Timothy Birdnow gets all sciencey n' such
Jason Spaceman
----------------------------------------------------------
I`ve always said that Evolution does not work the way that Darwinists say it
does, that the conventional wisdom is distorted by the religious agenda
(or, more precisely, their a-religious agenda) and political philosophy of
Darwin`s proponents. I`ve long put out the call for a more open-minded look
at the subject, for an end to the slavish, dogmatic approach taken towards
``the origin of species``. After all, Charles Darwin`s own falsification
suggestions have failed, in that Darwin believed the fossil record would be
overflowing with clear, complete records of the evolution from one species
to another. He himself was very disappointed with the failure in his own
lifetime of science to find the fossils he believed were there, and the
situation has not dramatically improved since; the fossil records touted by
pro-Darwin people are still very meager, and open to considerable
interpretation. The Darwinists have yet (after over 130 years) to find the
smoking gun.
That failure would doom any other scientific theory, but the religious
implications to atheists has produced a cadre of furious defenders who will
allow no deviation from this, the cornerstone of their belief system. As a
result, efforts by open-minded scientists are generally met with
belittlement, disgrace, and abuse. Few are willing to suffer the slings and
arrows (and the cutting off of research funds) so Darwin reigns supreme, a
naked king who parades about proudly in his invisible clothes.
David of Ultima Thule sent me this piece from World Science about the
apparent variability in the rate of evolution. Classic Darwinism says that
evolution proceeds are a more or less steady rate from one species to
another. Since this never agreed with the fossil record, neo-Darwinists
came up with such ideas as ``punctuated equilibrium`` to explain the
sudden, dramatic change from one species to another (or the lack of any
defensible fossil record showing this change had occured.) This article
suggests, like Stephan J. Gould, that evolution may move at changing rates.
It also makes the case that humans are still in the process of
evolution-something that should be obvious since the environment is always
changing and genes still mutate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://tbirdblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/changing-pace-of-evolution.html
J. Spaceman
Craig T
> Neo-Darwinists came up with such ideas as 'punctuated equilibrium' to > explain the sudden, dramatic change from one species to another
If Gould was still with us, would he laugh or cry at being called a
neodarwinist? Either way, the damage caused by his irony meter
exploding would have wiped out Harvard.
Bobby Bryant
Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> writes:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> I`ve always said that Evolution does not work the way that
> Darwinists say it does, that the conventional wisdom is distorted by
> the religious agenda (or, more precisely, their a-religious agenda)
> and political philosophy of Darwin`s proponents. I`ve long put out
> the call for a more open-minded look at the subject, for an end to
> the slavish, dogmatic approach taken towards ``the origin of
> species``. After all, Charles Darwin`s own falsification suggestions
> have failed, in that Darwin believed the fossil record would be
> overflowing with clear, complete records of the evolution from one
> species to another. He himself was very disappointed with the
> failure in his own lifetime of science to find the fossils he
> believed were there, and the situation has not dramatically improved
> since; the fossil records touted by pro-Darwin people are still very
> meager, and open to considerable interpretation. The Darwinists have
> yet (after over 130 years) to find the smoking gun.
>
> That failure would doom any other scientific theory,
Bull-ony. We continually adapt _all_ our best theories to the evidence.
If a theory is bad enough to need to be thrown out altogether, it rarely
lasts 150 years before we get to that realization.
> but the religious implications to atheists has produced a cadre of
> furious defenders who will allow no deviation from this, the
> cornerstone of their belief system.
So who screwed up and allowed Gould to promote punctuated equilibrium?
> As a result, efforts by open-minded scientists are generally met
> with belittlement, disgrace, and abuse. Few are willing to suffer
> the slings and arrows (and the cutting off of research funds) so
> Darwin reigns supreme, a naked king who parades about proudly in his
> invisible clothes.
Could we see a list of these open-minded scietists who reject evolution?
The names usually offered are all religious kooks and political hacks.
> David of Ultima Thule sent me this piece from World Science about
> the apparent variability in the rate of evolution. Classic Darwinism
> says that evolution proceeds are a more or less steady rate from one
> species to another. Since this never agreed with the fossil record,
> neo-Darwinists came up with such ideas as ``punctuated equilibrium``
> to explain the sudden, dramatic change from one species to another
Yeah, we try to go wherever the evidence leads. (And I wonder what you
think "sudden" means in this context.)
> (or the lack of any defensible fossil record showing this change had
> occured.) This article suggests, like Stephan J. Gould, that
> evolution may move at changing rates.
And that should surprise anyone in 2007, why?
> It also makes the case that humans are still in the process of
> evolution-something that should be obvious since the environment is
> always changing and genes still mutate.
Which is not likely what your fans were hoping to hear. But it's nice
that you finally got around to a bit of honesty.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Steven J.
wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> I`ve always said that Evolution does not work the way that Darwinists say it
> does, that the conventional wisdom is distorted by the religious agenda
> (or, more precisely, their a-religious agenda) and political philosophy of
> Darwin`s proponents. I`ve long put out the call for a more open-minded look
> at the subject, for an end to the slavish, dogmatic approach taken towards
> ``the origin of species``. After all, Charles Darwin`s own falsification
> suggestions have failed, in that Darwin believed the fossil record would be
> overflowing with clear, complete records of the evolution from one species
> to another. He himself was very disappointed with the failure in his own
> lifetime of science to find the fossils he believed were there, and the
> situation has not dramatically improved since; the fossil records touted by
> pro-Darwin people are still very meager, and open to considerable
> interpretation. The Darwinists have yet (after over 130 years) to find the
> smoking gun.
>
explaining that he didn't and his readers shouldn't expect that "the
fossil record would be overflowing with clear, complete records of one
species evolving into another?" Did he ever suggest that the failure
to find these transitionals would falsify his theory (because, at
least in _OTOoS_, he implied that the lack of fine-grained
transitionals should not count much against his theory)? Of course,
I'm not sure that Birdnow knows quite what a "species" is, or much
cares, or what a transitional fossil that was not open to
interpretation ought to look like.
>
> That failure would doom any other scientific theory, but the religious
> implications to atheists has produced a cadre of furious defenders who will
> allow no deviation from this, the cornerstone of their belief system. As a
> result, efforts by open-minded scientists are generally met with
> belittlement, disgrace, and abuse. Few are willing to suffer the slings and
> arrows (and the cutting off of research funds) so Darwin reigns supreme, a
> naked king who parades about proudly in his invisible clothes.
>
creationists, to the effect that 90 percent of Americans reject
"Darwinist materialism," or that there are many scientists who accept
creation, or, for that matter, that evolutionary theory is not
important even to most aspects of biology? Why should a scientist
asking for funds from mostly Christian funders worry about whether his
views on something that, allegedly, has nothing to do with his
research, fear to deviate from "Darwinism?"
>
> David of Ultima Thule sent me this piece from World Science about the
> apparent variability in the rate of evolution. Classic Darwinism says that
> evolution proceeds are a more or less steady rate from one species to
> another. Since this never agreed with the fossil record, neo-Darwinists
> came up with such ideas as ``punctuated equilibrium`` to explain the
> sudden, dramatic change from one species to another (or the lack of any
> defensible fossil record showing this change had occured.) This article
> suggests, like Stephan J. Gould, that evolution may move at changing rates.
> It also makes the case that humans are still in the process of
> evolution-something that should be obvious since the environment is always
> changing and genes still mutate.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
The man has a real talent for being confused about evolutionary
theory.
>
> J. Spaceman
-- Steven J.
DougC
> I`ve always said that Evolution does not work the way that Darwinists say it
> does, that the conventional wisdom is distorted by the religious agenda
> (or, more precisely, their a-religious agenda) and political philosophy of
> Darwin`s proponents.
That opening sentence is as far as I am going to read. The naivete of
the writer cannot produce anything worthwhile.
There is no such thing as a "Darwinist." People who agree with the
theory of evolution are those who depend on and understand science,
who have no agenda, no religious answers, and no political philosophy
to interfere with facts.
Now there is a self-contradictory impossibility: political philosophy.
Doug Chandler
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> I`ve always said that Evolution does not work the way that Darwinists say it
> does,
Most evoutionary scientists would agree with you. After all, science
has moved on a long way in the past 150 years, and although natural
selection is an important element of evolutionary theory, there is
much more to evolutionary theory than Darwin's proposed mechanism.
> that the conventional wisdom is distorted by the religious agenda
> (or, more precisely, their a-religious agenda) and political philosophy of
> Darwin`s proponents.
FALSEHOOD #1
There is no religious or ant-religious agenda in evolutionary science.
> I`ve long put out the call for a more open-minded look
> at the subject, for an end to the slavish, dogmatic approach taken towards
> ``the origin of species``.
FALSEHOOD #2
The mechanism proposed by Darwin has been subjected to rigorous
falsification for 150 years. There is nothing which is either
"slavish" or "dogmatic" about it.
> After all, Charles Darwin`s own falsification
> suggestions have failed,
FALSEHOOD #3
A straightforward lie.
> in that Darwin believed the fossil record would be
> overflowing with clear, complete records of the evolution from one species
> to another.
FALSEHOOD #4
He quite specifically predicted that such forms would be rare.
> He himself was very disappointed with the failure in his own
> lifetime of science to find the fossils he believed were there,
FALSEHOOD #5
He was greatly encouraged by the discovery of Archaeopteryx only a few
years after his theory was published.
> and the
> situation has not dramatically improved since;
FALSEHOOD #7
The fossil record of transitional forms has improved dramatically
since then.
> the fossil records touted by
> pro-Darwin people are still very meager,
FALSEHOOD #8
There are thousands of clearly "transitional" fossils cluttering up
the shelves of museums all over the world.
> and open to considerable
> interpretation.
Quite so, but all such interpretations are within the conceptual
framework of evolutionary theory, as there is no other scientific
theory which explains their morphology.
> The Darwinists have yet (after over 130 years) to find the
> smoking gun.
FALSEHOOD #9
Quite simply, they have.
>
> That failure would doom any other scientific theory,
FALSEHOOD #10
Evolutionary theory is highly successful.
> but the religious
> implications
FALSEHOOD #11
There are no religious implications unless one is a dogmatic
creationist opposed to all science.
> to atheists has produced a cadre of furious defenders who will
> allow no deviation from this,
FALSEHOOD #12
Any "deviation" from evolutionary theory is perfectly acceptable to
scientist provided it is supported by evidence.
> the cornerstone of their belief system.
FALSEHOOD #13
Evolutionary science is not a belief system.
> As a
> result, efforts by open-minded scientists are generally met with
> belittlement, disgrace, and abuse.
FALSEHOOD #14
No "open-minded scientist" has offered any sort of alternative to
evolutionary theory.
> Few are willing to suffer the slings and
> arrows (and the cutting off of research funds) so Darwin reigns supreme, a
> naked king who parades about proudly in his invisible clothes.
FALSEHOOD #15
Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful theories in all
science.
>
> David of Ultima Thule sent me this piece from World Science about the
> apparent variability in the rate of evolution. Classic Darwinism says that
> evolution proceeds are a more or less steady rate from one species to
> another.
FALSEHOOD #16
Darwin speculated that rates of evolution may vary, a speculation
which has since been supported by evidence.
> Since this never agreed with the fossil record, neo-Darwinists
> came up with such ideas as ``punctuated equilibrium`` to explain the
> sudden, dramatic change from one species to another (or the lack of any
> defensible fossil record showing this change had occured.)
FALSEHOOD #17
...and S J Gould would be turning in his grave.
> This article
> suggests, like Stephan J. Gould, that evolution may move at changing rates.
...a prediction made by Darwin, incidentally.
> It also makes the case that humans are still in the process of
> evolution-something that should be obvious since the environment is always
> changing and genes still mutate.
Does any scientist seriously doubt that humans *are* evolving?
Certainly no evolutionary scientist does.
RF
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://tbirdblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/changing-pace-of-evolution.html
>
> J. Spaceman
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> I`ve always said that Evolution does not work the way that Darwinists say it
> does, that the conventional wisdom is distorted by the religious agenda
> (or, more precisely, their a-religious agenda)
But ID/creationism isn't about religion. No sirree Bob. It's just
them lying atheist darwinists who say it is.
(snicker) (giggle)
As I've always said, the reason why anti-evolutionism fails so
consistently in court case after court case is because they are by far
their own worst enemies. The entire political/legal strategy of anti-
evolutionism depends utterly upon one crucial thing --- since it's
illegal to teach religious opinions, they MUST, absolutely MUST,
convince judges that their opposition is SCIENCE and NOT RELIGION. To
do that, they MUST, absolutely MUST, shut their big mouths about their
religious aims and motives.
Alas, they simply can't do it -- indeed, they don't WANT to do it.
None of them can go ten minutes without preaching "Jesus saves!!!",
thus giving the whole game away and insuring beyond doubt that they
will never win in court.
It's why I love and appreciate fundies so much --- all you have to do
is let them keep talking, and sooner or later they happily, publicly
and proudly shoot themselves in the head, every single time.
Thank God that the fundies really are this stupid. It makes it
soooooo much easier to trash their holy little asses in court, every
single time.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
Cheezits
[etc.]
> (snicker) (giggle)
He's so cute when he does that. :-D
[etc.]
> It's why I love and appreciate fundies so much --- all you have to do
> is let them keep talking, and sooner or later they happily, publicly
> and proudly shoot themselves in the head, every single time.
From Mike Argento's blog http://www.mikeargento.com/2005/10/:
On the tape, which you can see at www.ydr.com/mmedia/multi/528,
Buckingham, wearing the same lapel pin he wore in court Thursday, said he
wanted to balance evolution in the classroom with something else, “such
as creationism.”
Oops.
He said that the reporter “ambushed” him and that he was “like a deer in
the headlights of a car” and that the newspapers were all reporting that
he and the board were talking about creationism and that he thought to
himself, “Don’t say creationism.”
Double oops.
It was like he had a Homer Simpson moment. He was thinking “Don’t say
creationism. Don’t say creationism. Don’t say creationism.” And then he
opens his yap and says “creationism.”
D’oh!
Sue
--
"You know what this means? Dad was right!"
"I know, kids. I'm scared too." - The Simpsons
Desertphile
> ----------------------------------------------
> I've always said that Evolution [sic] does not work the way
> that Darwinists say it does,
"Darwinists," as far as I can tell, are Fundamentalist Christians
who object to not only evolution but also evolutionary theory. As
such "Darwinism" is a Fundamentalist Christian religious belief
that has nothing to do with science.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
Robert Carnegie
> Didn't Darwin write an entire chapter of _Origin of Species_
> explaining that he didn't and his readers shouldn't expect that "the
> fossil record would be overflowing with clear, complete records of one
> species evolving into another?" Did he ever suggest that the failure
> to find these transitionals would falsify his theory
You almost convince me that you've read the book :-)
George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com at richardal...@googlemail.com wrote
on 3/31/07 3:14 AM:
<snip>
> FALSEHOOD #15
> Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful theories in all science.
Sorry, Richard. I was trying to bite my tongue and let you rant on. But I
couldn't let this go by. This statement *may* be true if you are talking
about biological science, but even then you have things like DNA
translation, genetics.
George Evans
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> in article 1175336098.101099.244...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> on 3/31/07 3:14 AM:
>
> <snip>
>
> > FALSEHOOD #15
> > Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful theories in all science.
>
> Sorry, Richard. I was trying to bite my tongue and let you rant on. But I
> couldn't let this go by. This statement *may* be true if you are talking
> about biological science, but even then you have things like DNA
> translation, genetics.
>
Huh?
George Evans
Lenny Flank at lfl...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/2/07 6:25 PM:
> On Apr 2, 8:09 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1175336098.101099.244...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
>> on 3/31/07 3:14 AM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> FALSEHOOD #15
>>> Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful theories in all science.
>>
>> Sorry, Richard. I was trying to bite my tongue and let you rant on. But I
>> couldn't let this go by. This statement *may* be true if you are talking
>> about biological science, but even then you have things like DNA
>> translation, genetics.
>>
> Huh?
Huh, what? Richard goofed and said "in all science". LOL
The theory is the only well known theory that waits until mammalian gene
homology data hits the press before making any statement. It is roughly
descriptive. Similar to meteorology in the 1950's...........without a
barometer.
But it might make it as one of the most successful theories in biological
science.
George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com
> in article 1175336098.101099.244...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> on 3/31/07 3:14 AM:
>
> <snip>
>
> > FALSEHOOD #15
> > Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful theories in all science.
>
> Sorry, Richard. I was trying to bite my tongue and let you rant on. But I
> couldn't let this go by. This statement *may* be true if you are talking
> about biological science, but even then you have things like DNA
> translation, genetics.
>
> George Evans
...which are all part of evolutionary theory. I suggest that you
educate yourself.
Am I to understand that you accept that all the other instances of
falsehood are correctly identified? If so, what does that tell you
about creationists?
If you think that I have incorrectly identified any falsehoods, please
provide the evidence that I am wrong.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> in article 1175563548.692095.134...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, 'Rev Dr'
It is the underlying paradigm of *all* biology, and the provides the
conceptual framework without which most of the science is meaningless.
It has sustained rigorous attempts at falsification for 150 years, and
has accomodated new findings in biological science without affecting
the basic principle on which it is built.
There are few theories in any branch of any science which have been as
successful. If you think I'm wrong, list a few more the successful
theories in other sciences.
I didn't "goof".
You exposed your ignorance.
RF
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> in article 1175563548.692095.134...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, 'Rev Dr'
Richard Clayton
> On Apr 3, 12:39 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > in article 1175563548.692095.134...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, 'Rev Dr'
> > Lenny Flank at lfl...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/2/07 6:25 PM:
>
> > > On Apr 2, 8:09 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >> in article 1175336098.101099.244...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> > >> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> > >> on 3/31/07 3:14 AM:
>
> > >> <snip>
>
> > >>> FALSEHOOD #15
> > >>> Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful theories in all science.
>
> > >> Sorry, Richard. I was trying to bite my tongue and let you rant on. But I
> > >> couldn't let this go by. This statement *may* be true if you are talking
> > >> about biological science, but even then you have things like DNA
> > >> translation, genetics.
>
> > > Huh?
>
> > Huh, what? Richard goofed and said "in all science". LOL
>
> > The theory is the only well known theory that waits until mammalian gene
> > homology data hits the press before making any statement. It is roughly
> > descriptive. Similar to meteorology in the 1950's...........without a
> > barometer.
>
> > But it might make it as one of the most successful theories in biological
> > science.
>
> Huh?
I could be wrong, but I think he's saying "biology isn't really
science." The current crop of creationist kooks seems increasingly
prone this notion.
Richard Clayton
[snip]
Isn't there a prominent right-wing talk show host fond of saying "one
lie and you're out of the box"? How many of their own lies do
neoconservatives expect others to excuse?
Kermit
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [etc.]
>
> > (snicker) (giggle)
>
> He's so cute when he does that. :-D
>
> [etc.]
>
> > It's why I love and appreciate fundies so much --- all you have to do
> > is let them keep talking, and sooner or later they happily, publicly
> > and proudly shoot themselves in the head, every single time.
>
>
> On the tape, which you can see atwww.ydr.com/mmedia/multi/528,
> Buckingham, wearing the same lapel pin he wore in court Thursday, said he
> wanted to balance evolution in the classroom with something else, "such
> as creationism."
>
> Oops.
>
> He said that the reporter "ambushed" him and that he was "like a deer in
> the headlights of a car" and that the newspapers were all reporting that
> he and the board were talking about creationism and that he thought to
> himself, "Don't say creationism."
>
> Double oops.
>
> It was like he had a Homer Simpson moment. He was thinking "Don't say
> creationism. Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism." And then he
> opens his yap and says "creationism."
>
> D'oh!
Curiously, when I post here or talk to anyone about this, I *don't
tell myself "Don't admit Darwinism is an atheist religion! Don't admit
evolutionism is out to get God!"
And so I never do.
That must be my saving grace ;)
>
> Sue
> --
> "You know what this means? Dad was right!"
> "I know, kids. I'm scared too." - The Simpsons
Kermit
George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com at richardal...@googlemail.com wrote
on 4/3/07 12:30 AM:
> On Apr 3, 2:09 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> in article 1175336098.101099.244...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
>> on 3/31/07 3:14 AM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> FALSEHOOD #15
>>> Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful theories in all science.
>>
>> Sorry, Richard. I was trying to bite my tongue and let you rant on. But I
>> couldn't let this go by. This statement *may* be true if you are talking
>> about biological science, but even then you have things like DNA
>> translation, genetics.
>>
>> George Evans
>
>
> ...which are all part of evolutionary theory. I suggest that you
> educate yourself.
I suggest you uneducate yourself and start over. The discovery of the
structure and processing of DNA in not beholden to the ToE in any way. You
might be able to make a case for genetics being spurred by the ToE, but it
would be tenuous.
<snip>
George Evans
George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com at richardal...@googlemail.com wrote
on 4/3/07 1:08 AM:
Pardon my language please, when I say BULLSHIT! I hope none of my family
members had to read that, but that is exactly what you just laid.
> There are few theories in any branch of any science which have been as
> successful. If you think I'm wrong, list a few more the successful
> theories in other sciences.
Pretty much everything in Physics and Chemistry, even some of the outdated
ones like Newton's theory of gravity are far, far, far more successful.
Evolution is probably the sole reason biological science is looked down on
by physical scientists.
Microbiology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry are not the problem, but
compared to those, evolution is just a mess.
George Evans
George Evans
Clayton at rich.e....@gmail.com wrote on 4/3/07 6:25 AM:
> On Apr 3, 8:21 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 3, 12:39 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>> The theory is the only well known theory that waits until mammalian gene
>>> homology data hits the press before making any statement. It is roughly
>>> descriptive. Similar to meteorology in the 1950's...........without a
>>> barometer.
>>
>>> But it might make it as one of the most successful theories in biological
>>> science.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> I could be wrong, but I think he's saying "biology isn't really
> science." The current crop of creationist kooks seems increasingly
> prone this notion.
What an ugly thing to say about meteorology.
George Evans
Perplexed in Peoria
"George Evans" <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:C23892EF.6FB6%geor...@earthlink.net...
I can see where you are coming from, George, and I sympathize. But I would
point out that the DNA strands that Roz Franklin was doing X-ray work on
were not human DNA. But Crick and Watson assumed that their structure helped
to explain human heredity. So the ToE was involved in the thinking at least
to that extent. Similarly, the people doing genetics on fruit flies and
bread mold knew that many of their results would be applicable to humans.
chris.li...@gmail.com
> in article 1175587712.295860.254...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
Certainly atomic theory is a rival for evolution. That's one for
chemistry. Would you care to be a little more specific about theories
in physics?
> ones like Newton's theory of gravity are far, far, far more successful.
Really. More successful. How applicable is Newton's theory of gravity-
which was not a theory, but a mathematical description- to the rest of
physics?
> Evolution is probably the sole reason biological science is looked down on
> by physical scientists.
>
> Microbiology,
Funny. Every Microbiology text I have seen goes on at length about the
evolution of microorganisms, and their evolutionary relationships.
> Cell Biology, and Biochemistry are not the problem, but
> compared to those, evolution is just a mess.
Ever looked in a Cell Bio or Biochem text? Did you miss the part where
they also describe evolutionary relationships? Did you think it was a
coincidence that all living things rely, at some time or other, on,
say, glycolysis? Or that plasma membranes in all living things are
composed mainly of phospholipids? Do you think biochemical pathways
spring into existence fully formed?
Chris
> George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com
> in article 1175585437.765220.172...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> on 4/3/07 12:30 AM:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 2:09 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> in article 1175336098.101099.244...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> >> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> >> on 3/31/07 3:14 AM:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> FALSEHOOD #15
> >>> Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful theories in all science.
>
> >> Sorry, Richard. I was trying to bite my tongue and let you rant on. But I
> >> couldn't let this go by. This statement *may* be true if you are talking
> >> about biological science, but even then you have things like DNA
> >> translation, genetics.
>
> >> George Evans
>
> > ...which are all part of evolutionary theory. I suggest that you
> > educate yourself.
>
> I suggest you uneducate yourself and start over. The discovery of the
> structure and processing of DNA in not beholden to the ToE in any way.
The question of how characters are inherited is central to
evolutionary theory. Are you seriously suggesting that the
investigation of the processes which govern heredity are not
"beholden" to evolutionary theory? Such investigations are part of
the process of *testing* evolutionary theory!
>You
> might be able to make a case for genetics being spurred by the ToE, but it
> would be tenuous.
>
As the modern synthesis derives quite specifically the incorporation
of our knowledge of genetics into evolutionary theory, providing the
mechanism of transmission of characters which posed Darwin's biggest
problem - and one he freely acknowledged, incidentally - the case is
hardly "tenuous". Genetics is *central* to evolutionary theory. It is
as important to that theory as natural selection.
So why not try to educate yourself in the subject?
> <snip>
>
> George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com
> in article 1175587712.295860.254...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
Newton's laws of gravity have been shown to be an incomplete
description of the behaviour of physical systems.
A list of one theory is not convincing evidence.
> Evolution is probably the sole reason biological science is looked down on
> by physical scientists.
>
> Microbiology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry are not the problem, but
> compared to those, evolution is just a mess.
>
> George Evans
More unfounded assertions by someone who demonstrates a serious lack
of knowledge of science in general and biology in particular.
RF
Ernest Major
<geor...@earthlink.net> writes
You were quite happy to invoke Feynman's name, to misjustify your
misidentification of your intuition as knowledge. Perhaps you should
investigate Feynman's opinion of the theory of evolution.
>
>Microbiology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry are not the problem, but
>compared to those, evolution is just a mess.
>
>George Evans
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> in article 1175585437.765220.172...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> on 4/3/07 12:30 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 2:09 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> in article 1175336098.101099.244...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com,
> >> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> >> on 3/31/07 3:14 AM:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> FALSEHOOD #15
> >>> Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful theories in all science.
>
> >> Sorry, Richard. I was trying to bite my tongue and let you rant on. But I
> >> couldn't let this go by. This statement *may* be true if you are talking
> >> about biological science, but even then you have things like DNA
> >> translation, genetics.
>
> >> George Evans
>
> > ...which are all part of evolutionary theory. I suggest that you
> > educate yourself.
>
> I suggest you uneducate yourself and start over. The discovery of the
> structure and processing of DNA in not beholden to the ToE in any way. You
> might be able to make a case for genetics being spurred by the ToE, but it
> would be tenuous.
>
> <snip>
>
> George Evans
Huhhhhhhh?
UC
<notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> I`ve always said that Evolution does not work the way that Darwinists say it
> (or, more precisely, their a-religious agenda) and political philosophy of
> at the subject, for an end to the slavish, dogmatic approach taken towards
> suggestions have failed, in that Darwin believed the fossil record would be
> overflowing with clear, complete records of the evolution from one species
> lifetime of science to find the fossils he believed were there, and the
> situation has not dramatically improved since; the fossil records touted by
> pro-Darwin people are still very meager, and open to considerable
> interpretation. The Darwinists have yet (after over 130 years) to find the
> smoking gun.
>
> That failure would doom any other scientific theory, but the religious
> implications to atheists has produced a cadre of furious defenders who will
> allow no deviation from this, the cornerstone of their belief system. As a
> result, efforts by open-minded scientists are generally met with
> arrows (and the cutting off of research funds) so Darwin reigns supreme, a
> naked king who parades about proudly in his invisible clothes.
>
> apparent variability in the rate of evolution. Classic Darwinism says that
> evolution proceeds are a more or less steady rate from one species to
> came up with such ideas as ``punctuated equilibrium`` to explain the
> sudden, dramatic change from one species to another (or the lack of any
> suggests, like Stephan J. Gould, that evolution may move at changing rates.
> evolution-something that should be obvious since the environment is always
> changing and genes still mutate.
>
> Read it athttp://tbirdblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/changing-pace-of-evolution.html
>
> J. Spaceman
Fossilization of terrestrial animals is rare. Scavenegers scatter and
consume dead animals. The best sequences are of marine animals and
plants.
George Evans
Peoria at jimme...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 4/3/07 11:45 PM:
But that is just spin. There is every reason to think that if evolution was
off the table, Franklin would have been just as diligent, and Watson and
Crick would have been just as excited to discover. There is no reason to
think that evolution motivated any of it. It's just that the discovery
happened when evolution was in the ascendancy.
The fruit fly connection is stronger.
George Evans
George Evans
chris.li...@gmail.com at chris.li...@gmail.com wrote on 4/4/07
12:00 AM:
> On Apr 4, 2:42 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1175587712.295860.254...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
>> on 4/3/07 1:08 AM:
<snip>
>>> It is the underlying paradigm of *all* biology, and the provides the
>>> conceptual framework without which most of the science is meaningless.
>>> It has sustained rigorous attempts at falsification for 150 years, and
>>> has accomodated new findings in biological science without affecting
>>> the basic principle on which it is built.
>>
>> Pardon my language please, when I say BULLSHIT! I hope none of my family
>> members had to read that, but that is exactly what you just laid.
>>
>>> There are few theories in any branch of any science which have been as
>>> successful. If you think I'm wrong, list a few more the successful
>>> theories in other sciences.
>>
>> Pretty much everything in Physics and Chemistry, even some of the outdated
>
> Certainly atomic theory is a rival for evolution. That's one for
> chemistry. Would you care to be a little more specific about theories
> in physics?
Why am I even having to do this? General Relativity, Electro-magnetic
Theory, Quantum Mechanics. All are *exquisite* predictors. And how about the
theoretical unification of three of the four forces in nature. Wow, physics
is unifying things while evolution had to divorce itself from abiogenesis in
order to survive.
>> ones like Newton's theory of gravity are far, far, far more successful.
>>
> Really. More successful. How applicable is Newton's theory of gravity- which
> was not a theory, but a mathematical description- to the rest of physics?
Yes there is a mathematical basis for it but the theory says that gravity is
applicable to everything in the universe. Plus, it is still used to guide
satellites. I know it is mundane, but each aiming pass by a celestial body
is another successful prediction.
>> Evolution is probably the sole reason biological science is looked down on by
>> physical scientists.
>>
>> Microbiology,
>>
> Funny. Every Microbiology text I have seen goes on at length about the
> evolution of microorganisms, and their evolutionary relationships.
>
>> Cell Biology, and Biochemistry are not the problem, but compared to those,
>> evolution is just a mess.
>>
> Ever looked in a Cell Bio or Biochem text? Did you miss the part where they
> also describe evolutionary relationships? Did you think it was a coincidence
> that all living things rely, at some time or other, on, say, glycolysis? Or
> that plasma membranes in all living things are composed mainly of
> phospholipids? Do you think biochemical pathways spring into existence fully
> formed?
As a matter of fact I do. But more to the point, the presence of
evolutionary issues are only ancillary to the study of Biochemistry and Cell
Biology. Both disciplines would go on without a hitch if evolution
disappeared.
George Evans
George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com at richardal...@googlemail.com wrote
on 4/4/07 12:15 AM:
> On Apr 4, 7:27 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> I suggest you uneducate yourself and start over. The discovery of the
>> structure and processing of DNA in not beholden to the ToE in any way.
>>
> The question of how characters are inherited is central to evolutionary
> theory. Are you seriously suggesting that the investigation of the processes
> which govern heredity are not "beholden" to evolutionary theory? Such
> investigations are part of the process of *testing* evolutionary theory!
Was Mendel investigating the evolution of peas?
>> You might be able to make a case for genetics being spurred by the ToE, but
>> it would be tenuous.
>>
> As the modern synthesis derives quite specifically the incorporation of our
> knowledge of genetics into evolutionary theory, providing the mechanism of
> transmission of characters which posed Darwin's biggest problem - and one he
> freely acknowledged, incidentally - the case is hardly "tenuous". Genetics is
> *central* to evolutionary theory. It is as important to that theory as natural
> selection.
How can genetics be central to a theory whose basic principles were in place
before genetics was a science?
> So why not try to educate yourself in the subject?
And I renew my advice.
George Evans
Josh Hayes
> nature. Wow, physics is unifying things while evolution had to divorce
> itself from abiogenesis in order to survive.
Yes, and physics had to divorce itself from art history to survive as well;
thank goodness, otherwise people might think physics encompassed art history,
when anyone with two brain cells to rub together in a futile attempt to
generate sparks recognizes that they have practically nothing to do with each
other.
Oh, I grant you, the history of art does depend in some tangential way on
physics, but of course, physics doesn't stand or fall depending on whether
one takes a post-modern view of art, now, does it?
-JAH
the rest is left as an exercise - I'm afraid, considerable for some - for the
reader.
George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com at richardal...@googlemail.com wrote
on 4/4/07 12:18 AM:
> On Apr 4, 7:42 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1175587712.295860.254...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
>> on 4/3/07 1:08 AM:
<snip>
>>> There are few theories in any branch of any science which have been as
>>> successful. If you think I'm wrong, list a few more the successful theories
>>> in other sciences.
>>>
>> Pretty much everything in Physics and Chemistry, even some of the outdated
>> ones like Newton's theory of gravity are far, far, far more successful.
>>
> Newton's laws of gravity have been shown to be an incomplete description of
> the behaviour of physical systems.
>
> A list of one theory is not convincing evidence.
That's right, thus the outdated phrase. But even incomplete it is
light-years ahead of evolution in the success department.
<snip>
George Evans
John Wilkins
> Was Mendel investigating the evolution of peas?
Apparently he was doing far more than that. von Nägeli and he were in
correspondence, and Mendel was aparently trying to work out how
important hybridisation (which at the time did not mean just
interspecies breeding but also inter-varietal breeding) was for
evolution. In short he was trying to come up with a mechanism for
evolution (based on the crossbreeding of traits from different lines).
Which was, by the way, a view of the origination of new species since
Linnaeus.
--
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."
Perplexed in Peoria
"George Evans" <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:C239BF6F.7023%geor...@earthlink.net...
I'm not so sure. In 1953, the only good evidence that DNA was the genetic
material was Avery's work. It is pretty daring to extrapolate that work to
plants and animals, unless you are an evolutionist.
> The fruit fly connection is stronger.
I think we are probably in agreement on several points:
1. Molecular biology and genetics are not exactly parts of evolutionary theory.
I agree with your original quibble with Richard.
2. Much of biological knowlege would have eventually developed in much the
same form as it exists now, even if the practitioners had all believed
in special creation of each species.
3. It is damned annoying to creationists when evolutionists
a. include the science that the creationists agree with under the ToE umbrella.
b. seem to assume that creationists are opposed to all science, since
they oppose one piece of it.
But where we are in disagreement is that I agree with Dobzhansky: "Nothing in
biology makes sense except in light of evolution." So, while it would not
be impossible for a scientific culture of special creationists to have eventually
discovered the basic facts of genetics and molecular biology, I think that their
progress would have been slower and the history more cluttered with mistakes and
dead ends.
Before Darwin and Mendel, the mindset of science was that variation in a phenomenon
is noise - it is something to be avoided. After them, in biology at least, it
became understood that the variation in the phenomenon is the thing you want to
study - in a sense, the variation in the phenomenon IS the phenomenon. And that
new way of thinking was critical in allowing the molecular secrets of life's
mechanism to be discovered. You can credit Mendel for introducing this viewpoint,
but I credit Darwin with independently discovering the viewpoint, and with showing
why this viewpoint is important.
Perplexed in Peoria
"George Evans" <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:C239CECF.7024%geor...@earthlink.net...
> in article 1175670011....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> chris.li...@gmail.com at chris.li...@gmail.com wrote on 4/4/07
> 12:00 AM:
> > in physics?
>
> Why am I even having to do this? General Relativity, Electro-magnetic
> Theory, Quantum Mechanics. All are *exquisite* predictors. And how about the
> theoretical unification of three of the four forces in nature. Wow, physics
> is unifying things while evolution had to divorce itself from abiogenesis in
> order to survive.
Hey, not bad! I think that is the first cheap shot from a creationist that
has brought a sheepish smile to my face in months.
But it wasn't really a divorce. They were living together, but it was an
unfruitful union. Never really consummated. I hope that abiogenesis can
get her act together and they can try again someday.
Hmmm. What has evolution unified?
Human medicine with veternary medicine?
Intraspecies genetic variation with interspecies genetic variation?
Plant biochemistry with animal biochemistry?
Psychology with ethics? (under construction)
Actually, you can see that what physics has done is to unify some of its
subfields under a new slogan - "Nothing in physics makes sense except in
light of guage invariance." Biology is doing something similar.
So, how is theology doing these days, unification-wise? Have they gotten
over that nasty tendency to schism?
rmj
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ie0Rh.2967$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "George Evans" <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:C239CECF.7024%geor...@earthlink.net...
>> in article 1175670011....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
>> chris.li...@gmail.com at chris.li...@gmail.com wrote on
>> 4/4/07
>> 12:00 AM:
>> > ... Would you care to be a little more specific about theories
>> > in physics?
>>
>> Why am I even having to do this? General Relativity, Electro-magnetic
>> Theory, Quantum Mechanics. All are *exquisite* predictors. And how about
>> the
>> theoretical unification of three of the four forces in nature. Wow,
>> physics
>> is unifying things while evolution had to divorce itself from abiogenesis
>> in
>> order to survive.
>
> Hey, not bad! I think that is the first cheap shot from a creationist
> that
> has brought a sheepish smile to my face in months.
>
> But it wasn't really a divorce. They were living together, but it was an
> unfruitful union. Never really consummated. I hope that abiogenesis can
> get her act together and they can try again someday.
>
> Hmmm. What has evolution unified?
>
> Human medicine with veternary medicine?
No. The similarity in biochemistry is sufficient to unite the two whether
one has an explanation for the similarity or not.
>
> Intraspecies genetic variation with interspecies genetic variation?
Perhaps.
>
> Plant biochemistry with animal biochemistry?
>
No. Again the biochemical similarities are sufficient to unite the two
irrespective of any theory.
> Psychology with ethics? (under construction)
Lots of room here for speculation.
>
> Actually, you can see that what physics has done is to unify some of its
> subfields under a new slogan - "Nothing in physics makes sense except in
> light of guage invariance." Biology is doing something similar.
>
> So, how is theology doing these days, unification-wise? Have they gotten
> over that nasty tendency to schism?
Pretty much.
>
richardal...@googlemail.com
> in article 1175671123.849146.274...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> on 4/4/07 12:18 AM:
>
> > On Apr 4, 7:42 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> in article 1175587712.295860.254...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> >> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> >> on 4/3/07 1:08 AM:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> There are few theories in any branch of any science which have been as
> >>> successful. If you think I'm wrong, list a few more the successful theories
> >>> in other sciences.
>
> >> Pretty much everything in Physics and Chemistry, even some of the outdated
> >> ones like Newton's theory of gravity are far, far, far more successful.
>
> > Newton's laws of gravity have been shown to be an incomplete description of
> > the behaviour of physical systems.
>
> > A list of one theory is not convincing evidence.
>
> That's right, thus the outdated phrase. But even incomplete it is
> light-years ahead of evolution in the success department.
>
More unfounded assertion.
Biologists consider evolution to be the central organising concept of
their discipline, and biology is one of the most important disciplines
in science.
What do you know that all these professional scientists don't?
RF
> <snip>
>
> George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com
> in article 1175670929.659045.269...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> on 4/4/07 12:15 AM:
>
> > On Apr 4, 7:27 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I suggest you uneducate yourself and start over. The discovery of the
> >> structure and processing of DNA in not beholden to the ToE in any way.
>
> > The question of how characters are inherited is central to evolutionary
> > theory. Are you seriously suggesting that the investigation of the processes
> > which govern heredity are not "beholden" to evolutionary theory? Such
> > investigations are part of the process of *testing* evolutionary theory!
>
> Was Mendel investigating the evolution of peas?
>
He was investigating the mechanisms of heredity. This mechanism is an
essential part of evolutionary theory. Incidentally, one of the
aspects of this mechanism he was investigating was that of speciation
through hybroidisation, a phenomenon known to Linaeus over a century
earlier.
Perhaps you don't consider the mechanisms of speciation as relevant to
evolutionary theory, but I suggest that few biologists would agree
with you.
> >> You might be able to make a case for genetics being spurred by the ToE, but
> >> it would be tenuous.
>
> > As the modern synthesis derives quite specifically the incorporation of our
> > knowledge of genetics into evolutionary theory, providing the mechanism of
> > transmission of characters which posed Darwin's biggest problem - and one he
> > freely acknowledged, incidentally - the case is hardly "tenuous". Genetics is
> > *central* to evolutionary theory. It is as important to that theory as natural
> > selection.
>
> How can genetics be central to a theory whose basic principles were in place
> before genetics was a science?
Because genetics fills a gap in that theory which was the biggest
stumbling block to its acceptance. Evolution had been observed for
centuries. Evolutionary theory provides a mechanism for evolution.
Theories in science are not written on tablets of stone, but are
modified and expanded as new evidence becomes available. Science is a
dynamic process.
>
> > So why not try to educate yourself in the subject?
>
> And I renew my advice.
To do what?
Educate myself in the subject?
I'm doing a PhD in the subject. Evidently my supervisors think that
I'm well enough educated in the subject to pursue it at a high level.
What do you know that they don't?
RF
>
> George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> "George Evans" <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:C239BF6F.7023%geor...@earthlink.net...
> > in article WPHQh.5559$Kd3.3...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net, Perplexed in
> > Peoria at jimmene...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 4/3/07 11:45 PM:
>
> > > "George Evans" <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >news:C23892EF.6FB6%geor...@earthlink.net...
> > >> in article 1175585437.765220.172...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
Genetics is a key component of the modern synthesis as proposed by
Mayr! It is a central part of evolutionary theory. It's as much part
of evolutionary theory as natural selection.
> 2. Much of biological knowlege would have eventually developed in much the
> same form as it exists now, even if the practitioners had all believed
> in special creation of each species.
How on earth could we know that? The evidence out there shows
categorically that the doctrine of special creation is untenable as
science. How on earth can one carry out good science whilst ignoring
mountains of evidence? It would be equivalent to trying to study
planetary motions using the Ptolemaic model.
> 3. It is damned annoying to creationists when evolutionists
> a. include the science that the creationists agree with under the ToE umbrella.
They don't. They are rather careful to *exclude* from evolutionary
theory science which creationists insist we should *include* , such as
abiogenesis and cosmology. The simple fact is the evolutionary theory
is central to our understanding of biology.
By the way, what is an "evolutionist"?
> b. seem to assume that creationists are opposed to all science, since
> they oppose one piece of it.
They do oppose all science. They oppose naturalism. That is
fundamental to all science, not just biology.
>
> But where we are in disagreement is that I agree with Dobzhansky: "Nothing in
> biology makes sense except in light of evolution." So, while it would not
> be impossible for a scientific culture of special creationists to have eventually
> discovered the basic facts of genetics and molecular biology, I think that their
> progress would have been slower and the history more cluttered with mistakes and
> dead ends.
>
>
> Before Darwin and Mendel, the mindset of science was that variation in a phenomenon
> is noise - it is something to be avoided. After them, in biology at least, it
> became understood that the variation in the phenomenon is the thing you want to
> study - in a sense, the variation in the phenomenon IS the phenomenon. And that
> new way of thinking was critical in allowing the molecular secrets of life's
> mechanism to be discovered. You can credit Mendel for introducing this viewpoint,
> but I credit Darwin with independently discovering the viewpoint, and with showing
> why this viewpoint is important.
RF
wf3h
George Evans wrote:
>
> Why am I even having to do this? General Relativity, Electro-magnetic
> Theory, Quantum Mechanics. All are *exquisite* predictors. And how about the
> theoretical unification of three of the four forces in nature. Wow, physics
> is unifying things while evolution had to divorce itself from abiogenesis in
> order to survive.
non sequitur. abiogenesis has as much to do with evolution as it does
with ballet dancing. the reason abiogenesis is not part of evolution
is because evolution has zip to do with abiogenesis.
your assertion to the contrary is quite irrelevant.
> >
> As a matter of fact I do. But more to the point, the presence of
> evolutionary issues are only ancillary to the study of Biochemistry and Cell
> Biology. Both disciplines would go on without a hitch if evolution
> disappeared.
well it depends. evolution is a natural outgrowth of understanding
variations in the biochemistry of organisms...
George Evans
jos...@spamblarg.net wrote on 4/4/07 10:22 PM:
> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:C239CECF.7024%geor...@earthlink.net:
>
>> nature. Wow, physics is unifying things while evolution had to divorce
>> itself from abiogenesis in order to survive.
>
> Yes, and physics had to divorce itself from art history to survive as well;
> thank goodness, otherwise people might think physics encompassed art history,
> when anyone with two brain cells to rub together in a futile attempt to
> generate sparks recognizes that they have practically nothing to do with each
> other.
>
> Oh, I grant you, the history of art does depend in some tangential way on
> physics, but of course, physics doesn't stand or fall depending on whether
> one takes a post-modern view of art, now, does it?
So, one day all the physicists in the realm woke up and said, "Why are we
always getting caught up in art history arguments, this isn't even related
to physics." And all the evolutionist in the realm woke up and said, "Yea,
and why are we always getting caught up in abiogenesis arguments. We should
learn from those physicist. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
What foolishness. I was alive back when evolutionist used to excitedly argue
abiogenesis issues. And then about 10 or 15 years ago they realized that
they had spent a lot of time arguing against spontaneous generation and yet
their whole theory rested on it. Oops.
George Evans
chris.li...@gmail.com
> in article Xns9908E3A646851joshblarg...@216.168.3.44, Josh Hayes at> > George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote in
How clever. Except that scientists always knew spontaneous generation
happened. That they could not reproduce it was immaterial. We cannot
reproduce a supernova either, and yet we see the results long after
the fact, don't we?
Why don't you read George Wald's paper on spontaneous generation? It's
a classic. It's in Scientific American, an August issue IIRC, in about
1955.
Chris
>
> George Evans
George Evans
Peoria at jimme...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 4/4/07 10:23 PM:
I don't think it would been any more daring for a creationist who would have
held that all living thing were made at the *same* time by the *same*
person.
>> The fruit fly connection is stronger.
>
> I think we are probably in agreement on several points:
> 1. Molecular biology and genetics are not exactly parts of evolutionary
> theory.
> I agree with your original quibble with Richard.
> 2. Much of biological knowlege would have eventually developed in much the
> same form as it exists now, even if the practitioners had all believed
> in special creation of each species.
> 3. It is damned annoying to creationists when evolutionists
> a. include the science that the creationists agree with under the ToE
> umbrella.
> b. seem to assume that creationists are opposed to all science, since
> they oppose one piece of it.
Yes, I agree with that.
> But where we are in disagreement is that I agree with Dobzhansky: "Nothing in
> biology makes sense except in light of evolution." So, while it would not be
> impossible for a scientific culture of special creationists to have eventually
> discovered the basic facts of genetics and molecular biology, I think that
> their progress would have been slower and the history more cluttered with
> mistakes and dead ends.
I learned, and appreciated the Kreb cycle without a lick of evolution. And
it made perfect sense.
> Before Darwin and Mendel, the mindset of science was that variation in a
> phenomenon is noise - it is something to be avoided. After them, in biology
> at least, it became understood that the variation in the phenomenon is the
> thing you want to study - in a sense, the variation in the phenomenon IS the
> phenomenon. And that new way of thinking was critical in allowing the
> molecular secrets of life's mechanism to be discovered. You can credit Mendel
> for introducing this viewpoint, but I credit Darwin with independently
> discovering the viewpoint, and with showing why this viewpoint is important.
I think you make a good point here. Immutability of species was a black eye
for creationism, and probably prone to stagnation. It is the idea completely
demolished by Darwin, who certainly stirred the pot.
George Evans
George Evans
j.wil...@uq.edu.au wrote on 4/4/07 10:26 PM:
> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Was Mendel investigating the evolution of peas?
>
> Apparently he was doing far more than that. von Nägeli and he were in
> correspondence, and Mendel was aparently trying to work out how
> important hybridisation (which at the time did not mean just
> interspecies breeding but also inter-varietal breeding) was for
> evolution. In short he was trying to come up with a mechanism for
> evolution (based on the crossbreeding of traits from different lines).
>
> Which was, by the way, a view of the origination of new species since
> Linnaeus.
I stand corrected. Now that you mentioned it, I remember reading about this
connection a while back when Mendel's works were opened.
George Evans
John Wilkins
A nice article that places Mendel in the Franz Unger/Karl von Nägeli
tradition of pre-Darwinian evolution studies on hybridism is
Gliboff, Sander. 1999. Gregor Mendel and the laws of evolution. Hist.
Sci., xxxvii:217-235.
If you email me I can send you the PDF.
John Wilkins
I'm going to weigh in here and make the following claims:
1. Evolution itself - the process - is formally independent of
abiogenesis; it merely assumes that if you have heredity and ecology,
you have evolution.
2. Abiogenesis is potentially explicable in terms of modern evolutionary
theory.
These two seem contradictory, but they aren't. Suppose all life began
from a non-evolved accident, or from the work of a nascent scientist who
happened to be on holidays with hisher parents. Evolution would proceed
thereafter, and hence formally (one would wrongly say in the vernacular
"logically") they are distinct domains of expanation.
However, I do not believe in scientific miracles or visiting UFOs, so
abiogenesis calls for an explanation. The explanation is of the
appearance of increasing complexity of chemical reactions. What process
do we know is cabale of generating increasing complexity? Selection
processes can. Ergo, I think it very likely that a selection process
generated the first living organisms. Of course, this won't be the same
general type of selection process as occurs on, say, a species of
bacterium today, because it will initially lack both
compartmentalisation in cell membranes and a strong heredity in DNA, but
it will be (formally) a selection process of some kind.
Now you might think that because spontaneous generation is rejected by
modern science, and it is, that this means that modern science has
rejected abiogenesis, but they are quite distinct issues. Spongen if I
may call it that, is the view that *modern* complex animals and plants
can arise de novo (actually, historically always out of putrescent
organic material). This is false. But we aren't talking here about
complex organisms like a bacterium. We are talking about something that
is barely a living thing - a virus with some basic metabolism, if you
like. To explain that, I think there are two scientific explanations -
it was an accident (which is a miracle) or it is the result of
selection.
The whole theory of evolution does not rest on anything more than the
existence of heredity in systems that interact with their ecological
context in differing efficiencies. It certainly does not rest on the
origins of life, for that is, as it were irrelevant to there being life
that evolves. If God made the first forms, or they happened to occur
when a molecule accidently got the property of self-reproduction as
Dawkins puts it, evolution goes on in equal measure regardless.
John Wilkins
> > Before Darwin and Mendel, the mindset of science was that variation in a
> > phenomenon is noise - it is something to be avoided. After them, in
> > biology at least, it became understood that the variation in the
> > phenomenon is the thing you want to study - in a sense, the variation in
> > the phenomenon IS the phenomenon. And that new way of thinking was
> > critical in allowing the molecular secrets of life's mechanism to be
> > discovered. You can credit Mendel for introducing this viewpoint, but I
> > credit Darwin with independently discovering the viewpoint, and with
> > showing why this viewpoint is important.
>
> I think you make a good point here. Immutability of species was a black eye
> for creationism, and probably prone to stagnation. It is the idea completely
> demolished by Darwin, who certainly stirred the pot.
It was demolished long before that. The major villains are A-P de
Candolle and his son, who both noted variation in species was
ubiquitous, and of course many other botanists in particular, but also
conchologists and ichthyologists, had noted widespread variation in
species as early as the 1780s, or even before then.
Variation was not noise even to them, as they were able to array their
specimens in clines of forms. Basically they appealed to the Great Chain
to explain it. The rise of statistics, particularly de Quetelet, who
Darwin read, indicated that variation was significant, but it was the
sine qua non for Darwin's idea (which he had, don't forget, in October
1838) that variants would be selected for. The proposition by William
Wells in 1813 that selection was active indicates that naturalists knew
variation was more than noise.
George Evans
Peoria at jimme...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 4/4/07 10:59 PM:
> "George Evans" <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:C239CECF.7024%geor...@earthlink.net...
>
>> in article 1175670011....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
>> chris.li...@gmail.com at chris.li...@gmail.com wrote on 4/4/07
>> 12:00 AM:
>>
>>> ... Would you care to be a little more specific about theories in physics?
>>>
>> Why am I even having to do this? General Relativity, Electro-magnetic Theory,
>> Quantum Mechanics. All are *exquisite* predictors. And how about the
>> theoretical unification of three of the four forces in nature. Wow, physics
>> is unifying things while evolution had to divorce itself from abiogenesis in
>> order to survive.
>>
> Hey, not bad! I think that is the first cheap shot from a creationist that
> has brought a sheepish smile to my face in months.
>
> But it wasn't really a divorce. They were living together, but it was an
> unfruitful union. Never really consummated. I hope that abiogenesis can get
> her act together and they can try again someday.
I think it was at least a common law marriage. Even as recently as the 90's
I didn't even hear the term aboigenesis. It was all just evolution. So they
both had the same last name. That sounds like a marriage to me.
> Hmmm. What has evolution unified?
>
> Human medicine with veternary medicine?
>
> Intraspecies genetic variation with interspecies genetic variation?
>
> Plant biochemistry with animal biochemistry?
Regarding these three, I think you are at least one hierarchical layer too
low. Figuring out that the same law applies to different types of objects
could possibly, if you stretch the analogy, be on a par with
electro-magnetic theory. It doesn't hold a candle to unification theory.
Plus, and this the biggest scientific plus, every theory in physics is
exquisitely predictive. Evolution gets excited when it predict one
occasional lone data point. Woo Hoo! let's celebrate. We found a fossil
where we thought it would be.
> Psychology with ethics? (under construction)
>
> Actually, you can see that what physics has done is to unify some of its
> subfields under a new slogan - "Nothing in physics makes sense except in light
> of guage invariance." Biology is doing something similar.
Slogan?! Try mathematical theory. I know you biologist don't know what
equations are, but they are those things with a lot of numbers and letters
and funny squiggly lines. And that last word you used, it is stretching to
the breaking point. Does your "unification theory" have *any* equations in
it?
> So, how is theology doing these days, unification-wise? Have they gotten over
> that nasty tendency to schism?
Your talking here about the *grand* unification theory, which is another
level up from anything we have talked about so far.
George Evans
George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com at richardal...@googlemail.com wrote
on 4/4/07 11:56 PM:
<snip>
> More unfounded assertion.
>
> Biologists consider evolution to be the central organising concept of their
> discipline, and biology is one of the most important disciplines in science.
>
> What do you know that all these professional scientists don't?
I know this. "Central organising [sic] concept" makes it sound as important
as a notebook binder with dividers. If that's all I had, I would be quiet.
George Evans
George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com at richardal...@googlemail.com wrote
on 4/5/07 1:14 AM:
> On Apr 5, 6:14 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> And I renew my advice.
>
> To do what? Educate myself in the subject? I'm doing a PhD in the subject.
> Evidently my supervisors think that I'm well enough educated in the subject to
> pursue it at a high level.
>
> What do you know that they don't?
Have they read your post?
George Evans
George Evans
wf...@vsswireless.net wrote on 4/5/07 2:28 AM:
> George Evans wrote:
<snip>
>> As a matter of fact I do. But more to the point, the presence of evolutionary
>> issues are only ancillary to the study of Biochemistry and Cell Biology. Both
>> disciplines would go on without a hitch if evolution disappeared.
>>
> well it depends. evolution is a natural outgrowth of understanding variations
> in the biochemistry of organisms...
I think you just demonstrated my point. If evolution is an *outgrowth* of
understanding the biochemistry, then how could evolution have anything to do
with the understanding of the biochemistry itself. You would have to
demonstrate how the understanding of biochemistry is a natural outgrowth of
evolution.
George Evans
George Evans
chris.li...@gmail.com at chris.li...@gmail.com wrote on 4/5/07
6:21 PM:
> On Apr 5, 9:14 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> So, one day all the physicists in the realm woke up and said, "Why are we
>> always getting caught up in art history arguments, this isn't even related to
>> physics." And all the evolutionist in the realm woke up and said, "Yea, and
>> why are we always getting caught up in abiogenesis arguments. We should learn
>> from those physicist. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
>>
>> What foolishness. I was alive back when evolutionist used to excitedly argue
>> abiogenesis issues. And then about 10 or 15 years ago they realized that they
>> had spent a lot of time arguing against spontaneous generation and yet their
>> whole theory rested on it. Oops.
>>
> How clever. Except that scientists always knew spontaneous generation
> happened. That they could not reproduce it was immaterial. We cannot reproduce
> a supernova either, and yet we see the results long after the fact, don't we?
>
> Why don't you read George Wald's paper on spontaneous generation? It's a
> classic. It's in Scientific American, an August issue IIRC, in about 1955.
You guys keep demonstrating my point. In 1955, Wald wasn't afraid to say it.
You are courageous enough to say it. So how come, when I bring up the
subject in an evolution vs. creation debate, everyone else runs like hell?
George Evans
George Evans
j.wil...@uq.edu.au wrote on 4/5/07 7:31 PM:
> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1hw3s3l.307v2t1imaakgN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au, John Wilkins at
>> j.wil...@uq.edu.au wrote on 4/4/07 10:26 PM:
>>
>>> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Was Mendel investigating the evolution of peas?
>>>
>>> Apparently he was doing far more than that. von Nägeli and he were in
>>> correspondence, and Mendel was aparently trying to work out how
>>> important hybridisation (which at the time did not mean just
>>> interspecies breeding but also inter-varietal breeding) was for
>>> evolution. In short he was trying to come up with a mechanism for
>>> evolution (based on the crossbreeding of traits from different lines).
>>>
>>> Which was, by the way, a view of the origination of new species since
>>> Linnaeus.
>>
>> I stand corrected. Now that you mentioned it, I remember reading about this
>> connection a while back when Mendel's works were opened.
>>
>> George Evans
>
> A nice article that places Mendel in the Franz Unger/Karl von Nägeli
> tradition of pre-Darwinian evolution studies on hybridism is
>
> Gliboff, Sander. 1999. Gregor Mendel and the laws of evolution. Hist.
> Sci., xxxvii:217-235.
>
> If you email me I can send you the PDF.
Thank you, sir.
George Evans
George Evans
j.wil...@uq.edu.au wrote on 4/5/07 7:31 PM:
> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article Xns9908E3A6468...@216.168.3.44, Josh Hayes at
>> jos...@spamblarg.net wrote on 4/4/07 10:22 PM:
>>
>>> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>> news:C239CECF.7024%geor...@earthlink.net:
>>>
>>>> nature. Wow, physics is unifying things while evolution had to divorce
>>>> itself from abiogenesis in order to survive.
>>>>
>>> Yes, and physics had to divorce itself from art history to survive as well;
>>> thank goodness, otherwise people might think physics encompassed art
>>> history, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together in a futile
>>> attempt to generate sparks recognizes that they have practically nothing to
>>> do with each other.
>>>
>>> Oh, I grant you, the history of art does depend in some tangential way on
>>> physics, but of course, physics doesn't stand or fall depending on whether
>>> one takes a post-modern view of art, now, does it?
>>>
>> So, one day all the physicists in the realm woke up and said, "Why are we
>> always getting caught up in art history arguments, this isn't even related to
>> physics." And all the evolutionist in the realm woke up and said, "Yea, and
>> why are we always getting caught up in abiogenesis arguments. We should learn
>> from those physicist. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
>>
>> What foolishness. I was alive back when evolutionist used to excitedly argue
>> abiogenesis issues. And then about 10 or 15 years ago they realized that they
>> had spent a lot of time arguing against spontaneous generation and yet their
>> whole theory rested on it. Oops.
>>
I just knew I was going to get spanked when I tried to make the spongen
connection. I will never do it again, even though philosophically I think
evolution and abiogenesis have the same consequences. And since this forum
is talk.origins and not talk.evolution, I presume I can still make reference
to abiogenesis as long as I follow your rules. :-)
George Evans
George Evans
j.wil...@uq.edu.au wrote on 4/5/07 7:31 PM:
> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
OK, quit rubbing salt in my wounds. Just kidding. I am glad you guys won
that one. It taught us humility. Well maybe not *all* of us.
George Evans
richardal...@googlemail.com
> in article 1175760861.613834.286...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> on 4/5/07 1:14 AM:
>
> > On Apr 5, 6:14 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> And I renew my advice.
>
> > To do what? Educate myself in the subject? I'm doing a PhD in the subject.
> > Evidently my supervisors think that I'm well enough educated in the subject to
> > pursue it at a high level.
>
> > What do you know that they don't?
>
> Have they read your post?
>
> George Evans
Why should they need to? I have made no statement which you would not
find in a basic biology textbook.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> in article 1175756191.094092.35...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
> on 4/4/07 11:56 PM:
>
> <snip>
>
> > More unfounded assertion.
>
> > Biologists consider evolution to be the central organising concept of their
> > discipline, and biology is one of the most important disciplines in science.
>
> > What do you know that all these professional scientists don't?
>
> I know this. "Central organising [sic]
It's the English spelling, you idiot! I'm English.
>concept" makes it sound as important
> as a notebook binder with dividers. If that's all I had, I would be quiet.
>
> George Evans
This is the best you can come up with?
Once again, faced with the fact that you cannot support your
assertions, you resort to silly and meaningless irrelevancies.
RF
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 7, 6:11 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> in article 1175756191.094092.35...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com at richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote
>> on 4/4/07 11:56 PM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > More unfounded assertion.
>>
>> > Biologists consider evolution to be the central organising concept of their
>> > discipline, and biology is one of the most important disciplines in science.
>>
>> > What do you know that all these professional scientists don't?
>>
>> I know this. "Central organising [sic]
>
>It's the English spelling, you idiot! I'm English.
Actually, the correct English (British) spelling is 'organize'. It is
a mistake many people make.
--
Bob.
John Wilkins
It's a legit topic, yes. I have summarised, pretty extensively, the
historical and conceptual issues regarding spongen and abiogen here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
which I am pleased to see informs the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
As to the "same consequences", I'd be happy to discuss these.
George Evans
j.wil...@uq.edu.au wrote on 4/7/07 7:55 PM:
> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> ...since this forum is talk.origins and not talk.evolution, I presume I can
>> still make reference to abiogenesis as long as I follow your rules. :-)
>>
> It's a legit topic, yes. I have summarised, pretty extensively, the historical
> and conceptual issues regarding spongen and abiogen here:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
>
> which I am pleased to see informs the Wikipedia article:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>
> As to the "same consequences", I'd be happy to discuss these.
I look forward to that, after I do my reading.
George Evans