some falsifying
>evidence for your assertion.
Personally, what I'm wondering is 'wiped out by WHAT?' Remember, by
this time all the giant marine reptiles were dead and gone. There were
no large ocean predators aside from sharks.
>> Moreover evolutionists claim this awkward transition
>> occurred many times independently. Natural selection is said to have superb
>> "vision" to see down to the level of proteins, creating convergence on the
>> molecular level.
>
>No vision is needed. If a mutation occurs that makes one less fit it
>disappears. A mutation that is positive generally sticks around.
Another thing I've noticed is a favorite tactic of creationists is to
build up a terribly overcomplicated straw man version of evolution and
then say "I can't believe this is possible, therefore it can't be
possible."
>> Yet it passes by large vestigials left from bygone eras.
>> The incongruous stories go on and on and on. If it doesn't get suspect to
>> MCoon after awhile, it is because of a high tolerance for "Just-So" stories.
>>
>> Dave
Like the ones in the bible, you mean? Evolution has made these
predictions, and the evidence fits the "Just-So" stories. Disproving
evolution does not prove the bible. It's not an A or B choice. What
evidence can you pull out in support of your theory? None? Didn't
think so.
ark...@spamnotwa.net
Remove 'spamnot' to reply by email
Mega Man fans visit alt.games.megaman
Quint's page of Rockman manga scans: http://www.crosswinds.net/~sakugarne
Arklier
wrote:
>
>
>Dave Woetzel wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules to man
>> transformation.
>
><snip>
>
>That this homocentric perspective is pervasive in most
>critics of evolution is noted, again ... and again and again!
>
>I understand something of the barriers to stepping outside
>of this human centered perspective. They are large and steps
>most are not prepared to take. Interestingly, once outside that
>perspective, few seem to maintain their neovitalistic or
>creationist stance.
>
>Just an opinionated observation.
I'll agree. I think humans terribly overrate themselves, as a species.
Dave Woetzel
Larry Handlin <lbha...@nospam-my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3896809F...@nospam-my-deja.com...
>
>
> Dave Woetzel wrote:
>
> > <big snip to the essence>
> > > Good grief, just because there is more than one way to explain part of
> > > the natural world with evolutionary theory does not in any sense make
> > > the theory, or the theorists, suspect.
> >
> > No, you're absolutely right it doesn't immediately disqualify the
theory.
> > But what DOES begin to make it suspect is when it can explain (with
pompous
> > authority) that natural selection can "see" a tooth inside an organism
and
> > alleged to have caused many examples of convergence in mammalian molars.
> > Yet, as ReMine says, natural selection was unable to see the mammal-like
> > reptiles in the midst of having their jaw bones radically displaced into
the
the
> > whales evolved form four-legged mammals who returned from the sea. The
> > waters were already full of advanced predators and competitors. Imagine
the
> > challenge as land-roving animals lost their legs and underwent total
body
> > transformation. Natural selection somehow could not eliminate these
> > misfits.
>
> No, it did not would be the theory.
Huh?
>Why should they have not survived? Why
> were they not fit? You haven't answered this question so your objection
is
> largely nonsense.
Elsewhere evolutionists use the introduction of "advanced predators" as the
story to explain extinction. Yet the seas were full of just such advanced
predators. If the whales were "fit" then they would not have needed to
undergo wholesale transformation (pelvis, thermal insulation, eating,
breathing, sight, hearing and navigation apparatus). If they were not fit,
they should have been efficiently wiped out...this was not an "unoccupied
niche." Does this awkward scenario (which supposedly happened in whales,
seals, ichthyosaurs, etc.) present an opportunity to falsify evolution?
Absolutely not. The story can change in a heartbeat to paint some other
scenario. The point is that the various stories are incongruous,
illustrating that evolution is not a tight theory that makes useful
predictions. It is a smorgasbord of different theories, each pulled out of
the hat and triumphantly presented to solve a particular problem and then
discarded as the next scenario arises(sexual reproduction, Haldane's
Dilemma, Irreducible Complexity, local hills in the fitness terrain,
tautology of fitness, etc.).
> > Moreover evolutionists claim this awkward transition
> > occurred many times independently. Natural selection is said to have
superb
> > "vision" to see down to the level of proteins, creating convergence on
the
> > molecular level.
>
> No vision is needed. If a mutation occurs that makes one less fit it
> disappears. A mutation that is positive generally sticks around.
Define "a mutation that is positive." I'm particularly interested in your
definition as it pertains to a complex fitness terrain and polygeny. Maybe
you have a novel solution to Haldane's Dilemma!
Dave
Dave Woetzel
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:rtqc9skp0kbtabad4...@4ax.com...
> |
> |"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological
> |fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars and the
> |formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand
> |subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and
> |religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we
are
> |enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process.
Evolution
> |in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially
> |irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to
an
> |increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its
> |products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the
whole
> |of reality is evolution-a single process of self-transformation."
(Huxley,
> |Julian, "Evolution and Genetics," in _What is Science?_ edited by J. R.
> |Newman, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955, pp. 272-278)
>
> modification" then it is, in essence, a synonym for time. For the
> process of time does seem to be that each "moment" is a slight
> variation of the moment before. Please note that this is an
> observation, not a tautology. The world could work some other way. For
> example, things could have a sudden beginning, a creation event. But
> they don't see to, they seem to have history and to develop via a
> process. If we observed things that did not seem to have a history, if
> we observed sudden creation, then we would have different ways to
> describe and explain the world.
Now I'm puzzled by what type of world you are envisioning. How can having a
"sudden beginning, a creation event" be at odds with things that "seem to
have history and to develop via a process?" IOW, what kind of creation
event would not appear to have a history? It is a bit of chicken and egg
scenario, no? Can you envision trees without rings, rivers without a bed,
flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
Dave
Dave Woetzel
> > Take the fundamental concept of natural selection. Darwinists are
>> adept at inventing a "Just So" story to
> > explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that could
falsify
> > survival of the fittest.
>
>
> One possible falsification of survival of the fittest is if extinction
didn't
> occur. You can't conceive of it because the evidence of extinction is so
> overwhelming. But if every species ever alive were still alive,
evolutionary
> theory would be false. Or perhaps if most were.
Come on, Larry! Where is your imagination suddenly? How convenient it is
to suddenly NOT be able to invent a story! If species never went extinct
Darwinists would only have to slightly modify the story. There would still
be cosmic evolution, abiogenesis, common descent and macro-evolution. New
species could still evolve and leave the ancestral form intact as they
populated new niches. If evolution is merely change in a population, than
evolution happens every time a new organism joins the population (not
requiring extinction). There would be PLENTY of evolution still. In fact,
there are any number of "living fossils," that have not evolved nor become
extinct. Yet evolutionists make up plenty of stories about them as well.
I'm still waiting for a scenario that could falsify evolution. Darwin tried
to give his theory scientific footing by suggesting that if one found a
species altruistically serving another with no gain for itself, it would
"annihilate my theory." Futuyma suggests that a flower that provides nectar
but does not require pollination would be an example (Futuyma, 1983, p.
123). Yet the common dandelion is just such a flower! Has it stopped the
Darwinists in their tracks? No, they merely suggests that the dandelion
must have lost the ability to reproduce sexually. In the end the test is
empty and nothing can actually falsify natural selection.
> Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil
record or
> no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed this
out
> actually.
<snip>
What? Are you pretending that the fossil record exhibits phylogeny? I'll
let you argue that out with your ilk of the P.E. persuasion!
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/link/link.htm
> > It is metaphysical (or depending on the
> > definition, perhaps tautologous). Evolution adapts to data like fog to
a
> > landscape. This comfortably shelters the particular portion of the
theory
> > from the scientific arena. But if it is unfalsifiable, it ceases to be
> > science. Therefore it can not be a scientific fact.
> >
>
> Perhaps you should read a very basic introduction to evolution not written
by
> Creationists. Claiming that evolutionary theory requires things that it
does
> not posit is not a very effective strategy.
I've read Gould, Hawkins, Kitcher, Hawking and plenty of others. Since you
claim I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll look forward to a detailed
discussion of the fitness terrain, polygeny and Haldane's Dilemma in the
parallel thread.
> Bye now,
> Larry Handlin
>
> By the way, I haven't been playing close attention to your posts. Have
you
> offered a competing theory? I'm always interested in Creationists
claiming that
> evolution is incorrect and assuming that means Creationism is yet never
> providing an actual theory to support Creationism.
Completely irrelevant. If evolution is not science, then the truth should
be told--regardless if I have another theory or not. As it happens, the
topic of ID theory comes up rather often. I'll catch up with you on one of
those threads when time permits.
Regards,
Dave
webslave
(Paul Allen Panks) wrote:
>Hi-
>
>
>Manan Shah (aru...@home.com) wrote:
>: "The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.
Those opposed to
>: the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from
prominent scientists
>: out of context to claim that scientists do not support
evolution. However,
>: examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are
actually
>: disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether
evolution
>: occurred. "
>: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html
>
>Sure...If you go to Dallas, the consensus around The Dallas
Cowboys is
>overwhelming. If you go to church, the consensus for Jesus of
Nazareth is
>overwhelming. Depends on the filter you look through, man!
As I've often argued with with creationists - trust no one and
never accept any one source of information.
What is likely to be true is often defined by the fact it works
across disaplines, cultures etc etc. Evolution is understood and
used around the world, more so than Jesus which is limited by
culture. What is also worth noting is where there is objection
against evolution the objection has little commonality. In
other words each person appears to be making up their own reason
which to me hints that it does not come from an objective source
but is mearly subjective opinion.
In other words you want to find out what's going on you get many
different points of view, where they over lap you may well have
something.
stew dean
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Matt Silberstein
<dwoe...@juno.com>:
[snip]
|Now I'm puzzled by what type of world you are envisioning. How can having a
|"sudden beginning, a creation event" be at odds with things that "seem to
|have history and to develop via a process?" IOW, what kind of creation
|event would not appear to have a history? It is a bit of chicken and egg
|scenario, no? Can you envision trees without rings, rivers without a bed,
|flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
Sure can. Why not? If God is going to suddenly create a tree why give
it growth rings? Why put deposit layers in a river that suddenly
appears? Why create a new organism that looks quite like an older one
and make its DNA such that it does not just resemble some other
organism, it fits into the specific pattern of nested morphology. The
Moon does not need craters, stars to not have to fit into sequences
that fit rules of physics. I am envisioning a world in which multiple
creation events take place and that world, ISTM, would look different
than one that changes through time. Sure, the creation events *could*
look exactly like evolved/changed ones. But that support Last
Thursdayism quite well. Or that God slipped in a doppleganger for you
for 10 seconds last night.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact,
print the fact.
From _The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance_
ro...@my-deja.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> <big snip to the essence>
> > Good grief, just because there is more than one way to explain part
of
> > the natural world with evolutionary theory does not in any sense
make
> > the theory, or the theorists, suspect.
>
> No, you're absolutely right it doesn't immediately disqualify the
theory.
> But what DOES begin to make it suspect is when it can explain (with
pompous
> authority) that natural selection can "see" a tooth inside an
organism and
> eliminate those individuals whose molars lack the proper shape. This
is
> alleged to have caused many examples of convergence in mammalian
molars.
This is delt with in someone else's post, but quickly:
If a type of tooth or a configuration of teeth give an animal an
advantage in eating its food, NS will favor that animal.
Pretty simple.
> Yet, as ReMine says, natural selection was unable to see the mammal-
like
> reptiles in the midst of having their jaw bones radically displaced
into the
> middle ear to form the delicate mammalian hearing apparatus.
You trust Remine?
You are more foolish than I thought.
There were four bones making up the jaw. As one became longer and
stronger, the others were less and less necessary.
As they were no longer necessary as part of the jaw, they began
affecting hearing.
Do you want the links to the transitional series ?
>Allegedly the
> whales evolved form four-legged mammals who returned from the sea.
The
> waters were already full of advanced predators and competitors.
Imagine the
> challenge as land-roving animals lost their legs and underwent total
body
> transformation. Natural selection somehow could not eliminate these
> misfits.
LOL!
This is really bad.
Please tell me how modern predators are wiping out seals, sea lions
and other animals that apear to be making their way back to the sea?
If seals, penguins and sea lions can make it, why not the whale
ancestors?
>By all rights, such animals should have been wiped out soon after
> they entered the sea. Moreover evolutionists claim this awkward
transition
> occurred many times independently.
And is happening now.
We observe it. That is why, along with the fossils and vestigual limbs,
we know it happened with wales.
>Natural selection is said to have superb
> "vision" to see down to the level of proteins, creating convergence
on the
> molecular level.
Not vision.
You really need to read a science book and find out what Natural
Selection really is all about. You seem to have no clue.
>Yet it passes by large vestigials left from bygone eras.
And is passing by some today.
> The incongruous stories go on and on and on. If it doesn't get
suspect to
> MCoon after awhile, it is because of a high tolerance for "Just-So"
stories.
No, it is because you do not understand the science. Reading creations
stories will get you in trouble when you talk to scientist.
Creationist lie.
Rod #613
Peter Nyikos
of Paul Gans, who pulled a standard bait-and-switch, first harping
on a purely biological "FACT of evolution" that doesn't even
entail actual evolution, and then switched with:
"An evolutionist believes that there are natural explanations for
the observed facts. An evolutionist does not go about looking
for designers, interventionists, and the like."
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> writes:
[...]
> "Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has
>brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue doing
>remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the evolutionary
>process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the
>Cosmos, become conscious of itself. .Evolution comprises all the stages of
>the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or
>cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to
>biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic
>nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." (Dobzhansky,
>Theodosius, "Changing Man," _Science_, vol. 155, no. 3761, January 27, 1967,
>p. 409)
No wonder atheist Myers was so rabidly defensive about Dobzhansky--
Theodosius was his kind of man.
It is interesting, just the same, to compare what Dobzhansky
says here with the Dobzhansky idiocy that was the subject
of the whole brouhaha: "Nothing in biology makes sense except
in the light of evolution".
[...]
>"This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly
>faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and
>stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and
>values--indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution.... In the
>evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for
>the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the
>animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and
>soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.... Finally, the
>evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the
>lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the
>needs of the coming era." (Julian Huxley during the 1959 celebration of 100
>years of _Origin_ in Chicago. Cited in Phillip Johnson, _Darwin on Trial_,
>1993, 152-3.)
So just what DID Julian Huxley have in mind when he called himself an
"agnostic" after the fashion of his father Thomas? Emergent
pantheism?
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Peter Nyikos
>Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil record or
>no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed this out
>actually.
>This claim is rather bizarre.
Arguing with yourself? ;-)
But seriously, I'd love to see what you mean by "no intermediary
fossils". None whatsoever? Is even one intermediary fossil
enough to de-falsify common descent? I would hope not.
Also, just what do you mean by "sudden departures in the
fossil record"? If the Cambrian explosion is not enough of
a sudden departure for you, just what *would* be sudden
enough to falsify common descent in your mind?
Please note, I don't think the Cambrian explosion is enough
to falsify common descent. My problem is just the opposite:
I can't conceive of anything, given what we already know,
that would falsify common descent except for contact with
an intelligent entity that viewed what actually happened
in the course of earth's history, and documented something
other than common descent.
IOW, I *do* think your claim is rather bizarre, although
I know you were referring to a different claim.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Peter Nyikos
>Dave Woetzel wrote:
>> <big snip to the essence>
>> > Good grief, just because there is more than one way to explain part of
>> > the natural world with evolutionary theory does not in any sense make
>> > the theory, or the theorists, suspect.
>>
>> No, you're absolutely right it doesn't immediately disqualify the theory.
>> But what DOES begin to make it suspect is when it can explain (with pompous
>> authority) that natural selection can "see" a tooth inside an organism and
>> eliminate those individuals whose molars lack the proper shape. This is
>> alleged to have caused many examples of convergence in mammalian molars.
>> Yet, as ReMine says, natural selection was unable to see the mammal-like
>> reptiles in the midst of having their jaw bones radically displaced into the
>> middle ear to form the delicate mammalian hearing apparatus. Allegedly the
>> whales evolved form four-legged mammals who returned from the sea. The
>> waters were already full of advanced predators and competitors. Imagine the
>> challenge as land-roving animals lost their legs and underwent total body
>> transformation. Natural selection somehow could not eliminate these
>> misfits.
Misfits? Is the sea otter a misfit? Is the seal? Is the dugong?
These are all creatures that represent successive levels of adaptation
to the sea, which presumably is full of advanced predators and
competitors, and they don't seem to be in any danger of being
wiped out, except by the most advanced predator of all, H. sapiens.
>No, it did not would be the theory. Why should they have not survived? Why
>were they not fit? You haven't answered this question so your objection is
>largely nonsense.
I agree with you on this, although I find myself agreeing
with Woetzel on some other issues.
>> By all rights, such animals should have been wiped out soon after
>> they entered the sea.
>WHY? What specific problem do you have with the ancestor? Which ancestor was
>not fit and how so?
Yes, I'd like to see Dave try and answer this one.
Peter Nyikos
Arklier <ark...@spamnot.hotmail.com> writes:
>On 31 Jan 2000 19:05:30 -0500, Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>Dave Woetzel wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules to man
>>> transformation.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>That this homocentric perspective is pervasive in most
>>critics of evolution is noted, again ... and again and again!
>>
>>I understand something of the barriers to stepping outside
>>of this human centered perspective. They are large and steps
>>most are not prepared to take. Interestingly, once outside that
>>perspective, few seem to maintain their neovitalistic or
>>creationist stance.
>>
>>Just an opinionated observation.
>I'll agree. I think humans terribly overrate themselves, as a species.
To what extent? What do you say to what I wrote in
the following article, posted about an hour ago?
Same question for Hines.
===================== begin included post
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Nonzero; the logic of human destiny
References: <874g53$qgc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <38947B55...@dcn.davis.ca.us>
Syvanen, apparently having posting problems, signed a
post from the account of:
Sue Greenwald <sue...@dcn.davis.ca.us> writes:
>mcoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> Folks
>>
>> This Sunday's NYT Book Review had an article on Robert Wright's book
>> "Nonzero; the logic of human destiny". It deals with (I gather) design
>> in human cultures, and an evidently eschatological course of human
>> development that is reflected in the natural world and one that,
>> according to the reviewer, does not require a theologic explanation.
>>
>> Have any of you read this? If so what do you think?
>>
>> Before I cough up the dough for the book, I'd like to hear if it's any
>> better than his previous book, The Moral Animal. The NYT reviewer,
>> Simon Conway Morris, was ambivalent about the book's literary qualites
>> (said that Wright refused to pull the trigger) but seemed to think the
>> book was a provocative and thoughtful read over-all.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Back to lurker mode.
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
> I think this could be a good book. Not so much because I agree with
>it, but because it is a antidote to all that talk evolution of life has no
>directionality, we cannot speak of progress, it is totally random, and
>other garbage from the world's foremost pop-evolutionist.
>Mike Syvanen
Are you referring to Dawkins? That doesn't sound exactly
like him. But I agree, there is a lot of that kind of
stuff going around, including numerous claims right here
in t.o. that it is anthropomorphic
to think there is anything special about intelligence--the
implication, I suppose, being that the earth was just as "valuable"
a place 3 billion years ago as it is today, what with all that
prokaryotic life, which is still the "dominant" kind of
life today.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
=================================== end of included post
Michael
> Larry Handlin <lbha...@nospam-my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil record or
> >no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed this out
> >actually.
>
> >This claim is rather bizarre.
>
> Arguing with yourself? ;-)
>
> But seriously, I'd love to see what you mean by "no intermediary
> fossils". None whatsoever? Is even one intermediary fossil
> enough to de-falsify common descent? I would hope not.
>
> Also, just what do you mean by "sudden departures in the
> fossil record"? If the Cambrian explosion is not enough of
> a sudden departure for you, just what *would* be sudden
> enough to falsify common descent in your mind?
>
> Please note, I don't think the Cambrian explosion is enough
> to falsify common descent. My problem is just the opposite:
> I can't conceive of anything, given what we already know,
> that would falsify common descent except for contact with
> an intelligent entity that viewed what actually happened
> in the course of earth's history, and documented something
> other than common descent.
I've got one. A true transitional fossil between advanced
mammals and birds. Since the two lineages diverged way
before mammals were mammals and birds were birds, this
should be impossible. Better yet, several of these. By true
transitional, I mean not counting a bat as a "transitional".
Another one would be the discovery of a transitional series
between fish and whales without going through amphibians,
reptiles, and mammals.
Yet another would be the discovery that genetic analysis
are more correlated with environment than the nested
heirarchy. An example of this would be fish and whales
being more genetically similar than whales and hippos.
Or maybe bats and birds being genetically closer to each
other than to other mammals or birds, respectively.
Any of these discoveries could disprove evolution, or
at the very least be firm evidence against it.
Mike
Howard Hershey
Dave Woetzel wrote:
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:rtqc9skp0kbtabad4...@4ax.com...
> > In talk.origins I read this message from "Dave Woetzel"
> > <dwoe...@juno.com>:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > |Then you need to get out and about a bit more...
> > |
> > |"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological
> > |fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars and the
> > |formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand
> > |subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and
> > |religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we
> are
> > |enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process.
> Evolution
> > |in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially
> > |irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to
> an
> > |increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its
> > |products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the
> whole
> > |of reality is evolution-a single process of self-transformation."
> (Huxley,
> > |Julian, "Evolution and Genetics," in _What is Science?_ edited by J. R.
> > |Newman, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955, pp. 272-278)
> >
> > If we take evolution (root meaning unfolding) to mean "descent with
> > modification" then it is, in essence, a synonym for time. For the
> > process of time does seem to be that each "moment" is a slight
> > variation of the moment before. Please note that this is an
> > observation, not a tautology. The world could work some other way. For
> > example, things could have a sudden beginning, a creation event. But
> > they don't see to, they seem to have history and to develop via a
> > process. If we observed things that did not seem to have a history, if
> > we observed sudden creation, then we would have different ways to
> > describe and explain the world.
>
> Now I'm puzzled by what type of world you are envisioning. How can having a
> "sudden beginning, a creation event" be at odds with things that "seem to
> have history and to develop via a process?" IOW, what kind of creation
> event would not appear to have a history? It is a bit of chicken and egg
> scenario, no? Can you envision trees without rings, rivers without a bed,
> flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
Yes. Instantaneous creation, no matter of what or when, *requires* exactly
these
omphalic 'false appearances of age', as you point out. But how does one
distinguish,
using the rules and methodology of science, between this 'false appearance of
age' so
obviously carefully calculated to mislead the observer from the 'real' past?
At which
point does the God-created material evidence of a fantasy past historical
record cease
and observable material reality take hold?
I am quite sure that Gosse, who was no dummy, was aware of this when he wrote
his belly-button defense book.
I would say that your real problem is time (or the false appearance of time
insinuated
by the magical creator to mislead us into thinking that there is a past
history). There
is simply too much of it.
Demonstrate the clear material evidence that congruently states that the earth
is only
6000 years and that all the evidence of nature can be explained in this time
frame (that *all*
the radioisotope data either show nothing or can be explained in the physics
that also
implies the 6000 year old earth) and, trust me, disproving evolution will not
be a problem;
evolution would be an interesting hypothesis with no possible natural mechanism
--
given a 6000 year old earth.
But it is not enough to merely say that some of the rocks do not give the
expected
answer using radiodating techniques. You have to have some technique that
demonstrates
a 6000 year old earth. And be able to consistently explain the earth's geology
within that
timeframe.
>
>
> Dave
Michael
> Larry Handlin <lbha...@nospam-my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:3896809F...@nospam-my-deja.com...
> >
> >
> > No, it did not would be the theory.
>
> Huh?
>
> >Why should they have not survived? Why
> > were they not fit? You haven't answered this question so your objection
> is
> > largely nonsense.
>
> Elsewhere evolutionists use the introduction of "advanced predators" as the
> story to explain extinction. Yet the seas were full of just such advanced
> predators.
Actually most of the really advanced predators were wiped out in the
KT extinction. This left all sorts of niches open -- resulting in the
dramatic radiation of mammals.
> If the whales were "fit" then they would not have needed to
> undergo wholesale transformation (pelvis, thermal insulation, eating,
> breathing, sight, hearing and navigation apparatus). If they were not fit,
> they should have been efficiently wiped out...this was not an "unoccupied
> niche."
Yes, it was.
> Does this awkward scenario (which supposedly happened in whales,
> seals, ichthyosaurs, etc.) present an opportunity to falsify evolution?
> Absolutely not. The story can change in a heartbeat to paint some other
> scenario.
We're not just making this up. There are transitional fossils which show
this progression. Or should we ignore those because you don't think
its possible?
> The point is that the various stories are incongruous,
> illustrating that evolution is not a tight theory that makes useful
> predictions.
Sure it does. It predicts that we will find reptile/bird transitional fossils
and not mammal/bird. It predicted that we would find transitonals between
lobe-finned fishes and amphibians -- we did. It predicted we would
find land mammal/whale transitionals (as opposed to fish/whale transitionals)
and we did.
> It is a smorgasbord of different theories, each pulled out of
> the hat and triumphantly presented to solve a particular problem and then
> discarded as the next scenario arises(sexual reproduction, Haldane's
> Dilemma, Irreducible Complexity, local hills in the fitness terrain,
> tautology of fitness, etc.).
I think you are confusing the theory (natural selection and common descent)
with individual events (land mammal to whale evolution). We didn't
change the basic theory to account for whale evolution, did we? Its still
selection and common descent. Sure, we don't know eactly what was
fit and what wasn't at the time, but the fossil evidence indicates that
the "misfits" did exist (and probably thrived).
>
>
> > > Moreover evolutionists claim this awkward transition
> > > occurred many times independently. Natural selection is said to have
> superb
> > > "vision" to see down to the level of proteins, creating convergence on
> the
> > > molecular level.
What molecular level convergence? This could be a good one.
>
> >
> > No vision is needed. If a mutation occurs that makes one less fit it
> > disappears. A mutation that is positive generally sticks around.
>
> Define "a mutation that is positive." I'm particularly interested in your
> definition as it pertains to a complex fitness terrain and polygeny. Maybe
> you have a novel solution to Haldane's Dilemma!
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance in mosquitos, etc.
Mike
Michael
>
> I'm still waiting for a scenario that could falsify evolution. Darwin tried
> to give his theory scientific footing by suggesting that if one found a
> species altruistically serving another with no gain for itself, it would
> "annihilate my theory." Futuyma suggests that a flower that provides nectar
> but does not require pollination would be an example (Futuyma, 1983, p.
> 123). Yet the common dandelion is just such a flower! Has it stopped the
> Darwinists in their tracks? No, they merely suggests that the dandelion
> must have lost the ability to reproduce sexually. In the end the test is
> empty and nothing can actually falsify natural selection.
I'm not sure you can say that a dandelion acts "altruistically".
As for falsifying evolution (common descent actually), how about
a true mammal-bird transitional (no, bat doesn't count). One with
the forelimbs evolving into bird-like wings (fused hand-bones, etc).
SInce these two groups diverged well before the derived features
for either evolved, then such a transitional shouldn't exist. If we
found one of these (or better yet a whole series linking birds independently
to both mammals and reptiles) it would be a serious blow to evolution.
>
>
> > Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil
> record or
> > no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed this
> out
> > actually.
> <snip>
>
> What? Are you pretending that the fossil record exhibits phylogeny? I'll
> let you argue that out with your ilk of the P.E. persuasion!
> http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/link/link.htm
>
Ooh, out-of-context quotes. I'm so scared. Come on Dave, you're better
than this. If all you can do is snip quotes to make your point, its not worth
making.
Mike
ro...@my-deja.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:rtqc9skp0kbtabad4...@4ax.com...
> > In talk.origins I read this message from "Dave Woetzel"
> > <dwoe...@juno.com>:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > modification" then it is, in essence, a synonym for time. For the
> > process of time does seem to be that each "moment" is a slight
> > variation of the moment before. Please note that this is an
> > observation, not a tautology. The world could work some other way.
For
> > example, things could have a sudden beginning, a creation event. But
> > they don't see to, they seem to have history and to develop via a
> > process. If we observed things that did not seem to have a history,
if
> > we observed sudden creation, then we would have different ways to
> > describe and explain the world.
>
> Now I'm puzzled by what type of world you are envisioning. How can
having a
> "sudden beginning, a creation event" be at odds with things that
"seem to
> have history and to develop via a process?" IOW, what kind of
creation
> event would not appear to have a history? It is a bit of chicken and
egg
> scenario, no? Can you envision trees without rings, rivers without a
bed,
> flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
Sure. God did it.
The world we see does not lok like the instant creation of the bible.
It looks like a world with life that evolved.
Rod #613
> Dave
Neil W Rickert
> My problem is just the opposite:
>I can't conceive of anything, given what we already know,
>that would falsify common descent except for contact with
>an intelligent entity that viewed what actually happened
>in the course of earth's history, and documented something
>other than common descent.
I don't see this as a problem. The best scientific theories are all
unfalsifiable, bad philosophy to the contrary notwithstanding.
Adam Noel Harris
:On 31 Jan 2000 19:05:30 -0500, Wade Hines <wad...@ix.netcom.com>
:wrote:
:>Dave Woetzel wrote:
:>
:><snip>
:>
:>> In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules to man
:>> transformation.
:>
:><snip>
:>
:>That this homocentric perspective is pervasive in most
:>critics of evolution is noted, again ... and again and again!
:I'll agree. I think humans terribly overrate themselves, as a species.
Note the thread in which one poster ponders if evolution on earth is the
result of a breeding experiment by aliens (read: God) and seems to assume
that, since we're here now, we must be the end result, or close to it.
No, make that since we're here _now_. No, _now_....
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Larry Handlin
Dave Woetzel wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > Take the fundamental concept of natural selection. Darwinists are
> >> adept at inventing a "Just So" story to
> > > explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that could
> falsify
> > > survival of the fittest.
> >
> > You should change the word "One" above to I.
> >
> > One possible falsification of survival of the fittest is if extinction
> didn't
> > occur. You can't conceive of it because the evidence of extinction is so
> > overwhelming. But if every species ever alive were still alive,
> evolutionary
> > theory would be false. Or perhaps if most were.
>
> Come on, Larry!
> Where is your imagination suddenly?
I'm not the one with an imagination problem. You are the one who
couldn't falsify evolution. I showed you how. Now you are moving the
goal post. Nice try.
>How convenient it is
> to suddenly NOT be able to invent a story! If species never went extinct
> Darwinists would only have to slightly modify the story.
No, the biological theory of evolution would be false. And you still
haven't explained why it wouldn't except to claim that scientists would
move the goal posts.
>There would still
> be cosmic evolution, abiogenesis, common descent and macro-evolution.|
Ummmm..what are you talking about here. You have lumped together
several concepts without understanding them apparently.
New
> species could still evolve and leave the ancestral form intact as they
> populated new niches. If evolution is merely change in a population, than
> evolution happens every time a new organism joins the population (not
> requiring extinction). There would be PLENTY of evolution still.
Different tenet now, but nice try again. You asked how to falsify the
natural selection portion of the biological theory of evolutions. I
answered. Now you have very conveniently moved on to the common descent
portion of which I also offered you a falsification of as well.
In the case of survival of the fittest if there were not extinct species
or even very few the current biological theory of evolution would be
false. Perhaps we would have another theory called evolution, but that
would not mean that it would have the same tenets. The thing about
science is that you have to argue what is here and what the evidence
is. You seem unable to do so.
Perhaps you would have evolution in terms of common descent, but I
already offered you falsification of that idea as well.
In fact,
> there are any number of "living fossils," that have not evolved nor become
> extinct. Yet evolutionists make up plenty of stories about them as well.
>
You never seem to cite anything except quotes. Could you offer some real
sources. Like something based upon peer reviewed research? Or what is
your conspiracy theory about peer review?
> I'm still waiting for a scenario that could falsify evolution.
I gave it to you.
>Darwin tried
> to give his theory scientific footing by suggesting that if one found a
> species altruistically serving another with no gain for itself, it would
> "annihilate my theory." Futuyma suggests that a flower that provides nectar
> but does not require pollination would be an example (Futuyma, 1983, p.
> 123). Yet the common dandelion is just such a flower! Has it stopped the
> Darwinists in their tracks? No, they merely suggests that the dandelion
> must have lost the ability to reproduce sexually. In the end the test is
> empty and nothing can actually falsify natural selection.
>
> > Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil
> record or
> > no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed this
> out
> > actually.
> <snip>
>
> What? Are you pretending that the fossil record exhibits phylogeny? I'll
> let you argue that out with your ilk of the P.E. persuasion!
> http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/link/link.htm
>
Ummmm...quotes out of context. WOW! I repeat my request from above.
By the way where is your theory?
It is relevant and this has been pointed out to you. You wish to argue
that it isn't true yet there are millions of pieces of evidence that you
need to explain better than the current theory to destroy the current
one. So far you haven't offered a substantive argument that is based on
the actual biological theory of evolution.
>If evolution is not science, then the truth should
> be told--regardless if I have another theory or not. As it happens, the
> topic of ID theory comes up rather often. I'll catch up with you on one of
> those threads when time permits.
>
Why not just offer your theory? What is holding you back. Offer it
clearly and concisely now. I don't think you have a scientific theory.
Prove me wrong.
> Regards,
> Dave
John Segerson
has
> brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue
doing
> remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the
evolutionary
> process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of
the
> Cosmos, become conscious of itself. .Evolution comprises all the
stages of
> the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or
> cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution
to
> biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of
inorganic
> nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." (Dobzhansky,
> Theodosius, "Changing Man," _Science_, vol. 155, no. 3761, January
27, 1967,
> p. 409)
>
> > > smorgasbord
This is a problem? Selection acts through the environment on the
phenotype of organisms. Neither the environment nor the phenotype are
fixed. The "fitness landscape" is not a fixed surface. The
environment changes and populations with phenotypic factors affording
a net reproductive advantage are more successful as descendants.
John
> > >Take the fundamental concept of
> > > > natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just
So"
> > > story to
> > > > explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that
could
> > > falsify
> > > > survival of the fittest.
> >
> > As David surely knows survival of the fittest is not Darwin's term.
Be
> that
> > as it may, if every last offspring of an organism survived, that
would
> > falsify survival of the fittest. Alternately, if organisms produced
NO
> > offspring, that would falsify the concept also. The fact that
creatures
> > produce more offspring than can survive, and that the ones who do
survive
> to
> > the next generation are the ones that best fit their enviroment,
validates
> > the concept.
>
> Contrary to what Dana suggests, it would be trivially easy for
Darwinists to
> explain NO offspring. It would be the ultimate in natural
> selection...selecting that organism for extinction. One could
envision a
> whole world of organisms becoming extinct and leaving other planets
upon
> which life survives. But all this is beside the point. We are
assuming
> there is survival. That was observed quite a bit before Darwin. :)
The
> question at hand involves survival of the *fittest*. I'd like Dana
to begin
> by defining fitness. Then we'll discuss if survival of the fittest
is
> falsifiable.
Paul J Gans
>The wheel has come full circle. The thread title is the brainchild
>of Paul Gans, who pulled a standard bait-and-switch, first harping
>on a purely biological "FACT of evolution" that doesn't even
>entail actual evolution, and then switched with:
> "An evolutionist believes that there are natural explanations for
> the observed facts. An evolutionist does not go about looking
> for designers, interventionists, and the like."
[...]
Peter Nyikos said "bait-and-switch". But later he
changed to "harping".
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
mel turner
In article <87745d$g...@ux.cs.niu.edu>, ricke...@cs.niu.edu wrote...
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> writes:
>
>> My problem is just the opposite:
>>I can't conceive of anything, given what we already know,
This "given what we already know" seems to be the rub. We do _now_
know about an overwhelming amount of data supporting common descent,
and we also now know about a lack of several types of possible data
contradicting it. This isn't any reflection on the _potential_
possibility of falsifying common descent. If reality had been very
different and we had learned different facts since the common descent
model was first proposed, it would have been rejected long ago.
[Things like no "twin nested hierarchies", or no molecular-genetics
mechanisms permitting mutations, or no hint at any succession in the
fossil record, or very clear evidence of a 6000 year-old earth, etc.
...]
Still, there is always the potential for new facts that would defy
any common-descent explanation, but yes, such would not be likely to
overturn the rest of the evidence from all the data we already know
about. [i.e., we might possibly find that some organisms or some
traits really don't fit, and will need some separate explanation from
the evolutionary common descent that covers the rest of the data so
well. Finding strong evidence that some life form is of completely
separate origin from all the rest would probably only falsify the
common descent hypothesis _for it_.]
>>that would falsify common descent except for contact with
>>an intelligent entity that viewed what actually happened
>>in the course of earth's history, and documented something
>>other than common descent.
And that's because the evidence for common descent is now that
strong. It would take similarly amazing new evidence to supplant the
fertilization-and-gestation theory with the stork-theory of babies.
That's as it should be.
>I don't see this as a problem. The best scientific theories are all
>unfalsifiable, bad philosophy to the contrary notwithstanding.
cheers
Howard Hershey
Michael wrote:
>
> Dave Woetzel wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm still waiting for a scenario that could falsify evolution. Darwin tried
> > to give his theory scientific footing by suggesting that if one found a
> > species altruistically serving another with no gain for itself, it would
> > "annihilate my theory." Futuyma suggests that a flower that provides nectar
> > but does not require pollination would be an example (Futuyma, 1983, p.
> > 123). Yet the common dandelion is just such a flower! Has it stopped the
> > Darwinists in their tracks? No, they merely suggests that the dandelion
> > must have lost the ability to reproduce sexually. In the end the test is
> > empty and nothing can actually falsify natural selection.
>
> I'm not sure you can say that a dandelion acts "altruistically".
Especially since the asexuality of the dandelion is clearly *derived*
from an ancestor who engaged in sexuality. That is, the type of
sexuality it exhibits involves a modification of meiosis rather than
simple mitosis and differentiation of seed. If I were *designing* an
asexual organism, I certainly would not make so many asexuals that
used different modifications of meiosis when simple mitosis and tissue
differentiation (clearly a mechanism known to the designer) was
available and known (and used in asexual reproduction in many
invertebrates and plants).
It is not a wild guess that the dandelion is derived from a sexually
reproducing ancestor. It was the evidence. The question then would
be whether nectar production in the dandelion has acquired new
selective uses or instead represents the equivalent of eye sockets in
blind cave fish; a hold-over trait from a different past. Evidence of
the *amount* of nectar produced by the dandelion compared to its
evolutionarily closest sexually-reproducing cousins would be of some
interest. Keep in mind that the dandelion is not native to the
Americas but was brought over by Europeans who grew it as a cultivar.
Cultivation often changes plants considerable (witness all the
variations from Brassica).
>
> As for falsifying evolution (common descent actually), how about
> a true mammal-bird transitional (no, bat doesn't count). One with
> the forelimbs evolving into bird-like wings (fused hand-bones, etc).
> SInce these two groups diverged well before the derived features
> for either evolved, then such a transitional shouldn't exist. If we
> found one of these (or better yet a whole series linking birds independently
> to both mammals and reptiles) it would be a serious blow to evolution.
>
> >
> >
> > > Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil
> > record or
> > > no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed this
> > out
> > > actually.
> > <snip>
> >
> > What? Are you pretending that the fossil record exhibits phylogeny?
The fossil record is consistent with the expectations of phylogeny
over long aeons of time. The same fossil record is inconsistent with
the expectations of a 6000 year old earth and with the idea that its
sediments (or some unnamed subset thereof) formed in a one year Flood.
So, if one specifies Creationism in the sense of using it to present
testable hypotheses rather than untestable 'vague' mumbo-jumbo about
hypothetical posited entities producing omphalic solutions, it too can
undergo the same kind of scrutiny that evolutionary ideas are
subjected to. YEC *is* scientific in the sense of being able to
produce testable hypotheses. Of course its explanations are also
*inconsistent* with the evidence of nature, so these explanations are
naturally rejected by science.
> > I'll
> > let you argue that out with your ilk of the P.E. persuasion!
> > http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/link/link.htm
> >
>
tweedyd
Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:876nmf$lpd$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> <snip>
> > > Take the fundamental concept of natural selection. Darwinists are
> >> adept at inventing a "Just So" story to
> > > explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that could
> falsify
> > > survival of the fittest.
> >
> >
> > One possible falsification of survival of the fittest is if extinction
> didn't
> > occur. You can't conceive of it because the evidence of extinction is
so
> > overwhelming. But if every species ever alive were still alive,
> evolutionary
> > theory would be false. Or perhaps if most were.
>
> to suddenly NOT be able to invent a story! If species never went extinct
still
> be cosmic evolution, abiogenesis, common descent and macro-evolution.
Hold it there Bucky,,,, you said "One can't conceive of a situation that
could falsify survival of the fittest" Lary gave you one,, I gave you two
in an earlier posting. Cosmic evolution, abiogenesis, and macro evolution
do not enter into the picture here. You make a foolish claim, and it was
thrown back in your face,, Don't try to change the subject.
>New
> species could still evolve and leave the ancestral form intact as they
> populated new niches.
We aren't talking overall evolution here, just "survival of the fittest", or
more correctly natural selection. Please remember your terms.
.. >If evolution is merely change in a population, than
> evolution happens every time a new organism joins the population (not
> requiring extinction).
Remember, you were talking about "survival of the fittest" not evolution.
As a matter of fact, this is exactly what we do see, new forms evolve out a
popluation, without requiring the parent species to go extinct.
>There would be PLENTY of evolution still. In fact,
> there are any number of "living fossils," that have not evolved nor become
> extinct. Yet evolutionists make up plenty of stories about them as well.
Exactly what stories are those? That they survived because they were well
suited to their enviroment? No one ever said a species HAS to evolve if
they are already well suited to survive.
>
> I'm still waiting for a scenario that could falsify evolution.
Just because you can't think of one, does not mean they don't exist. For
example, if we were to find that offspring share no genetic material with
their parents, that would falsify evolution. If we found that closely
related species, had radically different body chemistry ( ie Wolves were
carbon based life forms, but Dogs were silicon based) that would faslify
evolution. If it were demonstrated that farm animals could not be bred for
specific characteristics, that would falsify evolution.
>Darwin tried
> to give his theory scientific footing by suggesting that if one found a
> species altruistically serving another with no gain for itself, it would
> "annihilate my theory." Futuyma suggests that a flower that provides
nectar
> but does not require pollination would be an example (Futuyma, 1983, p.
> 123). Yet the common dandelion is just such a flower! Has it stopped the
> Darwinists in their tracks? No, they merely suggests that the dandelion
> must have lost the ability to reproduce sexually. In the end the test is
> empty and nothing can actually falsify natural selection.
In other words, the theory adapts to the evidence. Remember natural
selection is just one part of the theory, and as has been shown the concept
is falsifiable.
>
> > Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil
> record or
> > no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed this
> out
> > actually.
> <snip>
>
> What? Are you pretending that the fossil record exhibits phylogeny? I'll
> let you argue that out with your ilk of the P.E. persuasion!
> http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/link/link.htm
Excuse me,, didn't I point out to you before that taking legitimate
scientists out of context is lying?? PE scientists do not deny that
transitionals exist, they simply argue that there aren't as many as some
gradualist models expect. Before you scurry off the quote mine, please spare
us the nit picking and splitting hairs. PE gives no support to Creation.
>
> > > It is metaphysical (or depending on the
> > > definition, perhaps tautologous). Evolution adapts to data like fog
to
> a
> > > landscape. This comfortably shelters the particular portion of the
> theory
> > > from the scientific arena. But if it is unfalsifiable, it ceases to
be
> > > science. Therefore it can not be a scientific fact.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps you should read a very basic introduction to evolution not
written
> by
> > Creationists. Claiming that evolutionary theory requires things that it
> does
> > not posit is not a very effective strategy.
>
> I've read Gould, Hawkins, Kitcher, Hawking and plenty of others. Since
you
> claim I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll look forward to a detailed
> discussion of the fitness terrain, polygeny and Haldane's Dilemma in the
> parallel thread.
Have you actually read the books or just the Creationist quoting them out of
context?? If you actually read the books, then you can't claim you didn't
know you were lying when taking them out of context.
>
> > Bye now,
> > Larry Handlin
> >
> > By the way, I haven't been playing close attention to your posts. Have
> you
> > offered a competing theory? I'm always interested in Creationists
> claiming that
> > evolution is incorrect and assuming that means Creationism is yet never
> > providing an actual theory to support Creationism.
>
> Completely irrelevant. If evolution is not science, then the truth should
> be told--regardless if I have another theory or not. As it happens, the
> topic of ID theory comes up rather often. I'll catch up with you on one
of
> those threads when time permits.
Typical dodge. Evolution is science, but even if it weren't that still
wouldn't support your YEC claims.
If the topic of ID theory comes up "rather often" then you wouldn't
mind acutally giving us the theory? Or do you run back to your quote mine,
and lie to us some more??
--
Dana J. Tweedy
(animal bipes implume)
tweedyd
>
snippage
> > If we take evolution (root meaning unfolding) to mean "descent with
> > modification" then it is, in essence, a synonym for time. For the
> > process of time does seem to be that each "moment" is a slight
> > variation of the moment before. Please note that this is an
> > observation, not a tautology. The world could work some other way. For
> > example, things could have a sudden beginning, a creation event. But
> > they don't see to, they seem to have history and to develop via a
> > process. If we observed things that did not seem to have a history, if
> > we observed sudden creation, then we would have different ways to
> > describe and explain the world.
>
> Now I'm puzzled by what type of world you are envisioning. How can having
a
> "sudden beginning, a creation event" be at odds with things that "seem to
> have history and to develop via a process?" IOW, what kind of creation
> event would not appear to have a history? It is a bit of chicken and egg
> scenario, no? Can you envision trees without rings, rivers without a bed,
> flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
>
> Dave
>
>
Ah, the old "Adam's Navel" argument, I was wondering how long it would take
Dave to get around to this one.
You seem to be saying that God created things with a built in history.
Trees have to have rings, rivers have to have beds,, landscape needs
topsoil. Therefore God went and created these things already in place, so
they would look like they had a history. The problem with this idea, is
that it implies that God is lying to us. Of course being a liar yourself,
you wouldn't see any problem with this, but for many Christians a lying God
is unacceptable.
If this scenario were to be followed to its logical conclusion, there
would be no reason to believe that the earth could not have been created
last week, with everyone's memories intact. How do you falsify such a
claim?
Why would God create a world 6000 years ago, but plant evidence that it
is much older? Why would a God who wanted us to believe in inerrant
scripture, place so much evidence that contradicts that scripture? Why
would God give us intellect to examine the world, and then expect that we
reject the evidence we find? Does any of that make sense?
Larry Handlin
>
> >Why should they have not survived? Why
> > were they not fit? You haven't answered this question so your objection
> is
> > largely nonsense.
>
> Elsewhere evolutionists use the introduction of "advanced predators" as the
> story to explain extinction. Yet the seas were full of just such advanced
> undergo wholesale transformation (pelvis, thermal insulation, eating,
> breathing, sight, hearing and navigation apparatus). If they were not fit,
> they should have been efficiently wiped out...this was not an "unoccupied
> seals, ichthyosaurs, etc.) present an opportunity to falsify evolution?
>
a possible reason. Do you have any evidence?
>Absolutely not. The story can change in a heartbeat to paint some other
> scenario. The point is that the various stories are incongruous,
> illustrating that evolution is not a tight theory that makes useful
> predictions. It is a smorgasbord of different theories, each pulled out of
> the hat and triumphantly presented to solve a particular problem and then
> discarded as the next scenario arises(sexual reproduction, Haldane's
> Dilemma, Irreducible Complexity, local hills in the fitness terrain,
> tautology of fitness, etc.).
>
Unlike creationist rhetoric, science must change when new evidence is
found. On one hand you are arguing that science won't change on the
other you are arguing that science changes too much. Perhaps we can
call this the Woetzel Paradox.
This is very convenient when you want to confuse people, but it actually
shows that science is working.
The reason you don't see science running between entirely different
theories is because past evidence must be explained. Since this is the
case, most changes in science are very small since the previous evidence
must be considered and explained. If you care to provide a theory
perhaps you can revolutionize the field. Handwaving isn't going to do
it though.
Offer a theory that takes the current evidence into account and offer
theory that fits the evidence better.
> > > Moreover evolutionists claim this awkward transition
> > > occurred many times independently. Natural selection is said to have
> superb
> > > "vision" to see down to the level of proteins, creating convergence on
> the
> > > molecular level.
> >
> > No vision is needed. If a mutation occurs that makes one less fit it
> > disappears. A mutation that is positive generally sticks around.
>
> Define "a mutation that is positive."
One that offers a reproductive or survival advantage to an organism.
>I'm particularly interested in your
> definition as it pertains to a complex fitness terrain and polygeny. Maybe
> you have a novel solution to Haldane's Dilemma!
>
> Dave
Larry Handlin
must be considered. If you care to provide a theory perhaps you can
revolutionize the field. Handwaving isn't going to do it though.
OK, offer a theory that takes the current evidence into account and
Derek Stevenson
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> Now I'm puzzled by what type of world you are envisioning. How can
> having a "sudden beginning, a creation event" be at odds with things
> that "seem to have history and to develop via a process?" IOW, what
> kind of creation event would not appear to have a history? It is a
> bit of chicken and egg scenario, no? Can you envision trees without
> rings, rivers without a bed, flowers growing in a landscape without
> topsoil, etc.?
How far did God go in creating a deceptive history for the world?
Was Adam created with tattoos? Did he have souvenirs of his trip to
Disneyland? Pictures of his grandparents? A scar from that time he fell
off the porch swing when he was three?
Where do you draw the line between verisimilitude and outright fraud?
tweedyd
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38963e13....@news.ptd.net...
> On 31 Jan 2000 17:49:26 -0500, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
> wrote:
Piggy backing again,
> That was observed quite a bit before Darwin. :) The
> >question at hand involves survival of the *fittest*. I'd like Dana to
begin
> >by defining fitness. Then we'll discuss if survival of the fittest is
> >falsifiable.
Ye Gods,,, do I have to look everything up in the Dictonary for this Yutz??
Go to your nearest dictionary and look up the word yourself you want a
definiton, Do I have the word Webster tattoed on my forehead??
I assume your contention here is the hoary old chestnut that "Survival
of the fittest is a tautology" because it says that the fittest survive,
and those who survive must be the fittest. That is not what the phrase
means. Survival of the fittest is a catch phrase, for what is more properly
know as Natural Selection. What Darwin was saying is that in a generation,
the offspring that are best able to deal with their environment, will
survive to transfer their genes to the next generation. Fittest does not
always mean largest, strongest, fastest, or most fecund. I simply means
whatever works for that organism. Those who do not fit the environment are
"selected out" and do not pass their genes to the next generation.
Survival of the fittest would be falsified if, for example all the
offspring of all organisms survived to the next generation. It would also
be falsified if none of the offspring of all organisms survived to the next
generation. If there was no difference between organisms in a generation,
that is no variation in size, speed, strength, etc, then survival would be
a matter of luck or chance.
Now, are you going back to the quote mine for some more lies?
Larry Handlin
Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Larry Handlin <lbha...@nospam-my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil record or
> >no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed this out
> >actually.
>
> >This claim is rather bizarre.
>
> Arguing with yourself? ;-)
>
> But seriously, I'd love to see what you mean by "no intermediary
> fossils". None whatsoever? Is even one intermediary fossil
> enough to de-falsify common descent? I would hope not.
>
No, and I had thought I had left something in about very few.
Apparently I left that out. Without thinking too hard on it, at some
point that we couldn't make logical connections between very many
fossils. Or if the time scale was off would do this as well. A mammal
before an amphibian would falsify current theories pretty easily. It
would be very possible for there to appear to be transitionals for
"created" animals if you just had similar animals. So your point is
dead on. A lack of evidence is an odd way to think about falsification
(and I'm guessing why you ask), but a lack of transitionals would be
significant because they are a prediction of the theory. The specific
number of transitionals needed to "de-falsify", I leave for another day
on justification that it would be a long laborous debate in the
scientific community as well.
And this is what I take exception to in discussion of transitionals.
The typical claim is that there aren't any. This is patently false. A
constructive argument would take a pattern of linneages that are lacking
in transitionals (not one or two examples) and offer a stronger theory
that could explain the transitionals and the lack of transitionals
(though they would no longer be transitionals of course).
> Also, just what do you mean by "sudden departures in the
> fossil record"? If the Cambrian explosion is not enough of
> a sudden departure for you, just what *would* be sudden
> enough to falsify common descent in your mind?
>
Good point. I phrased this wrong. If we were to find fossils that
appear out of nowhere on a consistent basis. There are examples of "out
of nowhere", but despite the problems of fossils forming we find very
good linneages and lots of them. In the Cambrian Explosion if we were to
find a large number of fossils without close predecessors or nothing
that be the a common ancestor we would have a problem.
> Please note, I don't think the Cambrian explosion is enough
> to falsify common descent. My problem is just the opposite:
> I can't conceive of anything, given what we already know,
> that would falsify common descent except for contact with
> an intelligent entity that viewed what actually happened
> in the course of earth's history, and documented something
> other than common descent.
>
And this is what I'm getting at I think. We could theoretically falsify
it, but the evidence is strong enough that sometimes it is hard to
conceive of.
> IOW, I *do* think your claim is rather bizarre, although
> I know you were referring to a different claim.
>
Peter, I have no problem with what you raised here. Let me knowi
Adam Noel Harris
[snipping to part of post that interested me when I read it via two layers
of followups]
:I'm still waiting for a scenario that could falsify evolution. Darwin tried
:to give his theory scientific footing by suggesting that if one found a
:species altruistically serving another with no gain for itself, it would
:"annihilate my theory." Futuyma suggests that a flower that provides nectar
:but does not require pollination would be an example (Futuyma, 1983, p.
:123). Yet the common dandelion is just such a flower! Has it stopped the
:Darwinists in their tracks? No, they merely suggests that the dandelion
:must have lost the ability to reproduce sexually. In the end the test is
:empty and nothing can actually falsify natural selection.
I just want to point out that this complaint is against microevolution.
If the dandelion example that Dave cites is a real problem, it a problem
for microevolution that creationists ought to (according to their own
words) see as a problem for something they had previously accepted.
How do creationists resolve this anamoly? Is microevolution broken?
This reminds me of the time when Karl Crawford began to argue that
rattlesnakes would not have evolved rattles because they serve to scare
off the rattlesnakes' prey.
[...]
Derek Stevenson
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> I agree with your definition of a scientific fact. (Though my
> personal favorite is from Gould: Scientific Fact is a theory that is
> so thoroughly confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional
> assent.) The disagreement is going to be over the definition of
> evolution. If you define it to be merely variation within a
> population (ala Mendelism), than you are correct it is a fact. But
> then you aren't making any contribution to the
> public origins debate and are merely going for a quick fool's mate by
> redefining the term. In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules
> to man transformation.
Hmmm. Nope, that's not how *I* define the word. Nor, I suspect, does
anyone else around here use it that way.
On the other hand, "molecules to man transformation" does make a dandy
quick-'n'-dirty definition for "digestion".
[snip]
Joseph Potter
Thank you ever so much for posting this. I do not know how I could
have followed the thread without this comment.
Since only 200-300 posts on T.O. are seen each day, I thank you for
adding to the number. A great contribution.
-----
Regards, Joe
Derek Stevenson
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> Please note, I don't think the Cambrian explosion is enough
> to falsify common descent. My problem is just the opposite:
> I can't conceive of anything, given what we already know,
> that would falsify common descent except for contact with
> an intelligent entity that viewed what actually happened
> in the course of earth's history, and documented something
> other than common descent.
[snip]
Which, if I remember correctly, is essentially what Pagano claims has
actually happened.
This sounds almost like a veiled admission of crypto-creationism. Peter,
do you think that such contact has taken place?
Dave Woetzel
> Ah, the old "Adam's Navel" argument, I was wondering how long it would
take
> Dave to get around to this one.
> You seem to be saying that God created things with a built in history.
> Trees have to have rings, rivers have to have beds,, landscape needs
> topsoil. Therefore God went and created these things already in place,
so
> they would look like they had a history. The problem with this idea, is
> that it implies that God is lying to us. Of course being a liar
yourself,
> you wouldn't see any problem with this, but for many Christians a lying
God
> is unacceptable.
<sigh>
Dana, this is the fourth time that you have come charging onto a thread
calling me a liar. The last three times, after pompously calling me a liar
and condescendingly throwing out vague generalities, you disappeared as soon
as I sought to engage you on specifics. I'll not waste my time again. I'm
not here just to participate in a name-calling session. Your tactics
suggest that you don't know enough to have a fruitful dialogue on the issues
you engage. You merely want to parrot the politically correct mantra. It
reminds me of the classic line from George Orwell."One has to belong to the
intelligentsia to believe things like that; no ordinary man could be such a
fool."
Regards,
Dave
Dave Woetzel
Howard Hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:38970A15...@indiana.edu...
> > > modification" then it is, in essence, a synonym for time. For the
> > > process of time does seem to be that each "moment" is a slight
> > > variation of the moment before. Please note that this is an
> > > observation, not a tautology. The world could work some other way. For
> > > example, things could have a sudden beginning, a creation event. But
> > > they don't see to, they seem to have history and to develop via a
> > > process. If we observed things that did not seem to have a history, if
> > > we observed sudden creation, then we would have different ways to
> > > describe and explain the world.
> >
having a
> > "sudden beginning, a creation event" be at odds with things that "seem
to
> > have history and to develop via a process?" IOW, what kind of creation
> > event would not appear to have a history? It is a bit of chicken and
egg
> > scenario, no? Can you envision trees without rings, rivers without a
bed,
> > flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
>
exactly
> these
> omphalic 'false appearances of age', as you point out. But how does one
> distinguish,
> using the rules and methodology of science, between this 'false appearance
of
> age' so
> obviously carefully calculated to mislead the observer from the 'real'
past?
If instantaneous creation does, as you say, require an appearance of age,
then how is it misleading? It is precisely what one would expect to see as
a creationist.
<BIG snip of some very valid discussions>
Age of the earth is not my burning issue and it is quite a bit off to the
side of this thread. You make a valid argument that creationists need to
come up with solid techniques. I'm also candid enough to admit that this is
not our strongest argument (at least as things stand today).
Dave
Joseph Potter
wrote:
>
Dave, read "The Science of God."
-----
Regards, Joe
mel turner
ad...@stanford.edu.XX wrote...
>Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>[snipping to part of post that interested me when I read it via two
layers
>of followups]
>
>:I'm still waiting for a scenario that could falsify evolution. Darwin
tried
>:to give his theory scientific footing by suggesting that if one found a
>:species altruistically serving another with no gain for itself, it would
>:"annihilate my theory." Futuyma suggests that a flower that provides
nectar
>:but does not require pollination would be an example (Futuyma, 1983, p.
>:123). Yet the common dandelion is just such a flower! Has it stopped
the
>:Darwinists in their tracks? No, they merely suggests that the dandelion
>:must have lost the ability to reproduce sexually.
Not "may have", but "clearly did", since it's just the familiar weedy
dandelions that are asexual. These are evidently derived from hybrids
between different sexual Taraxacum species that do require pollination to
set seeds, unlike their weedy derivatives [besides dandelions, there are
various other plant groups with both sexual and asexual forms].
>:In the end the test is
>:empty and nothing can actually falsify natural selection.
Nonsense. Lots of imaginable things would have falsified our ideas about
evolution, common descent, and the efficacy of natural selection. It so
happens that they aren't observed to occur.
http://x44.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=493289438
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465057867
http://x44.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=495200038
http://x44.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=494398297 & threads
>I just want to point out that this complaint is against microevolution.
>If the dandelion example that Dave cites is a real problem, it a problem
>for microevolution that creationists ought to (according to their own
>words) see as a problem for something they had previously accepted.
>
>How do creationists resolve this anamoly? Is microevolution broken?
Yep. Surely they'd want to claim the origin of the asexual dandelions from
their common ancestors with the various sexual dandelion species was
"merely micorevolution".
>This reminds me of the time when Karl Crawford began to argue that
>rattlesnakes would not have evolved rattles because they serve to scare
>off the rattlesnakes' prey.
Good ol' Karl. I also liked his arguments that various predatory and
defensive adaptations [like the rattler's fangs and rattles] were too
perfect and too complex to have evolved naturally, while simultaneously
maintaining that predation wasn't part of the divine plan and has only
occurred since the Fall of Adam & Eve [thus implying those features must
all have 'microevolved' in a few thousand years].
cheers
Andy Groves
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:875bae$fsu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <874c8d$o4u$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> > "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > news:BXgl4.95543$j63.1...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> > > > I am kinda new to this newsgroup, so I don't know if you've been
> through
> > > > this before.
> > >
> > > Just a few times. :)
> > >
> > > > Most scientists now regard Evolution is a fact. It is a proven FACT
> that
> > > we
> > > > have evolved. The only thing in question is HOW we evolved. There
> is
> > > an
> > > > overwhelming evidence that we have evolved.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > I agree with your definition of a scientific fact. (Though my personal
> > > favorite is from Gould: Scientific Fact is a theory that is so
> thoroughly
> > > confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.) The
> > > disagreement is going to be over the definition of evolution. If you
> define
> > > it to be merely variation within a population (ala Mendelism), than you
> are
> > > correct it is a fact. But then you aren't making any contribution to
> the
> > > public origins debate and are merely going for a quick fool's mate by
> > > redefining the term. In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules to
> man
> some
> > > kind.
> > >
> > > In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact.
> >
> > But accepting that, do you know of any scientist who would describe your
> > definition as a fact? I don't.
>
> Then you need to get out and about a bit more...
>
> "The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological
> fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars and the
> formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand
> subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and
> religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are
> enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process. Evolution
> in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially
> irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an
> increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its
> products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole
> of reality is evolution-a single process of self-transformation." (Huxley,
> Julian, "Evolution and Genetics," in _What is Science?_ edited by J. R.
> Newman, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955, pp. 272-278)
>
> The evolutionary basis is also apparent in peripheral independent fields
> such as chemistry, geology, physics and astronomy. No central scientific
> concept is more firmly established in our thinking, our methods, and our
> interpretations, than that of evolution." (Beck, Stanley D., "Natural
> Science and Creationist Theology," _Bioscience_, vol. 32, October 1982, p.
> 738.)
>
> Marsden, George M., "Creation versus Evolution: No Middle Way," Nature, vol.
> 305 (October 13, 1983), pp. 571-574.
> p 572
> "Such folk epistemology is close to that which works best for engineers,
> straightforward, consistent, factual, with no nonsense. In fact, there are
> an unusual number of engineers in the creation science movement.
> "Most contemporary scientists have difficulty understanding the appeal of
> alleged scientific arguments of creation science to popular common sense.
> Evolution may have scientific experts on its side, but it strains popular
> common sense. It is simply difficult to believe that the amazing order of
> life on Earth arose spontaneously out of the original disorder of the
> Universe."
> p 573
> "The American folk epistemology, then, is by no means anti-scientific in
> principle. Rather it is based on a naive realism plus popular mythology
> concerning proper scientific procedure and verification. These procedures
> are essentially Baconian, favouring simple empirical evidence."
> p 574
> "In any case, creation scientists are correct in perceiving that in modern
> culture 'evolution' often involves far more than biology. The basic
> ideologies of the civilization, including its entire moral structure, are at
> issue. Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy
> that functions as a virtual religion.. Dogmatic proponents of evolutionary
> anti-supernaturalistic mythologies have been inviting responses in kind."
>
> "Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has
> brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue doing
> remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the evolutionary
> Cosmos, become conscious of itself. .Evolution comprises all the stages of
> the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or
> cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to
> biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic
> nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." (Dobzhansky,
> Theodosius, "Changing Man," _Science_, vol. 155, no. 3761, January 27, 1967,
> p. 409)
>
> explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades - Evolution is a change in
> gene frequencies in populations - is not only not explanatory, but is in
> fact misleading.'" (Mayr, E., _Toward a New Philosophy of Biology_, 1988, p.
> 162. )
>
> "This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly
> faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and
> stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and
> values--indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution.... In the
> evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for
> the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the
> animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and
> soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.... Finally, the
> evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the
> lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the
> needs of the coming era." (Julian Huxley during the 1959 celebration of 100
> years of _Origin_ in Chicago. Cited in Phillip Johnson, _Darwin on Trial_,
> 1993, 152-3.)
>
I note that none of the above makes a claim that the process they define
is a fact.
--
Andy Groves
Adam Noel Harris
:In article <874c8d$o4u$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
: "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
:
:> I agree with your definition of a scientific fact. (Though my
:> personal favorite is from Gould: Scientific Fact is a theory that is
:> so thoroughly confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional
:> assent.) The disagreement is going to be over the definition of
:> evolution. If you define it to be merely variation within a
:> population (ala Mendelism), than you are correct it is a fact. But
:> then you aren't making any contribution to the
:> public origins debate and are merely going for a quick fool's mate by
:> redefining the term. In the origins debate, evolution is: molecules
:> to man transformation.
:Hmmm. Nope, that's not how *I* define the word. Nor, I suspect, does
:anyone else around here use it that way.
:
:On the other hand, "molecules to man transformation" does make a dandy
:quick-'n'-dirty definition for "digestion".
I think of digestion as largely catabolic. The word you want is
metabolism.
Ken Cox
> Can you envision trees without rings,
Yes. Tree rings are marks left in old (and often dead) wood by
previous seasonal growth of the cambium. They are not necessary
for the functioning of the tree -- only the current, living
cambium is. So a tree certainly could be featureless through
the middle, like the plastic beams that people manufacture.
Were a tree created de novo with rings in place, I would consider
those rings to be deceptive, as they indicate a history (complete
with seasons) for the tree that never really happened.
> rivers without a bed,
Yes. The river bed, and more generally the river's plain, is a
complexly-structured system of layered sediments reflecting the
history of the river. Past periods of flooding and drought can
be identified, as well as changes in the channel. None of this
is necessary for the river. So a river certainly could exist
without a bed, just a channel through the landscape, like the
culverts and aqueducts that people build.
Were a river created de novo with all that layered bedding in
place, I would consider it to be deceptive, as it indicates a
history (complete with yearly variations in water level and
past river channels) for the river that never really happened.
> flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
Yes. Topsoil is a complexly-structured system of particles of
sand, soil, and humus, extensively worked and re-worked by both
plants and animals, with numerous easily-seen features. These
include layering at different depths caused by leaching, physical
and chemical alteration of the bedrock and the soil at different
depths, organic remains, and so forth. None of this is necessary
for the soil to support flowers. So a flower certainly could
exist without topsoil, just some sort of bedding medium, like
the artificial mixes you can buy in bags at garden shops.
Were a landscape created de novo with all those topsoil features
in place, I would consider it to be deceptive, as it indicates a
history (complete with rainstorms, worm casts, plant roots, ant
tunnels, and a myriad other events and features) for the topsoil
that never really happened.
By the way, the concept you are presenting is usually called
_Omphalos_ ("navel"), from a book by the same name published in
1857 by Philip Gosse. His idea was, and is, condemned by most
theologians because it implies the creator was deceptive, as
indicated by the arguments above.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dave Woetzel
Larry Handlin <lbha...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3895C3FF...@nospam.yahoo.com...
>
>
> Dave Woetzel wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > Take the fundamental concept of natural selection. Darwinists are
> > >> adept at inventing a "Just So" story to
> > > > explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that could
> > falsify
> > > > survival of the fittest.
> > >
> > > You should change the word "One" above to I.
> > >
> > > One possible falsification of survival of the fittest is if extinction
> > didn't
> > > occur. You can't conceive of it because the evidence of extinction
is so
> > > overwhelming. But if every species ever alive were still alive,
> > evolutionary
> > > theory would be false. Or perhaps if most were.
> >
> > Come on, Larry!
>
>
>
> > Where is your imagination suddenly?
>
> I'm not the one with an imagination problem. You are the one who
> couldn't falsify evolution.
Since when did I say that I could? It seems I have said closer to the
precise opposite!
>I showed you how. Now you are moving the
> goal post. Nice try.
>
> >How convenient it is
> > to suddenly NOT be able to invent a story! If species never went
extinct
> > Darwinists would only have to slightly modify the story.
>
> No, the biological theory of evolution would be false. And you still
> haven't explained why it wouldn't except to claim that scientists would
> move the goal posts.
It would not. Let me ask you a simple question: If a new species develops,
while still leaving an ancestral population, is that evolution? If you say
no, you don't understand you'r own theory. If you say yes, you just
disproved your own statement above: But if every species ever alive were
still alive, evolutionary theory would be false." Take your pick.
When you show me how the citations are wrong, I'll happily retract them.
Till then, I've substantiated my position better than you have yours.
> > I'm still waiting for a scenario that could falsify evolution.
> I gave it to you.
You failed miserably.
> >Darwin tried
> > to give his theory scientific footing by suggesting that if one found a
> > species altruistically serving another with no gain for itself, it would
> > "annihilate my theory." Futuyma suggests that a flower that provides
nectar
> > but does not require pollination would be an example (Futuyma, 1983, p.
> > 123). Yet the common dandelion is just such a flower! Has it stopped
the
> > Darwinists in their tracks? No, they merely suggests that the dandelion
> > must have lost the ability to reproduce sexually. In the end the test
is
> > empty and nothing can actually falsify natural selection.
> >
> > > Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil
> > record or
> > > no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed
this
> > out
> > > actually.
> > <snip>
> >
> > What? Are you pretending that the fossil record exhibits phylogeny?
I'll
> > let you argue that out with your ilk of the P.E. persuasion!
> > http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/link/link.htm
> >
> Ummmm...quotes out of context. WOW! I repeat my request from above.
OK. Let's see you defend your condescending comments. Give me the quotes
that are out of context. Then I'll look it up and we can discuss it. Go
grab a copy of Gould's _The Panda's Thumb_, look up the chapter on "Return
of the Hopeful Monster" and let's talk some specifics. If you won't, the
quotes stand.
> By the way where is your theory?
>
> > > > It is metaphysical (or depending on the
> > > > definition, perhaps tautologous). Evolution adapts to data like fog
to
> > a
> > > > landscape. This comfortably shelters the particular portion of the
> > theory
> > > > from the scientific arena. But if it is unfalsifiable, it ceases to
be
> > > > science. Therefore it can not be a scientific fact.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should read a very basic introduction to evolution not
written
> > by
> > > Creationists. Claiming that evolutionary theory requires things that
it
> > does
> > > not posit is not a very effective strategy.
> >
> > I've read Gould, Hawkins, Kitcher, Hawking and plenty of others. Since
you
> > claim I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll look forward to a
detailed
> > discussion of the fitness terrain, polygeny and Haldane's Dilemma in the
> > parallel thread.
Hello? Since you didn't address them in the other thread, perhaps you would
care to comment?
> > > Bye now,
> > > Larry Handlin
> > >
> > > By the way, I haven't been playing close attention to your posts.
Have
> > you
> > > offered a competing theory? I'm always interested in Creationists
> > claiming that
> > > evolution is incorrect and assuming that means Creationism is yet
never
> > > providing an actual theory to support Creationism.
> >
> > Completely irrelevant.
>
> It is relevant and this has been pointed out to you. You wish to argue
> that it isn't true yet there are millions of pieces of evidence that you
> need to explain better than the current theory to destroy the current
> one. So far you haven't offered a substantive argument that is based on
> the actual biological theory of evolution.
>
> >If evolution is not science, then the truth should
> > be told--regardless if I have another theory or not. As it happens, the
> > topic of ID theory comes up rather often. I'll catch up with you on one
of
> > those threads when time permits.
> >
> Why not just offer your theory? What is holding you back. Offer it
> clearly and concisely now. I don't think you have a scientific theory.
> Prove me wrong.
Give me something that would falsify evolution before running away to
another topic. The question I addressed deals with whether evolution is a
scientific fact. It most assuredly does not require the existence of a
better theory to establish that evolution is not a fact.
Dave
Dave Woetzel
Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6uce9sk69vp51qq52...@4ax.com...
> On 1 Feb 2000 14:25:25 -0500, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Howard Hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >news:38970A15...@indiana.edu...
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave Woetzel wrote:
> >>
> >> > Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:rtqc9skp0kbtabad4...@4ax.com...
> >> > > In talk.origins I read this message from "Dave Woetzel"
> >> > > <dwoe...@juno.com>:
> >> > >
> >> > > [snip]
> >> > >
> >> > > modification" then it is, in essence, a synonym for time. For the
> >> > > process of time does seem to be that each "moment" is a slight
> >> > > variation of the moment before. Please note that this is an
> >> > > observation, not a tautology. The world could work some other way.
For
> >> > > example, things could have a sudden beginning, a creation event.
But
> >> > > they don't see to, they seem to have history and to develop via a
> >> > > process. If we observed things that did not seem to have a history,
if
> >> > > we observed sudden creation, then we would have different ways to
> >> > > describe and explain the world.
> >> >
> >> > Now I'm puzzled by what type of world you are envisioning. How can
> >having a
> >> > "sudden beginning, a creation event" be at odds with things that
"seem
> >to
> >> > have history and to develop via a process?" IOW, what kind of
creation
> >> > event would not appear to have a history? It is a bit of chicken and
> >egg
> >bed,
> >> > flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
> >>
> >exactly
> >> these
> >> omphalic 'false appearances of age', as you point out. But how does
one
> >> distinguish,
> >> using the rules and methodology of science, between this 'false
appearance
> >of
> >> age' so
> >> obviously carefully calculated to mislead the observer from the 'real'
> >past?
> >
> >If instantaneous creation does, as you say, require an appearance of age,
> >then how is it misleading? It is precisely what one would expect to see
as
> >a creationist.
> >
> ><BIG snip of some very valid discussions>
> >
> >Age of the earth is not my burning issue and it is quite a bit off to the
> >side of this thread. You make a valid argument that creationists need to
> >come up with solid techniques. I'm also candid enough to admit that this
is
> >not our strongest argument (at least as things stand today).
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
>
> Dave, read "The Science of God."
>
Thanks, but its just another Ross look-alike. Right?
Dave
Joseph Potter
>Dave Woetzel wrote:
>> Can you envision trees without rings,
>
<snip>
>
>> flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
>
>Yes. Topsoil is a complexly-structured system of particles of
>sand, soil, and humus, extensively worked and re-worked by both
>plants and animals, with numerous easily-seen features. These
>include layering at different depths caused by leaching, physical
>and chemical alteration of the bedrock and the soil at different
>depths, organic remains, and so forth. None of this is necessary
>for the soil to support flowers. So a flower certainly could
>exist without topsoil, just some sort of bedding medium, like
>the artificial mixes you can buy in bags at garden shops.
>
Look, you and David can have a great time going at each other. No
problem with me.
But, let us stay within the reality of our knowledge --- ok?
You say flowers need no topsoil --- then tell us to go buy "artificial
mixes" at garden shops. What the hell do you think you are buying at
the garden shop?
They call it "potting soil" --- so it is not "topsoil?"
Those of us who garden in Florida know that sand is not "topsoil" ---
but we also know that "potting soil" from Home Depot is not some magic
mix from ---- whatever.
You go buy a bag of "builders sand" and put you favorite plan it a pot
of it. Tell us how long the plant lasted. (even if it is a low feeder)
-----
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
wrote:
>
>Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:6uce9sk69vp51qq52...@4ax.com...
>> On 1 Feb 2000 14:25:25 -0500, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Howard Hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:38970A15...@indiana.edu...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dave Woetzel wrote:
>> >>
<snip>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Dave, read "The Science of God."
>>
>
>Thanks, but its just another Ross look-alike. Right?
>
>Dave
>
>
I do not think so.
-----
Regards, Joe
Howard Hershey
Dave Woetzel wrote:
>
> Howard Hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:38970A15...@indiana.edu...
> >
> >
> > Dave Woetzel wrote:
> >
> > > scenario, no? Can you envision trees without rings, rivers without a
> bed,
> > > flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
> >
> > Yes. Instantaneous creation, no matter of what or when, *requires*
> exactly
> > these
> > omphalic 'false appearances of age', as you point out. But how does one
> > distinguish,
> > using the rules and methodology of science, between this 'false appearance
> of
> > age' so
> > obviously carefully calculated to mislead the observer from the 'real'
> past?
>
> If instantaneous creation does, as you say, require an appearance of age,
> then how is it misleading? It is precisely what one would expect to see as
> a creationist.
It implies a deception, and that is very troubling from a theological
standpoint as well as gutting any possibility of understanding the
world. It puts us in the middle of a large, elaborate deception.
But, if that is what you think is the case, it certainly is a
logically consistent world view.
>
> <BIG snip of some very valid discussions>
>
> Age of the earth is not my burning issue and it is quite a bit off to the
> side of this thread.
Ah, but it is if you want to ask if common descent can be falsified.
Common descent from the fossil record is inferred by the type of
pattern (incomplete that it is) that one observes in the sedimentary
layers of the earth. That pattern (the one actually observed) must be
consistent with common descent. It cannot be a random pattern, or a
flood scattered pattern, or a pattern that implies that all organisms
were made at one point in time, or a pattern which indicates that
organisms have gone from mammals to bacteria. Of the many, many
patterns possible for sedimentary layers and the fossils therein, only
a few patterns would be consistent with the requirements of common
descent. That is the pattern one expects from long periods of time
laying down strata and changes in the scattered fossils that are
consistent with change toward the types of organisms alive today (that
is, the more recent fossils are more like living organisms than
earlier fossils and early fossils show indications of intermediacy).
That also is the pattern that one actually sees in nature. That does
not mean that there are no problematica nor that all the patterns are
set in stone (impossible given the sproradic nature of fossils).
There is not just one pattern that is consistent with common descent,
but the more evidence one has, the better our ability to see what the
real pattern is, and all the patterns we have are consistent with
common descent -- even though there are many *possible* (but unseen in
nature) patterns that would be inconsistent with common descent.
And the independent corroboration of DNA evidence also largely
supports patterns that are consistent with common descent (but not
necessarily the exact *same* pattern that the fossil record seems to
be supporting in every case). What you need to find are either
evidence that all these patterns are equally consistent with your
specific HYPE (easy enough if you simply say that whatever exists is
what the HYPE did) or, ideally, that there is a difference between the
pattern you expect with your HYPE from that expected by common descent
and that the evidence supports the former pattern.
> You make a valid argument that creationists need to
> come up with solid techniques. I'm also candid enough to admit that this is
> not our strongest argument (at least as things stand today).
What is?
>
> Dave
Boikat
Joseph Potter wrote in message ...
>>
>
>
>
>>
>>> flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
>>
>>sand, soil, and humus, extensively worked and re-worked by both
>>plants and animals, with numerous easily-seen features. These
>>include layering at different depths caused by leaching, physical
>>and chemical alteration of the bedrock and the soil at different
>>depths, organic remains, and so forth. None of this is necessary
>>for the soil to support flowers. So a flower certainly could
>>exist without topsoil, just some sort of bedding medium, like
>>the artificial mixes you can buy in bags at garden shops.
>>
>
>
>Look, you and David can have a great time going at each other. No
>problem with me.
>
>But, let us stay within the reality of our knowledge --- ok?
>
>You say flowers need no topsoil --- then tell us to go buy "artificial
>mixes" at garden shops. What the hell do you think you are buying at
>the garden shop?
>
>They call it "potting soil" --- so it is not "topsoil?"
>
>Those of us who garden in Florida know that sand is not "topsoil" ---
>but we also know that "potting soil" from Home Depot is not some magic
>mix from ---- whatever.
>
>You go buy a bag of "builders sand" and put you favorite plan it a pot
>of it. Tell us how long the plant lasted. (even if it is a low feeder)
Then again, there are always bromaliads......
Boikat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----
>Regards, Joe
>
Dave Woetzel
Thank you. So it would not falsify evolution. Evolution would easily
change to accomodate the new evidence. That is exactly my point. If
evolutionists needed to explain whale extinction, it would be trivially
easy. It is just another Just-So story!
>On one hand you are arguing that science won't change on the
> other you are arguing that science changes too much. Perhaps we can
> call this the Woetzel Paradox.
>
> This is very convenient when you want to confuse people, but it actually
> shows that science is working.
>
> The reason you don't see science running between entirely different
> theories is because past evidence must be explained. Since this is the
> case, most changes in science are very small since the previous evidence
> must be considered and explained. If you care to provide a theory
> perhaps you can revolutionize the field. Handwaving isn't going to do
> it though.
>
> Offer a theory that takes the current evidence into account and offer
> theory that fits the evidence better.
>
> > > > Moreover evolutionists claim this awkward transition
> > > > occurred many times independently. Natural selection is said to
have
> > superb
> > > > "vision" to see down to the level of proteins, creating convergence
on
> > the
> > > > molecular level.
> > >
> > > No vision is needed. If a mutation occurs that makes one less fit it
> > > disappears. A mutation that is positive generally sticks around.
> >
>
> > Define "a mutation that is positive."
>
> One that offers a reproductive or survival advantage to an organism.
You forgot "in a particular environment" (unless you claim to have a
yardstick for absolute fitness). But be that as it may. Now tell me how
you aim to determine if a given mutation is positive.
Dave Woetzel
> On 1 Feb 2000 15:35:44 -0500, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:6uce9sk69vp51qq52...@4ax.com...
> >> On 1 Feb 2000 14:25:25 -0500, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Howard Hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:38970A15...@indiana.edu...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Dave Woetzel wrote:
> >> >>
>
>
>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Dave, read "The Science of God."
> >>
> >
> >Thanks, but its just another Ross look-alike. Right?
> >
>
OK. I'll check it out. Just to make sure, is this what you mean?
The Science of God : The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
by Gerald L. Schroeder
Regards,
Dave
Andy Groves
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Age of the earth is not my burning issue and it is quite a bit off to the
> side of this thread. You make a valid argument that creationists need to
> come up with solid techniques. I'm also candid enough to admit that this is
> not our strongest argument (at least as things stand today).
>
Just out of interest, what *is* your strongest argument?
Andy
Michael
Actually Joe, if you read Ken's post again, he is talking about a pattern
in natural top soil, which apparently includes different chemical layers,
and other evidence of history. I think what Ken means is that a
creator could have started with a single layer of homogenous soil, like
a mix you buy at the store, rather than the more complex topsoil pattern
found in nature.
Mike
Andy Groves
>
> >Common descent could be falsified by sudden departures in the fossil record or
> >no intermediary fossils between different species. Darwin pointed this out
> >actually.
>
>
> Arguing with yourself? ;-)
>
> But seriously, I'd love to see what you mean by "no intermediary
> fossils". None whatsoever? Is even one intermediary fossil
> enough to de-falsify common descent? I would hope not.
>
> fossil record"? If the Cambrian explosion is not enough of
> a sudden departure for you, just what *would* be sudden
> enough to falsify common descent in your mind?
>
> to falsify common descent. My problem is just the opposite:
> I can't conceive of anything, given what we already know,
> that would falsify common descent except for contact with
> an intelligent entity that viewed what actually happened
> in the course of earth's history, and documented something
> other than common descent.
Despite what some advisers to the Kansas BoE seem to think, it is rare
for a theory to stand or fall on a single piece of evidence. Generally
theories accrue confirmatory or falsifying data points around them, and
their combined weight either props them up or drags them down.
It would certainly be difficult to explain mammalian remains cropping up
*repeatedly* in the Burgess shale, for example, but finding one human
femur in Burgess shale wouldn't be a killer IMO.
--
Louann Miller
wrote:
>Larry Handlin <lbha...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Unlike creationist rhetoric, science must change when new evidence is
>> found.
>
>Thank you. So it would not falsify evolution. Evolution would easily
>change to accomodate the new evidence. That is exactly my point. If
>evolutionists needed to explain whale extinction, it would be trivially
>easy. It is just another Just-So story!
Okay, let's go through this slowly. There's a theory (not evolution,
for the purposes of argument, call it the Theory of Widgets) which
explains all the known facts of a specific field. Let's pick an
arbitrary number, 1 million facts. Time passes, and 10 new facts are
discovered which do not exactly fit the Theory of Widgets. The theory
is slightly modified so that it explains all 10 new facts plus the
previous 1M, leading to the Theory of Widgets version 1.01.
This by you is bad? You expect them to throw out all the previous 1 M
cases which ToW did explain, and demand that the revised theory must
be really, really different from the previous version? On what
grounds, esthetics? How likely is it that a theory which had that much
previous success is going to need to be razed and replaced? Einstein
didn't change all the answers from Newtonian physics, only a tiny
number of special cases. Geology on a continental scale was greatly
changed by the introduction of plate tectonics, but that didn't
require everyone to go back and rewrite the rules for telling granite
from limestone.
Louann
Howard Hershey
Neil W Rickert wrote:
>
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> writes:
>
> > My problem is just the opposite:
> >I can't conceive of anything, given what we already know,
> >that would falsify common descent except for contact with
> >an intelligent entity that viewed what actually happened
> >in the course of earth's history, and documented something
> >other than common descent.
>
> I don't see this as a problem. The best scientific theories are all
> unfalsifiable, bad philosophy to the contrary notwithstanding.
Well, the best scientific theories are so consistent with the actual
evidence of nature that one often has to resort to hypothetical
results that, if they existed, would falsify the theory. That such
hypothetical results are not seen in nature does not mean that the
theory is inherently unfalsifiable, merely that it has not been falsified.
tweedyd
>
For some reason Dave's postings are not coming through, so I once again
piggy back my response:
>
> Dave Woetzel wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I see Dave is trying to pull the the old creationist
> > > "microevolution/macroevolution" crap once again. He is also trying to
> > throw
> > > in abiogenesis into the mix again. Evolution is not "molecules to
man"
> > > Evolution is change over time, or as Darwin put it, "Descent with
> > > modifications" How life arose on earth is a problem for biochemists,
not
> > > biologists.
> >
> > Yours is a preposterous definition. By your definition, the act of
creation
> > was evolution! But I'll let you argue this out with the "most eminent
> > evolutionist of the twentieth century."
Preposterous you say? I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.
How is the definition I give here, saying anything about "the act of
creation" ? Show me evidence of ONE genuine supernatual "act of creation".
Read it again Dave, I am using Charles Darwin's definition, evolution is
Descent with Modifications. Abiogenisis in not evolution, The Big Bang is
not evolution. Evolution deals with change in biological populations.
Evolution is NOT "Anything that disputes a literal reading of Genesis".
snippage of more out of context quotes,, more lies.
> > > > > In this sense evolution most assuredly is not a fact. It is a
> > > > smorgasbord
> > > > > of conflicting theories and special definitions that involve
> > > > metaphysical
> > > > > assumptions and unfalsifiable tenets.
> > >
> > > This is another example of Dave telling baldfaced lies. The theory of
> > > evolution is internally consistent, testable, and falsifiable.
> >
> > OK, Dana. Let's talk about the problem with the naive view of natural
> > selection that is so often presented. Gould articulates well the
problem of
> > polygeny. "Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them
directly.
> > It must use bodies as an intermediary.. Hundreds of genes contribute to
the
> > building of most body parts and their action is channeled through a
> > kaleidoscopic series of environmental influences. Parts are not
translated
> > genes, and selection doesn't even work directly on parts. It accepts or
> > rejects entire organisms because suites of parts, interacting in complex
> > ways, confer advantages." (Gould, S.J., 1980, _The Panda's Thumb_, pp.
> > 89-90)
Did you acutally READ the last paragraph?? It says that natural selection
works on the level of the individual, not the gene. I fail to see what that
has to do with the babble below. If you don't understand Gould, don't quote
him, If you take his words out of context to support something he never
meant, that is lying.
>Now, let's say that a given organism is moving up the fitness
> > terrain and becomes stuck on a hill that keeps it from moving up the
> > improbable mountain. What scenario do you want to attempt to defend to
get
> > the organism off: the "stationary hypothesis," the "Red Queen
hypothesis,"
> > "small population/in-breeding scenario"? Once you tell me, I will
> > demonstrate for you that it conflicts with the special solution that
> > Darwinists propose to solve other problems.
I have absolutely no idea what Dave is babbling about here. Natural
selection happens on the individual level, and evolution happens on the
population level. IOW, populations evolve, not idividuals.
If an individual organism is not adapted to its enviroment, it dies. If
a population is too small to maintain a breeding population, it dies out.
Sucessful speciation events had a large enough breeding population so that
inbreeding was not a problem. Those that did not, died out. Not
surprisingly, a great many species have gone extinct over the years, and
countless individuals have died.
> >
> > > >Take the fundamental concept of
> > > > > natural selection. Darwinists are adept at inventing a "Just So"
> > > > story to
> > > > > explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that
could
> > > > falsify
> > > > > survival of the fittest.
> > >
> > > As David surely knows survival of the fittest is not Darwin's term.
Be
> > that
> > > as it may, if every last offspring of an organism survived, that would
> > > falsify survival of the fittest. Alternately, if organisms produced NO
> > > offspring, that would falsify the concept also. The fact that
creatures
> > > produce more offspring than can survive, and that the ones who do
survive
> > to
> > > the next generation are the ones that best fit their enviroment,
validates
> > > the concept.
> >
> > Contrary to what Dana suggests, it would be trivially easy for
Darwinists to
> > explain NO offspring. It would be the ultimate in natural
> > selection...selecting that organism for extinction. One could envision
a
> > whole world of organisms becoming extinct and leaving other planets upon
> > which life survives.
No, you mistake what I wrote. I meant if NONE of the orgainisms produced
ANY offspring. In other words, if there were no offspring at all.
Presumably God could just create replacements without the need for
reproduction.
I am not talking about other planets, only ours. Furthermore, that
would falsify the concept that the offspring that survive are the ones that
best fit the enviroment. Please understand that natural selection is the
mechanism by which evolution operates, not evolution itself.
> But all this is beside the point. We are assuming
> > there is survival. That was observed quite a bit before Darwin. :)
Exactly, Scientists before and including Darwin observed that in any
generation, certain offspring survived, while others died. Darwin pointed
out the fact that the ones who survived were the ones most adapted to their
enviroment.
> > question at hand involves survival of the *fittest*. I'd like Dana to
begin
> > by defining fitness. Then we'll discuss if survival of the fittest is
> > falsifiable.
Already answered in another thread, Please look up things for yourself, I am
not your bloody dictonary. I would suggest Merriam Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary, Tenth Ed, second definition of "fitness".
--
Dana J. Tweedy
(animal bipes implume)
Dave Woetzel
careful though. But we are going down a side trail afar from what I'd like
to discuss. I'll just briefly address a couple of points you raise and then
run along...
<CHOP>
> > Age of the earth is not my burning issue and it is quite a bit off to
the
> > side of this thread.
>
> Ah, but it is if you want to ask if common descent can be falsified.
> Common descent from the fossil record is inferred by the type of
> pattern (incomplete that it is) that one observes in the sedimentary
> layers of the earth.
Did I say I wanted evidence that common descent could be falsified? I
didn't mean to (if I did). IMHO, Darwinists are not committed to common
descent...only naturalism and natural selection. That is, if life did not
exhibit a pattern of nested hierarchy, Darwinists would happily accommodate
with processes of loss, replacement, distant hybridization, anagenesis,
transposition, unmasking, panspermia, or multiple biogenesis. Much of them
would be far simpler than natural selection and convergence. They could
handily explain troublesome features of the fossil record without resorting
to PE. There is no good naturalistic/evolutionist reason for them not to
have occurred.
For example:
"The debate about lateral transfer does not center upon plausible
mechanisms. ...The issue is not plausibility but relative frequency.
Lateral transfer is intelligible and feasible, but how often does it happen
in nature? This crucial question must be established by example, not by
theory." (Gould, Stephen J., 1986, "Linnaean Limits,: _Natural History_,
vol. 95, no. 8, p. 18)
<CHOP>
> > You make a valid argument that creationists need to
> > come up with solid techniques. I'm also candid enough to admit that
this is
> > not our strongest argument (at least as things stand today).
>
> What is?
Now you really want to go in a different direction. :) Off the top of my
head, the biggest problems for naturalism/evoluionism are a universe
fine-tuned for life, the phenomenal unlikelihood of abiogenesis, irreducibly
complex biological systems, information theory & mutations, population
genetics & Haldane's Dilemma, mechanism difficulties with natural selection
in a complex fitness terrain & with polygeny, and life systematically
lacking a pattern joining disparate lifeforms together.
There! Now I raised a whole bunch of stuff that I won't get into
here....but you asked. I'm sure we'll have the chance to sort some of it
out in upcoming threads.
All the Best,
Dave
tweedyd
Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:877ba3$7mf$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
I am calling you a liar, because you continue to spout lies. If this
bothers you, then stop lying. I refused to engage you in a pointless
rhetorical contest. If you agree to stop lying, ie, stop quoting people out
of contex, stop using arguements that have been thoroughly debunked, and
stop spouting baseless claims as if the had any evidence to support them,
then perhaps we can talk.
>Your tactics
> suggest that you don't know enough to have a fruitful dialogue on the
issues
> you engage.
The problem is Dave, I know more about the topic than you do, and know when
you are lying, and am not shy about calling you on your lies.
> You merely want to parrot the politically correct mantra.
What mantra? I don't give a damn about being politically correct.
Quoting people out of contex is lying. Making statements using information
that has been disproven is lying. Making unsupported claims as if they were
backed by anything but air is lying. I am simply not allowing you to get
away with it.
> It
> reminds me of the classic line from George Orwell."One has to belong to
the
> intelligentsia to believe things like that; no ordinary man could be such
a
> fool."
I don't recall where it is from, but a quote I like is " There is no one so
blind as he who will not see"
. Like I said, all you have to do is stop lying, then I will stop
calling you a liar, Deal?
Larry Handlin
> Larry Handlin <lbha...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3895C3FF...@nospam.yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Dave Woetzel wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Take the fundamental concept of natural selection. Darwinists are
> > > >> adept at inventing a "Just So" story to
> > > > > explain any scenario. One can't conceive of a situation that could
> > > falsify
> > > > > survival of the fittest.
> > > >
> > > > You should change the word "One" above to I.
> > > >
> > > > One possible falsification of survival of the fittest is if extinction
> > > didn't
> > > > occur. You can't conceive of it because the evidence of extinction
> is so
> > > > overwhelming. But if every species ever alive were still alive,
> > > evolutionary
> > > > theory would be false. Or perhaps if most were.
> > >
> > > Come on, Larry!
> >
> >
> >
> > > Where is your imagination suddenly?
> >
> > I'm not the one with an imagination problem. You are the one who
> > couldn't falsify evolution.
>
> Since when did I say that I could? It seems I have said closer to the
> precise opposite!
Ummmmm....you refused to provide evidence when I offered you a falsification of
natural selection. And regardless of what you want to be true several
suggestions have been made how this could be done. So you didn't say it, but
you haven't done it.
>
> >I showed you how. Now you are moving the
> > goal post. Nice try.
> >
> > >How convenient it is
> > > to suddenly NOT be able to invent a story! If species never went
> extinct
> > > Darwinists would only have to slightly modify the story.
> >
> > No, the biological theory of evolution would be false. And you still
> > haven't explained why it wouldn't except to claim that scientists would
> > move the goal posts.
>
> It would not. Let me ask you a simple question: If a new species develops,
> while still leaving an ancestral population, is that evolution? If you say
> no, you don't understand you'r own theory. If you say yes, you just
> disproved your own statement above: But if every species ever alive were
> still alive, evolutionary theory would be false." Take your pick.
>
One tenet of evolution is taking place in your example. It would certainly
follow the tenet of common descent, but with the information you have presented
it is unclear whether natural selection is taking place. If no species or few
species were becoming extinct than the current theory of biological evolution
would be false. It is entirely possible (in a theoretical sense) that common
descent could be taking place without natural selection. Or vice versa. But
the current theory of biological evolution would be falsified from no extinction
taking place. The biological theory of evolution does not require that every
ancestor goes extinct.
As usual, your misunderstanding of the theory is confusing you into claiming
others have to make false choices. Again you are trying to say that science
won't change, but providing examples of where science does change with new
information.
Your problem is that you cannot account for the evidence with a scientific
theory. So you are attacking a theory with evidence with nothing. If you want
to falsify the theory you have to make a better inference of the evidence.
The biological theory of evolution is based on evidence, it has testable
hypotheses that can be falsified and the work done can be replicated. Unless
you can falsify it with evidence or provide a better inference you are lost.
Nice try again. You have only presented a list of quotes that don't make a
coherent argument and you want us to go through and point out why everyone is
ridiculous. Why don't you actually reference the argument of the materials
quoted? That is how science is referenced, not quotes out of context. If you
don't believe me read a scientific journal.
>
> > > I'm still waiting for a scenario that could falsify evolution.
> > I gave it to you.
>
> You failed miserably.
>
No, and others have joined in pointing out others. I gave you ideas of how to
falsify two tenets. Are you going to provide evidence or not? Or even offer
the ever elusive scientific Theory of Creation?
Reference the work in terms of its arguments not quotes.
I did and so did many others. Screaming louder doesn't change that.
> The question I addressed deals with whether evolution is a
>scientific fact. It most assuredly does not require the existence of a
>better theory to establish that evolution is not a fact.The question I
addressed deals >with whether evolution is a
>scientific fact. It most assuredly does not require the existence of a
>better theory to establish that evolution is not a fact.
Except you refuse to falsify the fact or the theory of evolution so what are you
doing?
Or provide a better inference of the evidence. You have done nothing but hand
wave.
>
> Dave
Dave Woetzel
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:38974dc2...@news.smu.edu...
> >> found.
> >
> >Thank you. So it would not falsify evolution. Evolution would easily
> >change to accomodate the new evidence. That is exactly my point. If
> >evolutionists needed to explain whale extinction, it would be trivially
> >easy. It is just another Just-So story!
>
> Okay, let's go through this slowly. There's a theory (not evolution,
> for the purposes of argument, call it the Theory of Widgets) which
> explains all the known facts of a specific field. Let's pick an
> arbitrary number, 1 million facts. Time passes, and 10 new facts are
> discovered which do not exactly fit the Theory of Widgets. The theory
> is slightly modified so that it explains all 10 new facts plus the
> previous 1M, leading to the Theory of Widgets version 1.01.
>
> This by you is bad?
No, Louann. What would be "bad" is if the Theory of Widgets could just as
handily accommodate a scenario where the 1 million facts were completely
different. IOW, they aren't predictions of the theory. Therefore, since
the theory explains either scenario, it would really explain nothing.
That's why Sir Karl Popper identified the test of falsifiability as the
essential distinction for a scientific theory. Gould puts it well:
"Scientific claims must be testable; we must, in principle, be able to
envision a set of observations that would render them false." ("Creationism:
Genesis Vs. Geology," 1984, p. 130)
Ken Cox
> On 1 Feb 2000 15:07:50 -0500, Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> >Dave Woetzel wrote:
> <snip>
> >> flowers growing in a landscape without topsoil, etc.?
> >Yes. Topsoil is a complexly-structured system of particles of
> >sand, soil, and humus, extensively worked and re-worked by both
> >plants and animals, with numerous easily-seen features. These
> >include layering at different depths caused by leaching, physical
> >and chemical alteration of the bedrock and the soil at different
> >depths, organic remains, and so forth. None of this is necessary
> >for the soil to support flowers. So a flower certainly could
> >exist without topsoil, just some sort of bedding medium, like
> >the artificial mixes you can buy in bags at garden shops.
> You say flowers need no topsoil --- then tell us to go buy "artificial
> mixes" at garden shops. What the hell do you think you are buying at
> the garden shop?
>
> They call it "potting soil" --- so it is not "topsoil?"
No, it is not. As I explained above, topsoil has structure. It
has things in it that show how it developed. It has a history,
one that people who have studied the subject can read. It is
full of evidence that it has been there for a while; the mineral
leachate lines are particularly significant, since they form only
after a number of years of water percolating through the soil.
The stuff you buy in garden shops has none of this structure.
Usually, it is not even soil taken from the ground, but is mixed
up from raw ingredients like sand and clay and organic matter.
The manufacturers also often make substitutions for some of these
ingredients, e.g. styrofoam is often used as a substitute for
humus to lighten the mixture. But nowhere in that bag will you
find any of the traits of a mature topsoil that I listed above.
As I said, a creator could have used this sort of soil, with
no "history" visible in it -- just the same way that I can fill
a pot with that bagged stuff and plop in a tomato plant without
having to wait twenty, fifty, or a hundred years for the soil
to develop into a topsoil. If a creator produced a landscape
de novo, and if I dug down into that landscape and found all
those features that distinguish a mature topsoil from the stuff
you can buy in a bag -- all the history that you don't find in
the bag -- I would consider that deceptive.
By the way, the large <snip> you made above includes the examples
of trees without rings and rivers without beds. Do I take it that
you have no objections to my statements about these? In particular
(since it seems to have been the grounds for your objection above)
may I take it that you understood and accepted my examples, of
synthetic plastic construction beams and drainage culverts as the
way trees and rivers (respectively) could be constructed -- and
*are* constructed, by humans -- without false evidence of history?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Then again, there are always bromaliads......
And again -- if someone created a bromeliad on a tree branch de
novo, and if when I inspected that bromeliad I found evidence of
a history that is not necessary for the plant to exist -- growth
patterns in the plant, or insect damage, or marks in and on the
tree branch where the bromeliad's previous roots were attached --
then I would consider that creation to be deceptive.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Just out of interest, what *is* [creationism's] strongest argument?
It would have to be "God did it". As this is their *only* argument,
it must be the strongest.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dave Woetzel
> > It would not. Let me ask you a simple question: If a new species
develops,
> > while still leaving an ancestral population, is that evolution? If you
say
> > no, you don't understand you'r own theory. If you say yes, you just
> > disproved your own statement above: But if every species ever alive were
> > still alive, evolutionary theory would be false." Take your pick.
> >
>
> One tenet of evolution is taking place in your example. It would
certainly
> follow the tenet of common descent, but with the information you have
presented
> it is unclear whether natural selection is taking place. If no species
or few
> species were becoming extinct than the current theory of biological
evolution
> would be false. It is entirely possible (in a theoretical sense) that
common
> descent could be taking place without natural selection. Or vice versa.
But
> the current theory of biological evolution would be falsified from no
extinction
> taking place. The biological theory of evolution does not require that
every
> ancestor goes extinct.
Now we have arrived at the heart of the affair. The original question dealt
with whether evolution was a fact. To be a scientific theory (let alone a
scientific fact), it must be falsifiable. Sir Karl Popper identified the
test of falsifiability as the essential distinction for a scientific theory
in the early part of the twentieth century. Gould puts it well: "Scientific
claims must be testable; we must, in principle, be able to envision a set of
observations that would render them false." ("Creationism: Genesis Vs.
Geology," 1984, p. 130.)
I asked for a way to falsify evolution. Larry said, "But if every species
ever alive were still alive, evolutionary theory would be false." I pointed
out how evolutionists could handily accommodate this scenario. Now Larry
backs off to saying, "But the *current* theory of biological evolution would
be falsified..." [emphasis mine]. But this bastardizes the test! It is no
test. Tenets of the original Darwin theory were modified in neo-Darwinism.
This did not falsify evolution--nor should it have. Contrary to his
assertion, evolution would not be falsified even in the extraordinary
scenario Larry presented!
I rest my case,
Dave
Ken Cox
> Now we have arrived at the heart of the affair. The original question dealt
> with whether evolution was a fact. To be a scientific theory (let alone a
> scientific fact), it must be falsifiable.
Facts are now falsifiable? I think you might want to think
about that a bit more.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Larry Handlin
> Larry Handlin <lbha...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Unlike creationist rhetoric, science must change when new evidence is
> > found.
>
> Thank you. So it would not falsify evolution. Evolution would easily
> change to accomodate the new evidence. That is exactly my point. If
> evolutionists needed to explain whale extinction, it would be trivially
> easy. It is just another Just-So story!
I'm repeating myself, but such evidence would falsify the current theory of
biological evolution. If one of the tenets of the theory are found to be false
it would be replaced with a new theory. Perhaps you could still call it
evolution, but the theory would have different claims and thus not be the same
theory. This is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why you are having such a
hard time.
Thanks, I did forget it. Trying the tautology defense now. Nice. While we all
use shorthand in talking that makes it sound like a tautology, survival of the
fittest---better labeled natural selection is not. Natural selection posits
that an organism that has features that make it better able to survive is more
likely to. Not will survive, but is more likely to. This is observable in real
time. If organisms within a species in general survived that were less
efficient than others over time, natural selection would be falsified. But,
more efficient organisms tend to survive at much higher rates than those
organisms without the efficient modification.
Now, what you have just done is attack microevolution. Most creationists don't
even try this anymore, but hey, old school deserves a little respect. Just ask
Huey's grandad. So how do you explain pesticide resistant weeds and animals?
Oh, and TO covers this at :
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
Larry Handlin
Dave Woetzel wrote:
> <BIG snip to the essence>
> > > It would not. Let me ask you a simple question: If a new species
> develops,
> > > while still leaving an ancestral population, is that evolution? If you
> say
> > > no, you don't understand you'r own theory. If you say yes, you just
> > > disproved your own statement above: But if every species ever alive were
> > > still alive, evolutionary theory would be false." Take your pick.
> > >
> >
> > One tenet of evolution is taking place in your example. It would
> certainly
> > follow the tenet of common descent, but with the information you have
> presented
> > it is unclear whether natural selection is taking place. If no species
> or few
> > species were becoming extinct than the current theory of biological
> evolution
> > would be false. It is entirely possible (in a theoretical sense) that
> common
> > descent could be taking place without natural selection. Or vice versa.
> But
> > the current theory of biological evolution would be falsified from no
> extinction
> > taking place. The biological theory of evolution does not require that
> every
> > ancestor goes extinct.
> <snip redundancy>
>
> Now we have arrived at the heart of the affair. The original question dealt
> with whether evolution was a fact. To be a scientific theory (let alone a
> scientific fact), it must be falsifiable. Sir Karl Popper identified the
> test of falsifiability as the essential distinction for a scientific theory
> in the early part of the twentieth century. Gould puts it well: "Scientific
> claims must be testable; we must, in principle, be able to envision a set of
> observations that would render them false." ("Creationism: Genesis Vs.
> Geology," 1984, p. 130.)
>
> I asked for a way to falsify evolution. Larry said, "But if every species
> ever alive were still alive, evolutionary theory would be false." I pointed
> out how evolutionists could handily accommodate this scenario.
No, you made a claim that was very peculiar. Essentially a theory of biological
evolution without natural selection would result. You can claim it would be
called the same thing, but it would be an entirely different theory.
> Now Larry
> backs off to saying, "But the *current* theory of biological evolution would
> be falsified..." [emphasis mine]. But this bastardizes the test! It is no
> test.
Yes it is. Many portions of Darwin's ideas have been falsified and we have
simply created new theories under essentially the same name. While they may be
called the same thing, they are actually very different and Darwin would have a
hard time recognizing his theory if he were to be make a hell of a comeback.
> Tenets of the original Darwin theory were modified in neo-Darwinism.
> This did not falsify evolution--nor should it have. Contrary to his
> assertion, evolution would not be falsified even in the extraordinary
> scenario Larry presented!
You seem to think the word evolution is somehow magical. It is still used
because evolving is a good description of common descent and natural selection.
However, many of Darwin's basic tenets have been falsified. So, some of his
ideas have stuck around, but many have not. The current theory while sharing
the same name is far different from the original. In essence it is now a
different theory based on some common foundations of common descent and natural
selection. Despite your claims that evolution cannot be falsified, many
specific mechanisms for evolution (I would argue pure gradualism) have been
falsified.
>
>
> I rest my case,
> Dave
If I'm ever in court I hope you are the opposing side's counsel.
Neil W Rickert
That is the dogma of falsificationism. But it is not much more than
dogma.
The best scientific theories are an encoding of scientific practice.
The terms used in the theories get their meanings from scientific
practice. In such a case, the theories could not help but be true by
virtue of the meanings of the terms. That would make them analytic
and unfalsifiable.
For sure, there might be evidence that would lead scientists to
change their practices. And as a consequence of changing their
practices, there would be a change, perhaps subtle, in the meanings
of the terms involved. Then the former theory would be seen as
false. But it would only be false as a result of the change in
meanings of the terms used.
Science should not judged by its truth or falsity, but by its
effectiveness. Creationism fails as a scientific theory, both
because it is not an encoding of scientific practice, and because any
practices based on creationist theorizing would be largely
ineffective.
Larry Handlin
Dave Woetzel wrote:
> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:38974dc2...@news.smu.edu...
> > On 1 Feb 2000 15:58:38 -0500, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Larry Handlin <lbha...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >> Unlike creationist rhetoric, science must change when new evidence is
> > >> found.
> > >
> > >Thank you. So it would not falsify evolution. Evolution would easily
> > >change to accomodate the new evidence. That is exactly my point. If
> > >evolutionists needed to explain whale extinction, it would be trivially
> > >easy. It is just another Just-So story!
> >
> > Okay, let's go through this slowly. There's a theory (not evolution,
> > for the purposes of argument, call it the Theory of Widgets) which
> > explains all the known facts of a specific field. Let's pick an
> > arbitrary number, 1 million facts. Time passes, and 10 new facts are
> > discovered which do not exactly fit the Theory of Widgets. The theory
> > is slightly modified so that it explains all 10 new facts plus the
> > previous 1M, leading to the Theory of Widgets version 1.01.
> >
> > This by you is bad?
>
> No, Louann. What would be "bad" is if the Theory of Widgets could just as
> handily accommodate a scenario where the 1 million facts were completely
> different. IOW, they aren't predictions of the theory.
Ummmm...can you list these 1 million facts please.
Here are some predictions that the biological theory of evolution actually makes
versus what you assert, but do not provide evidence for.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#pred
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
http://talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/sep96.html
> Therefore, since
> the theory explains either scenario, it would really explain nothing.
> That's why Sir Karl Popper identified the test of falsifiability as the
> essential distinction for a scientific theory. Gould puts it well:
> "Scientific claims must be testable; we must, in principle, be able to
> envision a set of observations that would render them false." ("Creationism:
R. Tang
>Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:877ba3$7mf$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
>What mantra? I don't give a damn about being politically correct.
Generally, anybody who throws out the "politically correct"
argument is merely covering up their own lack of knowledge with rhetoric.
>> It
>> reminds me of the classic line from George Orwell."One has to belong to
>the
>> intelligentsia to believe things like that; no ordinary man could be such
>a
>> fool."
And when one resorts to rhetoric and logic arguments instead of
facts and observations, it does tend to mark one as part of the
intelligentsia.
Let's deal with facts and observations, shall we?
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Tracy P. Hamilton
Dave Woetzel wrote in message
<877kkc$c6l$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>...
>Sorry to chop it up like this, Howard, when it is clear you gave it some
>careful though. But we are going down a side trail afar from what I'd like
>to discuss. I'll just briefly address a couple of points you raise and
then
>run along...
>
><CHOP>
>> > Age of the earth is not my burning issue and it is quite a bit off to
>the
>> > side of this thread.
>>
>> Ah, but it is if you want to ask if common descent can be falsified.
>> Common descent from the fossil record is inferred by the type of
>> pattern (incomplete that it is) that one observes in the sedimentary
>> layers of the earth.
>
>Did I say I wanted evidence that common descent could be falsified? I
>didn't mean to (if I did). IMHO, Darwinists are not committed to common
>descent...only naturalism and natural selection.
In my case it is the *complete* opposite.
In general, I find it perhaps a little better to have an idea of *WHAT*
happened
before firing off *HOW* it happens. Most "Darwinists" here will gladly
concede
that natural selection is not the only mechanism by which evolution
proceeds.
And that bit about naturalism - isn't science called natural philosophy?
>That is, if life did not
>exhibit a pattern of nested hierarchy, Darwinists would happily accommodate
>with processes of loss, replacement, distant hybridization, anagenesis,
>transposition, unmasking, panspermia, or multiple biogenesis.
The quote below actually argues against your point! It says we can't invoke
the above without *experimental* information on their rates.
>Much of them
>would be far simpler than natural selection and convergence.
Natural selection is awfully simple.
>They could
>handily explain troublesome features of the fossil record without resorting
>to PE.
There is no "resorting" to PE. It is like physicists "resorting" to
relativity.
> There is no good naturalistic/evolutionist reason for them not to
>have occurred.
>
>For example:
>"The debate about lateral transfer does not center upon plausible
>mechanisms. ...The issue is not plausibility but relative frequency.
>Lateral transfer is intelligible and feasible, but how often does it happen
>in nature? This crucial question must be established by example, not by
>theory." (Gould, Stephen J., 1986, "Linnaean Limits,: _Natural History_,
>vol. 95, no. 8, p. 18)
Well, if lateral transfer happened at a given rate in all life, then one
could
estimate a maximum time before common descent trees by DNA would be
completely scrambled.
><CHOP>
>> > You make a valid argument that creationists need to
>> > come up with solid techniques. I'm also candid enough to admit that
>this is
>> > not our strongest argument (at least as things stand today).
>>
>> What is?
>
>Now you really want to go in a different direction. :) Off the top of my
>head, the biggest problems for naturalism/evoluionism are a universe
>fine-tuned for life, the phenomenal unlikelihood of abiogenesis,
irreducibly
>complex biological systems, information theory & mutations, population
>genetics & Haldane's Dilemma, mechanism difficulties with natural selection
>in a complex fitness terrain & with polygeny, and life systematically
>lacking a pattern joining disparate lifeforms together.
>
>There! Now I raised a whole bunch of stuff that I won't get into
>here....but you asked. I'm sure we'll have the chance to sort some of it
>out in upcoming threads.
The same old stuff.
Tracy P. Hamilton
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> You have yourself chosen to define the term to your own satisfaction.
>> But accepting that, do you know of any scientist who would describe your
>> definition as a fact? I don't.
>
>Then you need to get out and about a bit more...
>
>"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological
>fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars and the
>formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, an
evolution means one thing to a biologist, and another to a linguist.
even thermodynamics courses are taught differently to chemists and
engineers.
evolution can mean 'change'. in fact the word was in common use before
darwin. the reference woetzel cites simply mean science is now aware
of change and development in many areas previously assumed to be
static. astronomy is probably the best example. galaxies do not
reproduce, but they do evolve.
and we do see change. we see biological evolution. we see speciation.
we see galaxies in different stages of development the further back in
time we look. the 2 processes are quite distinct. and we have
mechanisms for these changes.
creationists dont. creationism exists solely because science has
questions. as long as science says 'i dont know', creationists will
say 'because god did it'. that's why dave's discussion always centers
around the unanswered questions of evolution rather than the missing
mechanism of creation. creation has no mechanism. it's not science. it
has nothing to say, except that science does not have all the answers.
to scientists that's not a surprise....it's a challenge. and one that
isnt answered by saying 'god did it'.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>If instantaneous creation does, as you say, require an appearance of age,
>then how is it misleading? It is precisely what one would expect to see as
>a creationist.
because it's circular. it presumes the creator then uses that as proof
that the creation was a creation.
>
><BIG snip of some very valid discussions>
>
>Age of the earth is not my burning issue and it is quite a bit off to the
>side of this thread. You make a valid argument that creationists need to
>come up with solid techniques. I'm also candid enough to admit that this is
>not our strongest argument (at least as things stand today).
in fact it falsifies creationism. there is no aspect of any current
physical science...astronomy, geology or physics...which allows the
earth to be 6000 yrs old.
Andy Groves
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > You make a valid argument that creationists need to
> > > come up with solid techniques. I'm also candid enough to admit that
> this is
> > > not our strongest argument (at least as things stand today).
> >
> > What is?
>
> Now you really want to go in a different direction. :) Off the top of my
> head, the biggest problems for naturalism/evoluionism are a universe
> fine-tuned for life, the phenomenal unlikelihood of abiogenesis, irreducibly
> complex biological systems, information theory & mutations, population
> genetics & Haldane's Dilemma, mechanism difficulties with natural selection
> in a complex fitness terrain & with polygeny, and life systematically
> lacking a pattern joining disparate lifeforms together.
>
So you have listed a number of arguments *against* evolution - but what
is your strongest argument *for* creation?
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>Did I say I wanted evidence that common descent could be falsified? I
>didn't mean to (if I did). IMHO, Darwinists are not committed to common
>descent...only naturalism and natural selection. That is, if life did not
>exhibit a pattern of nested hierarchy, Darwinists would happily accommodate
>with processes of loss, replacement, distant hybridization, anagenesis,
>transposition, unmasking, panspermia, or multiple biogenesis.
if those were natural processes, and that's what life looked like,
then science would be forced into those conclusions. it doesnt.
>> What is?
>
>Now you really want to go in a different direction. :) Off the top of my
>head, the biggest problems for naturalism/evoluionism are a universe
>fine-tuned for life,
i suggest you read the works of andre linde at stanford, lee smolin of
penn state, and alan guth of MIT. guth has a very readable
introduction to the 'fine tuning' problem in his book 'the
inflationary universe'. no magic required.
in addition, this is god of the gaps. we dont know how the universe
got 'fine tuned'. and, again, creationists are willing to turn the
scientific 'i dont know' into 'god did it' which explains zip
>the phenomenal unlikelihood of abiogenesis,
more god of the gaps. since no one knows how life began, to say 'god
did it' explains, again, nothing.