There is no ToE on Wikipedia
backspace
so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
Mark Nutter
Yep, nothing theoretical about it. It's all fact. Thanks for pointing
that out.
m
backspace
mmh I hope I don't seem dense, what exactly is a fact?
backspace
mmh I hope I don't seem dense but what exactly is a fact? Is the word
"evolution" in an of itself a fact or is some yet to be stated theory
equivocated with the word "evolution" a fact?
Friar Broccoli
I'm not sure what the point of this word play is. Perhaps it
would be easier if we started with the more explicit question:
"Is common descent a fact?", you know all people are descendant
from a non-human ancestor, all mammals from a non-mammalian
ancestor, that sort of thing.
Do you have any reason for believing that common descent is not
the fact it so obviously is?
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
TomS
<1180021051....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Mark Nutter stated..."
I tried "Theory of Intelligent Design", and it didn't have an entry, and
didn't even redirect my anywhere, but it did have a list of search
results. At the top of that list was "Unintelligent Design".
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
loua...@yahoo.com
>
> mmh I hope I don't seem dense, what exactly is a fact?
Okay, now THAT's my Chez Watt nomination for the month.
Kermit
> We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
> so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
> ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
> does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>
I would think that the "Theory of Evolution" means what scientists
mean by it. It would be difficult to discuss the known facts of
evolution and the theory explaining those facts without referencing
each other. One may as well try to describe atoms without using modern
physics.
> It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
> Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
> realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
> of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
> equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
Or perhaps whoever wrote those pages understood that the Theory of
Evolution is our best understanding of how evolution happened.
And "equivocate" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Perhaps
you meant to use the word "conflation" incorrectly.
Kermit
backspace
> "Is common descent a fact?", you know all people are descendant
> from a non-human ancestor, all mammals from a non-mammalian
> ancestor, that sort of thing.
> Do you have any reason for believing that common descent is not
> the fact it so obviously is?
Is so obviously established by whom published in which Journal? Simply
stating that we had common descent does'nt make it so. You must give
me some way of falsifying your theory by telling me who established CD
and how did he derive his theory and this means providing me with an
independant specification of any relevent observation and not merely
restateing such an observation as part of the theory.
SJAB1958
Well a fact could be the truth, but then even Pilate had trouble with
that concept.
backspace
> On May 24, 8:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
> > so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
> > ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
> > does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>
> I would think that the "Theory of Evolution" means what scientists
> mean by it. It would be difficult to discuss the known facts of
> evolution and the theory explaining those facts without referencing
is stuff surviving.
> each other. One may as well try to describe atoms without using modern
> physics.
independant specification in the form of mathematical equations. It is
only Tigers and life itself that is resistant to a mathematical
equation it seems. Deriving a theory of "evolution" for tigers assumes
that we can specify the problem of what is a tiger. Why are we making
this assumption if the even the ancient philosophers got their
theories wrong since they could'nt even specify the problem. It would
seem that with this phrase "Theory of Evolution" we are making the
same mistake.
UC
Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
Timberwoof
"loua...@yahoo.com" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, it's actually a fair question, along with "what does 'equivocate'
mean?"
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Note: Until Google stops doing evil on newsgroups, I will filter posts from
Google Groups. If you want to converse with me, use a real newsreader or get
Google to fix their bugs! http://news.aioe.org/ is an alternative server.
jesusislord
Theory=guess
evolution=myth
fact=truth
evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults, a way to justify a
sinful life style,and drop morals to a low standard to justify self.
Romans 1:18-32 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest
in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.20 For the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21 Because that, when they
knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened.22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,23 And
changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
things.24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
themselves:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
ever. Amen.26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use
of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompence of their error which was meet.28 And even as they did not
like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;29 Being
filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
malignity; whisperers,30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud,
boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,31 Without
understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they
which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same,
but have pleasure in them that do them.
Inez
Established by Lots of people, published in lots of journals. This is
a big wad of science, not a single paper.
backspace
> Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
> layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
> same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
> layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
> succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
No, you have dead bones in various layers. How did they get there is
the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
others, where was this established and by whom? Do realise that we
might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
of the materialist premise.
UC
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <1180022921.175689.183...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 24, 10:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > mmh I hope I don't seem dense, what exactly is a fact?
>
> > Okay, now THAT's my Chez Watt nomination for the month.
>
> No, it's actually a fair question, along with "what does 'equivocate'
> mean?"
Well, it means changing what you mean by the same word in different
places.
loua...@yahoo.com
I have a long-standing bias that when someone constructs "truth" in a
way that allows it to directly contradict "facts," I assume they're
bullsh*tting.
When they attach the adjectives "metaphysical" (see adjoining thread)
or "philosopical" (sorry, present company) to that "truth" I consider
my assumption to be proven.
It's a hypothesis which has worked well for me so far...
UC
> On May 24, 6:49 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
> > layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
> > same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
> > layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
> > succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
>
> No, you have dead bones in various layers.
Mostly snail shells.
> How did they get there is
> the question.
They lived in the water and died by the millions.
> How do you know different life forms descended from
> others,
They're snails.
> where was this established and by whom?
They're snail shells. Go look at them
> Do realise that we
> might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
> of the materialist premise.
The only answer we can accept is one that relies on observation and
testing.
er...@swva.net
> On May 24, 6:05 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Is common descent a fact?", you know all people are descendant
> > from a non-human ancestor, all mammals from a non-mammalian
> > ancestor, that sort of thing.
> > Do you have any reason for believing that common descent is not
> > the fact it so obviously is?
>
> Is so obviously established by whom published in which Journal?
Who cares?
> Simply
> stating that we had common descent does'nt make it so. You must give
> me some way of falsifying your theory by telling me who established CD
> and how did he derive his theory and this means providing me with an
> independant specification of any relevent observation and not merely
> restateing such an observation as part of the theory.
What theory? We're talking about a fact (common descent), not a
theory (such as the theory of evolution) used to explain it.
Eric Root
UC
Read and learn something, dumbass.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/grte/grte_geology/sec9.htm
http://www.canyondave.com/Fossils.html
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~pju/Kaufmanetal.2002-QRes.pdf
chris.li...@gmail.com
Let's try an analogy with which you might be able to identify.
Picture if you will, a white wall forming part of a hallway.
Perpendicular to this wall is a tile floor. The floor and wall extend
for approximately 10 meters, whereupon there is a right angle in the
hallway. From floor level to about a meter up on this white wall you
can see drawings. There are permanent felt-tip drawings of stick
people, kittens and other animals, and similar childish images. The
drawings are in a variety of colors: red, blue, pink, yellow and a
several others. On the floor is a trail of what appears to be melted
ice cream, probably vanilla. About 2 meters ahead of you there is a
yellow "Sharpie" marker on the floor. Beyond that point there are no
more yellow drawings. Three meters past that, you find a blue Sharpie,
and again, there are no more blue drawings. A few meters further
down, you find a purple Sharpie, and at that point you find the last
drawing in purple. Finally, you turn the corner and find a five-year-
old child. The child is holding 3 Sharpie markers and the remains of
a vanilla ice-cream cone in one hand, and is drawing a puppy on the
wall with a brown Sharpie. There are no drawings on the wall past the
child; there are no abandoned Sharpie markers on the floor past the
child, and the spots of melted ice cream stop at the child. In fact,
as you stand there, you see a drop of melted ice cream splatter on the
floor from the child's cone. You do not see or hear any other children
in the area.
Do you then say, "How do you know the child dripped the ice cream,
made the drawings, and dropped the Sharpies on the floor?"
Chris
er...@swva.net
> On May 24, 11:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 5:37 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 11:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
> > > > so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
> > > > ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
> > > > does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>
> > > > It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
> > > > Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
> > > > realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
> > > > of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
> > > > equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
>
> > > Yep, nothing theoretical about it. It's all fact. Thanks for pointing
> > > that out.
>
> > mmh I hope I don't seem dense but what exactly is a fact? Is the word
> > "evolution" in an of itself a fact or is some yet to be stated theory
> > equivocated with the word "evolution" a fact?
>
> Theory=guess
Wrong. Theory only means "guess" in common parlance. Here, it means
a well-thought-out, self-consistent explanation of the facts.
> evolution=myth
Evolution may have mythical aspects, as do many factual things. Space
travel is real, although it has many mythical aspects. Cowboys really
exist/existed, and yet they, also, are powerful myths.
> fact=truth
Well, usually.
>
> evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults,
Nope, you are either deluded or crazy here.
> a way to
> justify a
> sinful life style,and drop morals to a low standard to justify > self.
If that were true, scientists would act _worse_ than fundamentalists,
and have more flawed personalities than fundamentalists, rather than
behave better and have better personalities. Face it: you don't have
the slightest evidence that pro-evolution people act any worse than
science-haters.
(snip Bible quotes)
When I want to read the Bible, I'll read it myself and not from a
creepy science-hater.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
>
> > Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
> > layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
> > same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
> > layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
> > succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
>
> No, you have dead bones in various layers. How did they get there is
> the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
> others, where was this established and by whom?
Why do you still go on and on with this "where was this established
and by whom" baloney?
> Do realise that we
> might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
> of the materialist premise.
Maybe.
Eric Root
Mark Nutter
That's the stuff we observe and discover.
m
geo...@hotmail.com
> On May 24, 11:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 5:37 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 11:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
> > > > so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
> > > > ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
> > > > does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>
> > > > It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
> > > > Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
> > > > realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
> > > > of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
> > > > equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
>
> > > Yep, nothing theoretical about it. It's all fact. Thanks for pointing
> > > that out.
>
> > mmh I hope I don't seem dense but what exactly is a fact? Is the word
> > "evolution" in an of itself a fact or is some yet to be stated theory
> > equivocated with the word "evolution" a fact?
>
> Theory=guess
> evolution=myth
> fact=truth
'x=y' statements = stupid
Theory doesn't mean 'guess' in science. It means a principle or
principles that have been tested and found to give good results. Thus,
Newton's theory of gravity, which includes the math for calculating
interactions between masses, potentials, etc, is a scientific theory,
which works in the real world. It's not a guess; it actually works.
(Although not perfectly, as some chap whose name escapes me later
showed).
Evolution is the same. It works. It predicts the patterns of life on
Earth. Give a cladolologist a bunch of animal genomes, and they can
come back to you with details of which of the animals are most similar
to which, purely because they all share features - and DEFECTS -
inherited from common ancestors.
A lovely example I read recently is the way that flightless birds are
always found only on one island; the dodo wasn't found anywhere except
Mauritius, the kiwi only in New Zealand. It has to be this way for
evolution, because they can't leave the island once they lose their
flight.
>
> evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults
and you still don't understand it. perhaps we should give you a
cartoon for children?
>, a way to justify a
> sinful life style
like the creationist one that requires you to lie as much as possible?
I'm a good person. If your God has any brains, or even any morals, he
should see that. As of the moment, however, he intends to sit on his
all powerful bottom and allow me to be tortured endlessly, while
claiming he loves me, just because I can't see invisible people.
> but have pleasure in them that do them.- Hide quoted text -
>
And the LORD did say, 'thou shalt not use line breaks'.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On May 24, 6:49 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
> > layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
> > same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
> > layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
> > succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
>
> No, you have dead bones in various layers. How did they get there is
> the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
> others, where was this established and by whom?
I established that NOTNH 1987.G60, a plesiosaur specimen from the
Rhaeto-Hettangian of Cropwell Bishop now in the collections of the
Natural History Musuem, Woolaton Hall, Nottingham is related to the
Toarcian genus Mircroclidus and the Callovian genus Murarenosaurus. I
did so by drawing upa a set of charaters of the vertebrae, limb and
girdle elements and performing a cladistic analysis using PAUP. I also
compared the way in which a set of vertebral dimensions taken from a
number of different specimens of different genera differ using cluster
analysis and mulivariate analysis. This confirmed the hypothesis of
relationships derived from the cladistic analysis. I published some
preliminary findings in a paper, and presented the data in a way which
anyone who has an interest can check by reference to the specimens I
used in the analysis.
At some time in the near future I intend to publish a joint paper with
my colleague Mark Evans and set up a new generic and specific name for
this specimen, establishing it as the holotype of the genus and
species. A part of that paper will deal with the taxonomic position of
that specimen.
This is the way scientists go about unravelling the history of life on
this planet, and these papers represent a tiny, insignificant element
of the whole enterprise. Tens of thousands of scientific papers are
published every year, and it is through this process of description,
taxonomic analysis and publication that we understand the
relationships of living organisms.
> Do realise that we
> might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
> of the materialist premise.
Science gives us answers which we can check by reference to evidence.
I don't know of any other method of investigation which does so, and
as science is purely materialistic, I guess that the "materialist
premise" is the only reliable way of investigating the material
world.
If you have some better way of unravelling the marvellous history of
life on our planet, feel free to offer it. But I don't think that say
"Wow, Isn't GOD great to have made these things" advances our
understanding at all.
RF
Mike Dworetsky
news:1180021763.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Ask Zoe, recently she made a brave and completely ridiculous attempt on this
newsgroup to define a "quantum" or minimum unit of "fact."
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On May 24, 11:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 5:37 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 11:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
> > > > so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
> > > > ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
> > > > does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>
> > > > It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
> > > > Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
> > > > realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
> > > > of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
> > > > equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
>
> > > Yep, nothing theoretical about it. It's all fact. Thanks for pointing
> > > that out.
>
> > mmh I hope I don't seem dense but what exactly is a fact? Is the word
> > "evolution" in an of itself a fact or is some yet to be stated theory
> > equivocated with the word "evolution" a fact?
>
> Theory=guess
> evolution=myth
> fact=truth
>
> evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults, a way to justify a
> sinful life style,and drop morals to a low standard to justify self.
>
> Romans 1:18-32 18
I hope you're thumping that bible on your head. You might come to your
senses eventually.
Chris
snip
Mark VandeWettering
> On May 24, 11:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 5:37 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 24, 11:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>> > > so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
>> > > ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
>> > > does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>>
>> > > It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
>> > > Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
>> > > realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
>> > > of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
>> > > equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
>>
>> > Yep, nothing theoretical about it. It's all fact. Thanks for pointing
>> > that out.
>>
>> mmh I hope I don't seem dense but what exactly is a fact? Is the word
>> "evolution" in an of itself a fact or is some yet to be stated theory
>> equivocated with the word "evolution" a fact?
>
> Theory=guess
> evolution=myth
> fact=truth
War is Peace!
Freedom is Slavery!
Ignorance is Strength!
Hey, this is fun!
> evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults, a way to justify a
> sinful life style,and drop morals to a low standard to justify self.
We don't need evolution for that. There are plenty of other ways to
justify a sinful lifestyle.
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in
praise of intelligence." -- Bertrand Russell
Timberwoof
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
Oo, I like it! Computer-heads would say that that is a bit, but it only
carries meaning in its context ... and that is always a whole lot of
other bits.
Timberwoof
Mark VandeWettering <wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
Space is Time
Matter is Energy
Particles are Waves
> > evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults, a way to justify a
> > sinful life style,and drop morals to a low standard to justify self.
>
> We don't need evolution for that. There are plenty of other ways to
> justify a sinful lifestyle.
And, for that matter, we don't need a mythology to justify sanctimony.
If you compare the number of restrictions on straight people to those on
gay people, you begin to realize that straight people need more
supervision.
And then there was the bit about snakes. So to speak.
Timberwoof
Timberwoof
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 6:49 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
> > layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
> > same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
> > layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
> > succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
>
> No, you have dead bones in various layers. How did they get there is
> the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
> others,
Because in the different layers of sediment, you can see how the fossils
laid down change slowly enough that this is possible.
> where was this established and by whom?
ll over the world, by people who know more about it than you do.
> Do realise that we
> might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
> of the materialist premise.
No.
Timberwoof
"chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris, you might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the
confines of the materialist premise. Clearly, the other marks were made
by good Christian children on the day of the Rapture. Says so in the
Bible.
}: ) ;-) :p
Mark Nutter
> On May 24, 11:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > mmh I hope I don't seem dense but what exactly is a fact? Is the word
> > "evolution" in an of itself a fact or is some yet to be stated theory
> > equivocated with the word "evolution" a fact?
>
> Theory=guess
> evolution=myth
> fact=truth
>
> evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults, a way to justify a
> sinful life style,and drop morals to a low standard to justify self.
>
Go out in your back yard on a dark, cloudless night, and look up.
Assuming there's not too much light pollution in your area, you can
see literally billions of years of natural history shining down on you
from the stars and galaxies out there. That's billions of years of
natural history you can see with your own eyes. You, yes you, can be
an eyewitness of the events that happened billions of years before
Jesus was even born.
But you can't be an eyewitness, or even an earwitness, of the
Christian God, because He does not show up in the real world, even
though the Gospels say He wants a relationship with each of us bad
enough to die for it. And in His absence, men have no choice but to
put their faith in the stories, superstitions and subjective feelings
of other men, just as you have put your faith in the stories written
by Paul almost 2,000 years ago. And even then, your faith is not so
much in the man Paul as it is in the men who tell you that Paul was an
inspired apostle, and that the books he wrote are "the Word of
God" (even though you know Paul, who wrote them, was not God, but
man).
The only reason why Christians pick on scientists (some of whom *are*
Christians) is that they are looking for scapegoats they can blame for
God's failure to show up in the real world. But it isn't the
scientists' fault that God fails to show up. God is old enough to take
responsibility for His own actions. If you want to blame someone,
blame Him.
m
Mark Nutter
>
> > On May 24, 11:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
> > > so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
> > > ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
> > > does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>
> > > It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
> > > Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
> > > realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
> > > of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
> > > equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
>
> > Yep, nothing theoretical about it. It's all fact. Thanks for pointing
> > that out.
>
> "evolution" in an of itself a fact or is some yet to be stated theory
> equivocated with the word "evolution" a fact?
You know. It's all that stuff you said scientists were actually
referring to when they tried to describe what the theory of evolution
is. Observations and verified stuff. Everything that you said
disqualified evolution from being a theory.
m
Mark Nutter
> On May 24, 6:05 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Is common descent a fact?", you know all people are descendant
> > from a non-human ancestor, all mammals from a non-mammalian
> > ancestor, that sort of thing.
> > Do you have any reason for believing that common descent is not
> > the fact it so obviously is?
>
> stating that we had common descent does'nt make it so. You must give
> me some way of falsifying your theory by telling me who established CD
> and how did he derive his theory and this means providing me with an
> independant specification of any relevent observation and not merely
> restateing such an observation as part of the theory.
Since common descent is an observation, it will not be possible to
give you the means of verifying it without mentioning the
observations. You've already proven that there's nothing theoretical
about it, so you'll just have to settle for the observations, assuming
you really want them.
m
Mark Nutter
> On May 24, 6:25 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On May 24, 8:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
> > > so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
> > > ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
> > > does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>
> > mean by it. It would be difficult to discuss the known facts of
> > evolution and the theory explaining those facts without referencing
>
> What facts? What are the known facts of evolution and don't tell me it
> is stuff surviving.
Ah, you've got a blacklist of facts you don't want to know? What other
facts do you wish us to omit?
> each other. One may as well try to describe atoms without using modern
> > physics.
>
> What does atoms, rocks and gravity have in common? They all have an
> independant specification in the form of mathematical equations.
Really? What's the mathematical formula for gneiss?
> It is
> only Tigers and life itself that is resistant to a mathematical
> equation it seems. Deriving a theory of "evolution" for tigers assumes
> that we can specify the problem of what is a tiger.
If new species arise by descent with modifications from a common
ancestor, a natural consequence of this would be that it would be
difficult to come up with a definition of "species" that works in all
cases, since there would be no fixed, natural boundaries isolating
each species from its ancestors and possible descendants.
> Why are we making
> this assumption if the even the ancient philosophers got their
> theories wrong since they could'nt even specify the problem. It would
> seem that with this phrase "Theory of Evolution" we are making the
> same mistake.
Indeed, we should just call it the observed fact of evolution, and be
done with it. You're doing great, keep it up!
m
Mark Nutter
Scientifically, it's not restricted to any materialistic premise. It
is restricted only to the premise of verifiability. That is, to be
scientific, a thing must be verifiable. Of course, when a scientist
talks about the material universe, he or she is speaking of a cosmos
made up of verifiable things. As soon as a thing proves to be
verifiable, it becomes part of what we call the material universe.
That doesn't mean it's necessarily physical--"learning," for example,
is part of the material universe, but it's not something that has
mass, location, volume, or the other physical attributes. Numbers like
pi are also part of the material world, but they're not physical. So
too anything that can be verified to be part of the real world is part
of the material universe, as opposed to the immaterial universe of
people's subjective and/or erroneous beliefs.
Also, truth is consistent with itself. This is what allows scientists
to learn about things that cannot be observed directly. We cannot see
electrons, but we can feel the shock if we stick our finger in the
light socket. The shock is consistent with the existence of electrons,
and other observable facts are consistent with some of the other
things we know about electrons.
Conversely, God cannot be observed, because He does not show up in the
real world. This is inconsistent with the stories men tell about God
wanting a relationship with us, badly enough to die for it. This kind
of major inconsistency shows that the stories are not true. If there
were an almighty God who loved us and wanted a personal relationship
with each of us, the most fundamental and obvious consequence would be
that He would show up to participate in that relationship, especially
after having worked so hard to make it possible. Because we do not
observe this happening in the real world, we can know that this story
is not true.
m
UC
The Theory of Evolution has been revised since Darwin first wrote.
Genes were unknown at the time Darwin wrote (Mendell discovered them
independently). Darwin had no idea how characteristics were inherited
and modified, but he concluded that they had to be, based on what he
observed.
UC
> On May 24, 1:06 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 6:49 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
> > > layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
> > > same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
> > > layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
> > > succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
>
> > No, you have dead bones in various layers. How did they get there is
> > the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
> > others, where was this established and by whom? Do realise that we
> > might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
> > of the materialist premise.
>
> Scientifically, it's not restricted to any materialistic premise. It
> is restricted only to the premise of verifiability. That is, to be
> scientific, a thing must be verifiable.
Not true. It goes "...a thing must be verifiable IN PRINCIPLE." Many
things are unverifiable because we cannot go there or stand the
conditions.
Mark Nutter
But to the degree that it cannot be verified -- directly or indirectly
-- it also does not become part of what we consider a scientific
conclusion. It may be a hypothesis or even a conjecture, but without
*some* kind of dependable verification, it remains unsupported.
This is an essential feature of science, because things that are flat-
out wrong are also unverifiable. If science were to begin allowing
conclusions even when they were unverifiable, there would be no way to
distinguish between the hypotheses that were unverifiable because they
are unverifiable, and those that are unverifiable because they are
wrong. It somewhat diminishes the value of science to render it
completely unable to tell when a hypothesis is wrong. ;-)
m
UC
Verify whether people can stand on the surface of the sun and sing
Stairway to Heaven.
Mark Nutter
I can't, therefore I will not use the term "a valid scientific
conclusion" to describe the idea that people can stand on the surface
of the sun and sing Stairway To Heaven. There are, however, indirect
methods of verification that allow us to reliably reach the conclusion
that the surface of the sun is far too hot to allow human life (or
even human bodies) to exist (except for *very* brief periods). Based
on indirect verification of the surface temperature of the sun, I'd be
inclined to conclude that we can scientifically verify that there are
not any living, unprotected members standing on the solar surface, let
alone standing there singing.
Remember, there are both direct and indirect ways of verifying things
in the real world. Science does not need to restrict itself to only
direct experience of a phenomenon. The fact that truth is consistent
with itself means it is possible to reliably verify some things via
indirect methods.
m
Steve Marshall
"Mark Nutter" <manut...@gmail.com> wrote
> Since common descent is an observation, it will not be possible to
> give you the means of verifying it without mentioning the
> observations. You've already proven that there's nothing theoretical
> about it, so you'll just have to settle for the observations, assuming
> you really want them.
It isn't an observation. You haven't seen it happen. The idea is what is
thought to have happened by looking at the available evidence.
When a scientist says they 'know' something is true they have a model which
is a mental image of a working structure. Various tests can be done to the
model to see if things work in expected ways and attempts are made to see,
and here is the important thing, if the model fails. Scientific leaps are
made when we find the means show a model is wrong and new one needs
building. It is a scientists wish to find reasons to create a new better
model.
So far evolution holds up to scrutiny. There have been scientific advances
such as DNA discovery which have led to further confirmation and sometimes
alter some of they patterns we thought were right, but evolution holds
firm.
Not only observation of the living record is applied to evolution, but also
the fossil record and geography ,geology, plate tectonics, archaeology and
chemistry. All this is thrown at the Theory of Evolution and the model
stands firm. All the evidence supports evolution. There is nothing yet to
show it is flawed.
Steve M
wf3h
backspace wrote:
>>
> It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
> Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
> realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
> of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
> equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
betcha this idiot thinks atomic theory is just a 'bunch of
observations' as well
amazing what the scientifically illiterate think they've conjured up...
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> >
> mmh I hope I don't seem dense
too late...
but what exactly is a fact? Is the word
> "evolution" in an of itself a fact or is some yet to be stated theory
> equivocated with the word "evolution" a fact?
betcha he doesn't know the difference between 'atom theory' and atoms,
either.
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> > What facts? What are the known facts of evolution and don't tell me it
> is stuff surviving.
ever hear of sex?
ever hear of death?
put 'em together and you have evolution...
> > each other. One may as well try to describe atoms without using modern
> > physics.
> What does atoms, rocks and gravity have in common? They all have an
> independant specification in the form of mathematical equations. It is
> only Tigers and life itself that is resistant to a mathematical
> equation it seems.
no one knows what this means. when i was in college i took a course in
biomathematics. we studied the growth of populations...statistical
distributions of organisms...
Deriving a theory of "evolution" for tigers assumes
> that we can specify the problem of what is a tiger. Why are we making
> this assumption if the even the ancient philosophers got their
> theories wrong since they could'nt even specify the problem. It would
> seem that with this phrase "Theory of Evolution" we are making the
> same mistake.
IOW he believes nothing exists. he's a sophomoric cartesian skeptic...
sorry, sport, it was done by someone much smarter than you a few
centuries ago...
wf3h
jesusislord wrote:
>>
> Theory=guess
> evolution=myth
> fact=truth
IOW he doesn't know how science works.
>
> evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults, a way to justify a
> sinful life style,and drop morals to a low standard to justify self.
and religion? what did religion do in the 2000 years before science
came along? how much of the natural world did religion explain before
science?
answer: none. none at all.
>
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> >
> No, you have dead bones in various layers. How did they get there is
> the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
> others, where was this established and by whom? Do realise that we
> might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
> of the materialist premise.
and the NON materialist premise?
if it's so powerful, tell us a SINGLE incidence when it's been
successful at explaining the natural world
of course, you won't answer...
TCE
> On May 24, 6:05 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Is common descent a fact?", you know all people are descendant
> > from a non-human ancestor, all mammals from a non-mammalian
> > ancestor, that sort of thing.
> > Do you have any reason for believing that common descent is not
> > the fact it so obviously is?
>
> Is so obviously established by whom published in which Journal? Simply
> stating that we had common descent does'nt make it so. You must give
> me some way of falsifying your theory by telling me who established CD
> and how did he derive his theory and this means providing me with an
> independant specification of any relevent observation and not merely
> restateing such an observation as part of the theory.
So if I say the earth is flat but don't tell you how I can prove that,
you can't offer me any proof that the world is round?
It's a straight foward question and doesn't require any knowledge or
who, why or how common decent was proven to be a fact just tell us
what proof you have that the earth is round.
We all know the real reason you can't answer is that cretinists such
as yourself can only nit-pick evolutionary biologist's discussion of
the facts to somehow magically "disprove" evolution; you have no facts
of your own to support your "theory".
---
Strange
Will in New Haven
> On May 24, 5:37 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 11:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
> > > so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
> > > ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
> > > does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>
> > > Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
> > > realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
> > > of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
> > > equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
>
> > that out.
>
I'll give you a few/:
1: You are dense.
2: You are stubborn.
3: You have no fucking clue about anything much
Or
1: You are just so bored that you have to piss people off to have
something to do.
Will in New Haven
--
"Do you have tiger
Nature? Strike without anger;
Kill without feeling."
Feather in <Poker for Cats>
Will in New Haven
> On May 24, 1:06 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 6:49 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
> > > layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
> > > same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
> > > layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
> > > succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
>
> > the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
> > others, where was this established and by whom?
>
> and by whom" baloney?
Because he, she, it or them is a fucking moron and/or a LOON. And we
keep talking to him, her, it or them.
Will in New Haven
--
"Do you have tiger
Nature? Strike without anger;
Kill without feeling."
Feather in <Poker for Cats>
>
> > Do realise that we
> > might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
> > of the materialist premise.
>
> Maybe.
>
> Eric Root
Will in New Haven
Didn't we hear that song ENOUGH back in the day? Now you want people
singing it on the surface of the sun.
shipmodeler1
posted?
"The theory of evolution by natural selection was first proposed by
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and put forth in detail in
Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian
natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the
modern evolutionary synthesis.[4] With its enormous explanatory and
predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing
principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the
diversity of life on Earth.[7][8][9]"
"Theory of evolution" is loose layman's language such as you or I
would use for the modern evolutionary synthesis. It therefore seems
correct that ToE would redirect to the evolution wiki, which in turn
gives the reader a link to the synthesis wiki.
Chris Thompson
news:timberwoof.spam-66...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:
Speechless, I am :)
Chris
Chris Thompson
news:timberwoof.spam-A7...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:
> In article <1180034523.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> "chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 24, 1:05 pm, jesusislord <ayers...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On May 24, 11:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On May 24, 5:37 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > On May 24, 11:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > We have some sort of central wepage lets
>> > > > > say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>> > > > > so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks
>> > > > > about ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean
>> > > > > anything if a poster
>> > > > > does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>> >
>> > > > > It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution
>> > > > > redirects to Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at
>> > > > > Wikipedia has actually realised that perhaps there is no
>> > > > > theory of evolution but just a bunch
>> > > > > of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
>> > > > > equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
>> >
>> > > > Yep, nothing theoretical about it. It's all fact. Thanks for
>> > > > pointing that out.
>> >
>> > > mmh I hope I don't seem dense but what exactly is a fact? Is the
>> > > word "evolution" in an of itself a fact or is some yet to be
>> > > stated theory equivocated with the word "evolution" a fact?
>> >
>> > Theory=guess
>> > evolution=myth
>> > fact=truth
>> >
>> > evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults, a way to justify
>> > a sinful life style,and drop morals to a low standard to justify
>> > self.
>> >
>> > Romans 1:18-32 18
>>
>> I hope you're thumping that bible on your head. You might come to
>> your senses eventually.
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=zzbJe4OsVl4
>
That kid at least has sense enough to stop thumping herself!
Chris
Martin Hutton
Bzzzt! Wrong, bison breath. Evolution has been a fact for
over 3 billion years and is still a fact.
If you're looking for a cartoon for adults watch "Paprika" or
"A Scanner Darkly". Or perhaps you meant "child's entertainment
for adults"...the bible fills that criterion beautifully.
A "sinful" lifestyle and low moral standards are easily
achieved by following the examples set by many Christian
preachers.
>
> Romans 1:18-32
[snip irrelevant addlepated nonsense]
Who gives a flying fuck what your book of fairy tales
has to say?
--
Martin Hutton
Greg S
> On May 24, 6:05 pm, jesusislord <ayers...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 11:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 5:37 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 24, 11:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
> > > > > so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
> > > > > ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
> > > > > does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>
> > > > > It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
> > > > > Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
> > > > > realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
> > > > > of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
> > > > > equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
>
> > > > Yep, nothing theoretical about it. It's all fact. Thanks for pointing
> > > > that out.
>
> > > mmh I hope I don't seem dense but what exactly is a fact? Is the word
> > > "evolution" in an of itself a fact or is some yet to be stated theory
> > > equivocated with the word "evolution" a fact?
>
> > Theory=guess
> > evolution=myth
> > fact=truth
>
>
> Theory doesn't mean 'guess' in science. It means a principle or
> principles that have been tested and found to give good results. Thus,
> Newton's theory of gravity, which includes the math for calculating
> interactions between masses, potentials, etc, is a scientific theory,
> which works in the real world. It's not a guess; it actually works.
> (Although not perfectly, as some chap whose name escapes me later
> showed).
>
> Evolution is the same. It works. It predicts the patterns of life on
> Earth. Give a cladolologist a bunch of animal genomes, and they can
> come back to you with details of which of the animals are most similar
> to which, purely because they all share features - and DEFECTS -
> inherited from common ancestors.
>
> A lovely example I read recently is the way that flightless birds are
> always found only on one island; the dodo wasn't found anywhere except
> Mauritius, the kiwi only in New Zealand. It has to be this way for
> evolution, because they can't leave the island once they lose their
> flight.
>
Minor nitpick: you're probably right about the dodo, but the kiwi is a
ratite, related to emus and ostriches; they seem to have been
flightless since the time they all inhabited Gondwana. New Zealand
does have several other flightless birds that lost their power of
flight after they arrived though.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6821/abs/409704a0.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flightless_bird
>
>
> > evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults
>
> and you still don't understand it. perhaps we should give you a
> cartoon for children?
>
> >, a way to justify a
> > sinful life style
>
> like the creationist one that requires you to lie as much as possible?
>
> I'm a good person. If your God has any brains, or even any morals, he
> should see that. As of the moment, however, he intends to sit on his
> all powerful bottom and allow me to be tortured endlessly, while
> claiming he loves me, just because I can't see invisible people.
>
>
>
>
>
> >,and drop morals to a low standard to justify self.
>
> > Romans 1:18-32 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
> > all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
> > unrighteousness;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest
> > in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.20 For the invisible
> > things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
> > understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and
> > Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21 Because that, when they
> > knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but
> > became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
> > darkened.22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,23 And
> > changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
> > corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
> > things.24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
> > lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
> > themselves:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
> > and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
> > ever. Amen.26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
> > for even their women did change the natural use into that which is
> > against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use
> > of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
> > working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
> > recompence of their error which was meet.28 And even as they did not
> > like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a
> > reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;29 Being
> > filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
> > covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
> > malignity; whisperers,30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud,
> > boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,31 Without
> > understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
> > implacable, unmerciful:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they
> > which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same,
> > but have pleasure in them that do them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> And the LORD did say, 'thou shalt not use line breaks'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Friar Broccoli
> On May 24, 6:05 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Is common descent a fact?", you know all people are
>> descendant from a non-human ancestor, all mammals from a
>> non-mammalian ancestor, that sort of thing. Do you have any
>> reason for believing that common descent is not the fact it
>> so obviously is?
> Is so obviously established by whom published in which
> Journal? Simply stating that we had common descent does'nt
> make it so. You must give me some way of falsifying your
> theory by telling me who established CD and how did he derive
> his theory and this means providing me with an independant
> specification of any relevent observation and not merely
> restateing such an observation as part of the theory.
Who first thought of common descent is entirely irrelevant to
determining whether it is true or false. You and I can
reconstruct the evidence right here, right now. The
observational evidence just doesn't allow for any other
conclusion.
Let's begin with part of the human fossil record:
Below you will find a brief description together with a link to
an image of 10 skulls that are human ancestors, or more
likely close relatives of our human ancestors living at the
same time:
STS 5
Mrs. Ples
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.6 million years
Brain Size: 485cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html
STS 71
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.5 million years
Brain Size: 428cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html
KNM ER 1813
Species: Homo habilis
Age: 1.9 million years
Brain Size: 510cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html
KNM ER 1470
Species: Homo rudolfensis
Age: 1.8 million years
Brain Size: 775cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html
KNM ER 3733
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.75 million years
Brain Size: 850 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER3733.html
KNM WT 15000
"The Turkana Boy"
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.6 million years
Brain Size: 880cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
rotatable skull here:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/qt/wt15kmov.html
Peking Man
Species: Homo erectus
Age: 500-230 thousand years
Brain Size: 1043cc (average of 5 skulls)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/weid2.htm
"Rhodesian Man"
Species: Homo heidelbergensis
Age: 300-125 thousand years
Brain Size: 1300 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm
Skhul V
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~90,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/skhul.html
Cro-Magnon 1
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~30,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
Given that there is no evidence at all for modern humans 2.6
million years ago, what conclusion can possibly be reached
except that this is evidence for our descent from an ancestor
which had a smaller brain?
Do you have similar evidence for an alternative explanation?
If so, please present it for discussion.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
John Vreeland
opined:
>On May 24, 6:05 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Is common descent a fact?", you know all people are descendant
>> from a non-human ancestor, all mammals from a non-mammalian
>> ancestor, that sort of thing.
>
>> Do you have any reason for believing that common descent is not
>> the fact it so obviously is?
>Is so obviously established by whom published in which Journal? Simply
>stating that we had common descent does'nt make it so. You must give
>me some way of falsifying your theory by telling me who established CD
>and how did he derive his theory and this means providing me with an
>independant specification of any relevent observation and not merely
>restateing such an observation as part of the theory.
Common descent was inferred from the great nested hierarchy of living
things expounded by Carolus Linneus, the father of taxonomy, who
invoked the nested hierarchy of life when he developed his system of
categorizing life and published his Systema Naturae in 1735. The
obviousness of common descent was then so clear that ten years later,
_Venus physique_, Pierre Louis Maupertuis was already trying to
explain its existence by using natural selection, over a century
before _On the Origins of Species_ was published.
There is no scientific argument against common descent, though--as
with any good scientific fact--there could be. Find an organism that
breaks the great nested hierarchy of life and the whole system of
"Darwinism" will come crashing down like a house of cards.
Scientists have been studying life for centuries now and have not
found any such organism larger than a virus, so it's pretty solid.
Given the fact of common decent, the creationist is faced with the
need to claim that God created the kinds in such a way as to simulate
a great hierarchy of life, which is not very satisfying,
intellectually.
--
Preferred by three out of four Christian Deities.
---John Vreeland (IEEE.org) http://rtmabc.blogspot.com
Mark Nutter
wrote:
> "Mark Nutter" <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Since common descent is an observation, it will not be possible to
> > give you the means of verifying it without mentioning the
> > observations. You've already proven that there's nothing theoretical
> > about it, so you'll just have to settle for the observations, assuming
> > you really want them.
>
> It isn't an observation. You haven't seen it happen. The idea is what is
> thought to have happened by looking at the available evidence.
You must have missed backspace's earlier proofs about how every time
people tried to explain what the theory of evolution was, all they
could come up with was observations. Since it was an observation (he
reasoned), it was not a theory. Ergo...
m
Mark Nutter
> On May 24, 11:36 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 6:05 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Is common descent a fact?", you know all people are descendant
> > > from a non-human ancestor, all mammals from a non-mammalian
> > > ancestor, that sort of thing.
> > > Do you have any reason for believing that common descent is not
> > > the fact it so obviously is?
>
> > Is so obviously established by whom published in which Journal? Simply
> > stating that we had common descent does'nt make it so. You must give
> > me some way of falsifying your theory by telling me who established CD
> > and how did he derive his theory and this means providing me with an
> > independant specification of any relevent observation and not merely
> > restateing such an observation as part of the theory.
>
> So if I say the earth is flat but don't tell you how I can prove that,
> you can't offer me any proof that the world is round?
Not only that, but you have to give the exact name of the person who
established that the world was round.
m
Noelie S. Alito
loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 24, 10:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> mmh I hope I don't seem dense, what exactly is a fact?
>
> Okay, now THAT's my Chez Watt nomination for the month.
>
Noelie S. Alito
> On May 24, 8:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We have some sort of central wepage lets say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>> so that we all know exactly what a person means when he talks about
>> ToE. The phrase:"Theory of Evolution" could mean anything if a poster
>> does'nt define it on a seperate webpage.
>>
>
> mean by it. It would be difficult to discuss the known facts of
> evolution and the theory explaining those facts without referencing
> physics.
Doesn't *anyone* use the term "Modern Synthesis" anymore?
>
>> It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
>> Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
>> realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
>> of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
>> equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
>
> Or perhaps whoever wrote those pages understood that the Theory of
> Evolution is our best understanding of how evolution happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis
> And "equivocate" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Perhaps
> you meant to use the word "conflation" incorrectly.
>
> Kermit
>
backspace
> On May 24, 12:36 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 6:05 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Is common descent a fact?", you know all people are descendant
> > > from a non-human ancestor, all mammals from a non-mammalian
> > > ancestor, that sort of thing.
> > > Do you have any reason for believing that common descent is not
> > > the fact it so obviously is?
>
> > Is so obviously established by whom published in which Journal? Simply
> > stating that we had common descent does'nt make it so. You must give
> > me some way of falsifying your theory by telling me who established CD
> > and how did he derive his theory and this means providing me with an
> > independant specification of any relevent observation and not merely
> > restateing such an observation as part of the theory.
>
> give you the means of verifying it without mentioning the
> observations. You've already proven that there's nothing theoretical
> about it, so you'll just have to settle for the observations, assuming
> you really want them.
we should turn our attention to how other theories in the physical
sciences provides an independant specification of a phenomena and what
they have in common:Mathematics.
What does "Sunshine", "Diamonds" and "Gravity" all have in common?
They all have an independant specification expressed in the highest
form of defined langauge: Mathematics. If somebody does'nt tell you
that the equation of radious "r" inversly squared gives a well
reasoned desicription of gravity then you would never know. Nutter
must now motivate for me his assertion by refering to at least one
scientific law that provides an independant specification and uses the
observation in a similar manner we find in theories of Evolution.
backspace
wrote:
> Not only observation of the living record is applied to evolution, but also
> the fossil record and geography ,geology, plate tectonics, archaeology and
> chemistry. All this is thrown at the Theory of Evolution and the model
> stands firm. All the evidence supports evolution. There is nothing yet to
> show it is flawed.
wide context you are using it, you are not even wrong.
backspace
> Given that there is no evidence at all for modern humans 2.6
> million years ago, what conclusion can possibly be reached
> except that this is evidence for our descent from an ancestor
> which had a smaller brain?
article establishing your view?
backspace
> evolution is NOT a fact it's a cartoon for adults, a way to justify a
> sinful life style,and drop morals to a low standard to justify self.
What we do have is a restatement of various observations equivocated
with a word 'evolution'. If you now state that "evolution" is Godless
you are stating the observation itself is Godless. I don't know who is
more confused Dembski, Ken Ham or Dawkins.
Mark Nutter
Of course not. You've made it impossible for anyone to claim that
evolution, or evolutionary theory, is wrong. Nice job.
m
Mark Nutter
Funny, I didn't know that the inverse square of the radius produced
gravity. I thought the inverse square of the radius described the
decrease in energy as a wave moves away from its source. Do I still
have to fall down?
> Nutter
> must now motivate for me his assertion by refering to at least one
> scientific law that provides an independant specification and uses the
> observation in a similar manner we find in theories of Evolution.
What theories of evolution? You've already proven that there aren't
any.
m
UC
> On May 24, 5:34 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 5:24 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On May 24, 5:05 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 24, 1:06 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 24, 6:49 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
> > > > > > > layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
> > > > > > > same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
> > > > > > > layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
> > > > > > > succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
>
> > > > > > No, you have dead bones in various layers. How did they get there is
> > > > > > the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
> > > > > > others, where was this established and by whom? Do realise that we
> > > > > > might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
> > > > > > of the materialist premise.
>
> > > > > is restricted only to the premise of verifiability. That is, to be
> > > > > scientific, a thing must be verifiable.
>
> > > > Not true. It goes "...a thing must be verifiable IN PRINCIPLE." Many
> > > > things are unverifiable because we cannot go there or stand the
> > > > conditions.
>
> > > But to the degree that it cannot be verified -- directly or indirectly
> > > -- it also does not become part of what we consider a scientific
> > > conclusion. It may be a hypothesis or even a conjecture, but without
> > > *some* kind of dependable verification, it remains unsupported.
>
> > > This is an essential feature of science, because things that are flat-
> > > out wrong are also unverifiable. If science were to begin allowing
> > > conclusions even when they were unverifiable, there would be no way to
> > > distinguish between the hypotheses that were unverifiable because they
> > > are unverifiable, and those that are unverifiable because they are
> > > wrong. It somewhat diminishes the value of science to render it
> > > completely unable to tell when a hypothesis is wrong. ;-)
>
> > > m
>
> > Verify whether people can stand on the surface of the sun and sing
> > Stairway to Heaven.
>
> conclusion" to describe the idea that people can stand on the surface
> of the sun and sing Stairway To Heaven. There are, however, indirect
> methods of verification that allow us to reliably reach the conclusion
> that the surface of the sun is far too hot to allow human life (or
> even human bodies) to exist (except for *very* brief periods). Based
> on indirect verification of the surface temperature of the sun, I'd be
> inclined to conclude that we can scientifically verify that there are
> not any living, unprotected members standing on the solar surface, let
> alone standing there singing.
>
> Remember, there are both direct and indirect ways of verifying things
> in the real world. Science does not need to restrict itself to only
> direct experience of a phenomenon. The fact that truth is consistent
> with itself means it is possible to reliably verify some things via
> indirect methods.
>
> m
Of course, and this was my point.
UC
There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway to heaven
And when she gets there she knows if the stores are closed
With a word she can get what she came for
Woe oh oh oh oh oh
And she's buying a stairway to heaven
There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
And you know sometimes words have two meanings
In a tree by the brook there's a songbird who sings
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven
Woe oh oh oh oh oh
And she's buying a stairway to heaven
There's a feeling I get when I look to the west
And my spirit is crying for leaving
In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees
And the voices of those who stand looking
Woe oh oh oh oh oh
And she's buying a stairway to heaven
And it's whispered that soon, if we all call the tune
Then the piper will lead us to reason
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forest will echo with laughter
And it makes me wonder
If there's a bustle in your hedgerow
Don't be alarmed now
It's just a spring clean for the May Queen
Yes there are two paths you can go by
but in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on
Your head is humming and it won't go in case you don't know
The piper's calling you to join him
Dear lady can't you hear the wind blow and did you know
Your stairway lies on the whispering wind
And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How everything still turns to gold
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last
When all are one and one is all
To be a rock and not to roll
Woe oh oh oh oh oh
And she's buying a stairway to heaven
There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway to heaven
And when she gets there she knows if the stores are closed
With a word she can get what she came for
Mark Nutter
Glad we got that straightened out then. :-)
m
Mark Nutter
Just out of curiosity, if you want a concise label for a particular
pattern or body of observations, how do you apply a label to the
observations without being guilty of "equivocating" the observations
with the name you apply to them?
m
Will in New Haven
LoL. You are here just to annoy people, arncha?
Good one.
Will in New Haven
--
- Hide quoted text -
John Wilkins
> Kermit wrote:
> > On May 24, 8:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> We have some sort of central wepage lets
> >> say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution so that we all know exactly
> >> what a person means when he talks about ToE. The phrase:"Theory of
> >> Evolution" could mean anything if a poster does'nt define it on a
> >> seperate webpage.
> >>
> >
> > I would think that the "Theory of Evolution" means what scientists
> > mean by it. It would be difficult to discuss the known facts of
> > evolution and the theory explaining those facts without referencing
> > each other. One may as well try to describe atoms without using modern
> > physics.
>
> Doesn't *anyone* use the term "Modern Synthesis" anymore?
Hardly "modern" any more, is it, after 62 years? I really wish
scientists would not use terms like "modern", "modified", "neo-" and so
on for their theories - they date so quickly.
"The Synthesis" is enough...
>
>
>
> >
> >> It is also interesting to note that Theory of Evolution redirects to
> >> Evolution on Wikipedia. It seems somebody at Wikipedia has actually
> >> realised that perhaps there is no theory of evolution but just a bunch
> >> of observations and discoeries like allele frequency changes
> >> equivocated with the phrase:"Theory of Evolution"
> >
> > Or perhaps whoever wrote those pages understood that the Theory of
> > Evolution is our best understanding of how evolution happened.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis
>
>
>
>
> > And "equivocate" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Perhaps
> > you meant to use the word "conflation" incorrectly.
> >
> > Kermit
> >
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
John Wilkins
But you *still* haven't replied to the equations that I posted, three
times now, for evolutionary theory giving *exactly* this - the number of
taxa and possible evolutionary trees, the fundamental theorem of natural
selection and (if I remember rightly) the equations governing drift. Is
there some reason you haven't replied, but are still making this claim?
I am totally confused. Either you *want* the math or you don't.
backspace
> backspace wrote:
>
> > No, you have dead bones in various layers. How did they get there is
> > the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
> > others, where was this established and by whom? Do realise that we
> > might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
> > of the materialist premise.
>
>
> if it's so powerful, tell us a SINGLE incidence when it's been
> successful at explaining the natural world
>
> of course, you won't answer...
The premise of your question is that everything can be reduced to a
mechanistic description. You are asking me to provide an answer within
this arbitrary determined by you framework.
Ferrous Patella
>
> Hardly "modern" any more, is it, after 62 years? I really wish
> scientists would not use terms like "modern", "modified", "neo-" and so
> on for their theories - they date so quickly.
I thought that "modern" meant "the 20th century". In particular, it means
"the 1960s".
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
Mark Nutter
Actually, the premise of his question is that when you ask for an
explanation, you want and/or expect an explanation.
m
TomS
<1hyozau.oqk1a8xevmmiN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>> Kermit wrote:
>> > On May 24, 8:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> We have some sort of central wepage lets
>> >> say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution so that we all know exactly
>> >> what a person means when he talks about ToE. The phrase:"Theory of
>> >> Evolution" could mean anything if a poster does'nt define it on a
>> >> seperate webpage.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I would think that the "Theory of Evolution" means what scientists
>> > mean by it. It would be difficult to discuss the known facts of
>> > evolution and the theory explaining those facts without referencing
>> > each other. One may as well try to describe atoms without using modern
>> > physics.
>>
>> Doesn't *anyone* use the term "Modern Synthesis" anymore?
>
>Hardly "modern" any more, is it, after 62 years? I really wish
>scientists would not use terms like "modern", "modified", "neo-" and so
>on for their theories - they date so quickly.
And then there's the philosophers.
Modern Philosophy covers the 17th and 18th centuries.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Inez
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 1:06 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 6:49 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
> > > layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
> > > same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
> > > layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
> > > succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
>
> > the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
> > others, where was this established and by whom? Do realise that we
> > might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
> > of the materialist premise.
>
> Picture if you will, a white wall forming part of a hallway.
> Perpendicular to this wall is a tile floor. The floor and wall extend
> for approximately 10 meters, whereupon there is a right angle in the
> hallway. From floor level to about a meter up on this white wall you
> can see drawings. There are permanent felt-tip drawings of stick
> people, kittens and other animals, and similar childish images. The
> drawings are in a variety of colors: red, blue, pink, yellow and a
> several others. On the floor is a trail of what appears to be melted
> ice cream, probably vanilla. About 2 meters ahead of you there is a
> yellow "Sharpie" marker on the floor. Beyond that point there are no
> more yellow drawings. Three meters past that, you find a blue Sharpie,
> and again, there are no more blue drawings. A few meters further
> down, you find a purple Sharpie, and at that point you find the last
> drawing in purple. Finally, you turn the corner and find a five-year-
> old child. The child is holding 3 Sharpie markers and the remains of
> a vanilla ice-cream cone in one hand, and is drawing a puppy on the
> wall with a brown Sharpie. There are no drawings on the wall past the
> child; there are no abandoned Sharpie markers on the floor past the
> child, and the spots of melted ice cream stop at the child. In fact,
> as you stand there, you see a drop of melted ice cream splatter on the
> floor from the child's cone. You do not see or hear any other children
> in the area.
>
> Do you then say, "How do you know the child dripped the ice cream,
> made the drawings, and dropped the Sharpies on the floor?"
>
The child was obviously set up by God. He's vengeful you know.
Will in New Haven
We are not. Maybe a bit snippy right now but not vengeful.
WuzYoungOnceToo
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> We are not. Maybe a bit snippy right now but not vengeful.
Are we....black?
TCE
Yes, and good point too :-)
If they can't fault the facts, they then trawl for shit on the
scientist who discovered them; obviously if the scientist sneezed
loudly at the cinema in 1983 then the facts are all wrong.
---
Strange
WuzYoungOnceToo
No...but if he took a call on his cell phone in the middle of the
movie then he needs to have his teeth kicked in.
Dolphin Striker
| > Given that there is no evidence at all for modern humans 2.6
| > million years ago, what conclusion can possibly be reached
| > except that this is evidence for our descent from an ancestor
| > which had a smaller brain?
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| Says who. Do you say so or can you refer me to the actuall journal
| article establishing your view?
______________________________________________
"The" actual journal article? That's a laugh... he doesn't have to
refer you to any journal. There are thousands of articles supporting
"his view", whole damn libraries, and you're the one contesting the
established science, so YOU need to show the data that supports
your assertions.
You cretinists are all alike. You think that if you stymie one person
in demanding "proof" of your particular strawman then you've disproven
all of the last 150 years of research, and nothing I can say will change
that.
You'll slink off here in a few days or weeks thinking you've proved
something but you'll be just as wrong then as you are at this very
moment. And nothing you say can change that.
Steve Marshall
"Mark Nutter" <manut...@gmail.com> wrote
> You must have missed backspace's earlier proofs about how every time
> people tried to explain what the theory of evolution was, all they
> could come up with was observations. Since it was an observation (he
> reasoned), it was not a theory. Ergo...
OK, The ToE is the reasoning that the form of animals is due to them
evolving from a previous state.
Darwin based his idea on observation of the living record, so his reasoning
that evolution took place is due to observation of variations. Evolution is
changing state, the ToE concerns the idea that our differing animal forms
are due to them evolving.
Darwin did not observe evolution. His observation was of different types of
similar creatures and his hypothesis was in deciding how that could have
come about.
In brief terms the ToE is that natural selection resulted in the different
forms of animals.
" A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of
related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental
tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts
and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their
universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part
of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less
well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new
discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical
framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new
phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the
theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific
theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be
contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's
only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a
tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity
is only a theory.""
From http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or
hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically
self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related
set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by
experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a
systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is
predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are
always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider
theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be
logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for
use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals
than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of
phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Steve M
wf3h
backspace wrote:
> This is an interesting and valid objection. To answer to your question
> we should turn our attention to how other theories in the physical
> sciences provides an independant specification of a phenomena and what
> they have in common:Mathematics.
> What does "Sunshine", "Diamonds" and "Gravity" all have in common?
> They all have an independant specification expressed in the highest
> form of defined langauge: Mathematics. If somebody does'nt tell you
> that the equation of radious "r" inversly squared gives a well
> reasoned desicription of gravity then you would never know. Nutter
> must now motivate for me his assertion by refering to at least one
> scientific law that provides an independant specification and uses the
> observation in a similar manner we find in theories of Evolution.
google 'evolution mathematics'
then come back after you've learned something
in addition, much science can be done w/o math. you creationists
pretend you have a profound objection to science if it's not expressed
in math.
you're wrong.
wf3h
and you don't have a question. scientists find the concept and process
of evolution to be both valid and useful
that you don't speaks either to your ignorance or your religious
beliefs.
if your beliefs are the issue, you're beyond redemption, so to speak
if you're ignorant, try asking a question instead of telling us why
you're right and science is wrong.
wf3h
uh, no. i asked you a question. as i predicted, you wouldn't answer.
the question is, "Where may we see a NON material cause of an event in
the world'.
you'll dodge. you'll weave. you'll bob and hem and haw.
you won't however, answer the question for which you think the answer
must be self evident. and that answer is that 'god did it' is science.
even though for 2000 years that answer has ALWAYS failed.
so, i knew you wouldn't answer.
and you didn't.
thanks.
John Wilkins
> news:1hyozau.oqk1a8xevmmiN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au by John Wilkins:
>
> >
> > Hardly "modern" any more, is it, after 62 years? I really wish
> > scientists would not use terms like "modern", "modified", "neo-" and so
> > on for their theories - they date so quickly.
>
> I thought that "modern" meant "the 20th century". In particular, it means
> "the 1960s".
>
D'oh! I forgot we're in the postmodern era, of transhumanism...
John Wilkins
> "On Fri, 25 May 2007 23:23:21 +1000, in article
> <1hyozau.oqk1a8xevmmiN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
> >
> >Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Kermit wrote:
> >> > On May 24, 8:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> We have some sort of central wepage lets
> >> >> say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution so that we all know exactly
> >> >> what a person means when he talks about ToE. The phrase:"Theory of
> >> >> Evolution" could mean anything if a poster does'nt define it on a
> >> >> seperate webpage.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I would think that the "Theory of Evolution" means what scientists
> >> > mean by it. It would be difficult to discuss the known facts of
> >> > evolution and the theory explaining those facts without referencing
> >> > each other. One may as well try to describe atoms without using modern
> >> > physics.
> >>
> >> Doesn't *anyone* use the term "Modern Synthesis" anymore?
> >
> >Hardly "modern" any more, is it, after 62 years? I really wish
> >scientists would not use terms like "modern", "modified", "neo-" and so
> >on for their theories - they date so quickly.
> [...snip...]
>
> And then there's the philosophers.
>
> Modern Philosophy covers the 17th and 18th centuries.
To be fair, that's Early Modern. Modern philosophy covers the period
from 1880 to 1930 or so.
Bloopen...@juno.com
>
> > >Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Kermit wrote:
> > >> > On May 24, 8:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> We have some sort of central wepage lets
> > >> >> what a person means when he talks about ToE. The phrase:"Theory of
> > >> >> Evolution" could mean anything if a poster does'nt define it on a
> > >> >> seperate webpage.
>
> > >> > I would think that the "Theory of Evolution" means what scientists
> > >> > mean by it. It would be difficult to discuss the known facts of
> > >> > evolution and the theory explaining those facts without referencing
> > >> > each other. One may as well try to describe atoms without using modern
> > >> > physics.
>
> > >> Doesn't *anyone* use the term "Modern Synthesis" anymore?
>
> > >Hardly "modern" any more, is it, after 62 years? I really wish
> > >scientists would not use terms like "modern", "modified", "neo-" and so
> > >on for their theories - they date so quickly.
> > [...snip...]
>
> > And then there's the philosophers.
>
> > Modern Philosophy covers the 17th and 18th centuries.
>
> To be fair, that's Early Modern. Modern philosophy covers the period
> from 1880 to 1930 or so.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
> bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
What's the name for the period when you philosophers stopped clothing
yourselves with towels?
John Wilkins
> What's the name for the period when you philosophers stopped clothing
> yourselves with towels?
Tenure.
Mitchell Coffey
> Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Kermit wrote:
> > > On May 24, 8:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> We have some sort of central wepage lets
> > >> what a person means when he talks about ToE. The phrase:"Theory of
> > >> Evolution" could mean anything if a poster does'nt define it on a
> > >> seperate webpage.
>
> > > I would think that the "Theory of Evolution" means what scientists
> > > mean by it. It would be difficult to discuss the known facts of
> > > evolution and the theory explaining those facts without referencing
> > > each other. One may as well try to describe atoms without using modern
> > > physics.
>
> > Doesn't *anyone* use the term "Modern Synthesis" anymore?
>
> Hardly "modern" any more, is it, after 62 years? I really wish
> scientists would not use terms like "modern", "modified", "neo-" and so
> on for their theories - they date so quickly.
>
> "The Synthesis" is enough...
Or simply "Syn." To differentiate it from more recent, if unaccepted,
syntheses, refer to it as the "Original" one.
It should come as no surprise that Darwin recorded the anticipation of
this construction by one of his readers. Note his footnoted quotation
in the Second Edition of Descent of Man, of someone's published
interpretation of a passage they'd read in the First Edition:
"Our early semi-human progenitors would not have practiced infanticide
or polyandry; for the instincts of the lower animals are never so
perverted(*) as to lead them regularly to destroy their own offspring,
or to be quite devoid of jealousy. [...]
"(*) A writer in the Spectator (March 12, 1871, p. 320) comments as
follows on this passage:- 'Mr. Darwin finds himself compelled to
reintroduce a new doctrine of the fall of man. He shews that the
instincts of the higher animals are far nobler than the habits of
savage races of men, and he finds himself, therefore, compelled to re-
introduce,- in a form of the substantial orthodoxy of which he appears
to be quite unconscious,- and to introduce as a scientific hypothesis
the doctrine that man's gain of knowledge was the cause of a temporary
but long-enduring moral deterioration as indicated by the many foul
customs, especially as to marriage, of savage tribes. What does the
Jewish tradition of the moral degeneration of man through his
snatching at a knowledge forbidden him by his highest instinct assert
beyond this?'"
From: Darwin, C.; "The Descent of Man, Chapter 2 - On the Manner of
Development of Man from Some Lower Form," 2nd Ed.,1872.
Source: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-02.html;
http://tinyurl.com/3bqoek
Note also that among the three top contenders for Greatest Englishman
Ever, Darwin shared with Shakespeare a failure to comprehend one
fundamental principle of composition, grasped by the third contender,
Winston Churchill: Punctuation is supposed to help... .
Mitchell Coffey,
Who wishes he could use his extraordinary memory for obscure passages
in works he read years before for Good rather than Color Commentary.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Ferrous Patella <mail125...@pop.net> wrote:
> >news:1hyozau.oqk1a8xevmmiN%j.wil...@uq.edu.auby John Wilkins:
>
> > > Hardly "modern" any more, is it, after 62 years? I really wish
> > > scientists would not use terms like "modern", "modified", "neo-" and so
> > > on for their theories - they date so quickly.
>
> > I thought that "modern" meant "the 20th century". In particular, it means
> > "the 1960s".
>
> D'oh! I forgot we're in the postmodern era, of transhumanism...
What happens after "postmodern"?
Do we get "postpostmodern"? Or possibly "posttranshumanism"?
The assault of philosphy on the beauty (ha!) of the English language
continues. I'm surprised that "UC" has not waded in with his words of
wisdom on the subject.
RF