Does anyone have a purely scientific objection to evolution?
Frank J
I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
better explanation, they have known it for decades.
But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
(i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
well above the species level. To be clear, I don’t think that there's
anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.
Actually, it has been years since I thought that there were many such
people (scientists or otherwise) anywhere. That’s because such people
would want to be clear what they doubt and what they don’t doubt, and
not really want to be associated with either classic creationists or
IDers. Sure, a few people have stopped by TO and indicated that they
are not creationists or IDers, and still had problems with evolution,
but I was always suspicious of them because I usually had to coax it
out of them to see what they doubt, what they don’t, and what’s their
best guess for an alternate explanation.
This year we have a better criterion than ever for identifying someone
with purely scientific objection, and that is that they would be at
least as appalled at “Expelled” as we are. Think about it. Nothing in
recent memory has ever been so clear at asserting that "the" objection
to evolution is philosophical and emotional, e.g. “I want it to be
wrong, therefore it is wrong!” “Expelled” ironically makes that case
even better than we do. People who really do think that they have a
purely scientific objection (if any exist) have had an uphill battle
to begin with, and now they have *anti-evolutionists* telling the
world that they are either wrong or don't exist. Who wouldn’t want to
set the record straight about that?
So far I haven’t heard any objection to “Expelled” by anyone like
that, but if anyone has, I’d be curious to hear it.
noshellswill
Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?
The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated >
"Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
*NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific *itches.
In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle
or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.
nss
*****
Ron O
Ron O
>
> I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
> don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
> But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
> to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
> reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
> life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
> well above the species level. To be clear, I don’t think that there's
> anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
> leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.
There are probably such people, but they likely do not know the
evidence well enough to object with any degree of certainty or they
have such a exaggerated sense of what science can demonstrate that
they probably object to just about everything else too.
Taken to an extreme science can't even demonstrate that yesterday
happened. That is just a fact.
That is why scientific facts are just things that you would be laughed
at if you don't agree with them. Gould labeled them as things that it
would be perverse to deny.
There is a sliding scale, and right now science is about as sure that
life evolved on this planet over billions of years through a process
of descent with modification as we were sure of the shape of the earth
before we had powered flight capability. There are probably still
people that think that the earth is flat, but science knows better.
We've known better for a very long time. Over 2000 years ago a guy
named Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to within
10% of the modern value. Even before we circumnavigated the globe and
mapped the earth we knew the basic shape. We have just spent a lot of
time refining the details. And it is still changing. We can
accurately map a position so that we know that portions of the earth
are moving at a few centimeters each year.
Well we know that biological evolution happened, and we can observe it
happening today. We are just filling in the details. Just ask
someone like Behe. There is a reason why some of the leaders in the
recent creationist intelligent design fiasco did not deny common
descent. They know that a person that would deny common descent of,
say, all vertebrates would be worse off in the basket case or
ignorance scale than the flat earthers of Darwin's day.
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
So what did you think of "Expelled"?
Ron O
Not only that but bumble bees can't possibly fly.
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
> On May 24, 6:48 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.
>
> > I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> > explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
> > don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> > better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
> > But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> > (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
> > to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> > stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
> > reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
> > life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
> > well above the species level. To be clear, I don’t think that there's
> > anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
> > leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.
>
> There are probably such people, but they likely do not know the
> evidence well enough to object with any degree of certainty or they
> have such a exaggerated sense of what science can demonstrate that
> they probably object to just about everything else too.
I should say that many of the rank and file are probably still
deceived into thinking that there really is a purely scientific
objection, even an alternate theory, But they are unlikely to write or
post their opinion of "Expelled." The many rank and file opinions that
I have seen so far, such as in the comments that follow an online
review, either rave about "Expelled" *and* express doubts (&
demonstrate misconceptions), or trash it *and* defend science.
>
> Taken to an extreme science can't even demonstrate that yesterday
> happened. That is just a fact.
>
> That is why scientific facts are just things that you would be laughed
> at if you don't agree with them. Gould labeled them as things that it
> would be perverse to deny.
>
> There is a sliding scale, and right now science is about as sure that
> life evolved on this planet over billions of years through a process
> of descent with modification as we were sure of the shape of the earth
> before we had powered flight capability. There are probably still
> people that think that the earth is flat, but science knows better.
> We've known better for a very long time. Over 2000 years ago a guy
> named Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to within
> 10% of the modern value. Even before we circumnavigated the globe and
> mapped the earth we knew the basic shape. We have just spent a lot of
> time refining the details. And it is still changing. We can
> accurately map a position so that we know that portions of the earth
> are moving at a few centimeters each year.
>
> Well we know that biological evolution happened, and we can observe it
> happening today. We are just filling in the details. Just ask
> someone like Behe. There is a reason why some of the leaders in the
> recent creationist intelligent design fiasco did not deny common
> descent. They know that a person that would deny common descent of,
> say, all vertebrates would be worse off in the basket case or
> ignorance scale than the flat earthers of Darwin's day.
True, but they don't volunteer that information much any more. I read
somewhere (second hand) that Stein agreed with Behe on the chronology
and common descent, but I have yet to find the reference. I'm not at
all surprised, though, because I expect it to get drowned out in the
more PC talk.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
>
>
> > Actually, it has been years since I thought that there were many such
> > people (scientists or otherwise) anywhere. That’s because such people
> > would want to be clear what they doubt and what they don’t doubt, and
> > not really want to be associated with either classic creationists or
> > IDers. Sure, a few people have stopped by TO and indicated that they
> > are not creationists or IDers, and still had problems with evolution,
> > but I was always suspicious of them because I usually had to coax it
> > out of them to see what they doubt, what they don’t, and what’s their
> > best guess for an alternate explanation.
>
> > This year we have a better criterion than ever for identifying someone
> > with purely scientific objection, and that is that they would be at
> > least as appalled at “Expelled” as we are. Think about it. Nothing in
> > recent memory has ever been so clear at asserting that "the" objection
> > to evolution is philosophical and emotional, e.g. “I want it to be
> > wrong, therefore it is wrong!” “Expelled” ironically makes that case
> > even better than we do. People who really do think that they have a
> > purely scientific objection (if any exist) have had an uphill battle
> > to begin with, and now they have *anti-evolutionists* telling the
> > world that they are either wrong or don't exist. Who wouldn’t want to
> > set the record straight about that?
>
> > So far I haven’t heard any objection to “Expelled” by anyone like
> > that, but if anyone has, I’d be curious to hear it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John McKendry
Dissimulation is not generally thought to be a property of the
earliest life forms. You might want to look the word up in a
dictionary before you use it again. As a rule, it's bad idea to use
big words whose meaning you don't understand on usenet, because it
makes you look like the sort of pretentious blowhard who thinks
he can intimidate his audience with the mere outward appearance of
learning.
<snip rest>
John
Steven L.
Could I try?
I'm certainly appalled by "Expelled." It raised my blood pressure, a lot.
But I do have what I consider to be a scientific question, not really an
objection:
I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence. Our
brains can do algebraic topology, calculus, philosophy, metaphysics, and
highly abstract games like go. (OK, at least *some* of our brains can
do those things.) But was the evolutionary pressure for that? What
skills did our primitive ancestors really need to survive except the
ability to hunt, fish, and a few other basic skills? Yet even after our
ancestors developed the brains to feed ourselves and our tribes, and
defend ourselves from that nasty saber-tooth, we just kept right on
evolving with highly advanced intellection that isn't really needed to
put food on the table.
So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
necessary for basic survival.
Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
smarter in 100 million years.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
David Hare-Scott
"noshellswill" <noshel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.25....@gmail.com...
>
> Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?
>
> The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
> and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
> stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
>
> That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
> neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated >
> "Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
>
> *NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific *itches.
>
> In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle
> or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.
>
> nss
> *****
>
You seem to be offering some sort of challenge here but I have no idea what
you are talking about. If I look up the unfamiliar jargon terms the assembly
of them that you use is still hard to follow. And the part about organisms
hiding their true feelings (how would one know?) sounds kind of cool but even
more confusing. Please explain what you are on about.
David
noshellswill
Gents:
I see no calculations. That is your problem. I assign grades for work only.
"Expelled"? What is this -expelled- you speak of ?
" '..dissimulate..'" ... oh you poor poos.
nss
****
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Huh?
Sorry, I'm afraid I don't speak "Gibberish" very well.
Could you translate this into something resembling the Queen's English
for me?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
J. J. Lodder
> Before you jump to a "no way," read on.
>
> I don't mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of "don't ask,
> don't tell" makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
> But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine "I don't know" with respect
> to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> stake in the design vs. "naturalism" debate, and probably have no
> reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
> life. Their doubt might be only that "RM + NS" is the cause of changes
> well above the species level. To be clear, I don't think that there's
> anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
> leaked they didn't try that hard to hide their real objection.
Objections to theories are irrelevant in science,
that's for the nutters.
A better question is:
are there people who see problems
which are not easily resolved within the theory.
The answer is of course: there always are, lots of them,
for otherwise there could be no research going on.
The next question is: are there people working in the field
who think that the problems they see and work on
cannot be resolved in the theory,
and hence need a better theory to be resolved in.
There may be, but I don't know of any to be taken seriously,
Jan
Ernest Major
<noshel...@gmail.com> writes
>
>Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?
>
>The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
>and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
>stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
>
>That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
>neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated
>> "Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
>
>*NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific
>*itches.
>
>In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle or
>admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.
Passing over the question of what word dissimulate is a substitute for
(disseminate?), what was asked for was a scientific objection to
evolution. Your first paragraph is an objection (I'll pass on analysing
whether it qualifies as scientific) to either abiogenesis or
development, not to evolution.
Your second paragraph seems to indicate that your target was
abiogenesis, so at least you're not claiming that life is impossible.
However you've slipped in an assertion that proteomic life cannot adapt,
in an attempt to stretch your position to cover evolution. That
assertion is falsified by observation and experiiment; the adaptation of
organisms has been seen in both the laboratory and the field.
You might also like to avoid the hypocrisy of demanding a quantitative
rebuttal (sic) while refraining from making quantitative claims
yourself.
--
alias Ernest Major
Frank J
You know. And the lurkers know you know. But thanks for playing
anyway.
>
> " '..dissimulate..'" ... oh you poor poos.
>
> nss
> ****- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
We all have such questions, especially the evoltuionary biologists who
are actually working them. But I'm thinking more along the lines of an
across the board doubt of evolution, Darwinian, Neutral Theory, PE,
Lamarckian, etc. Picture a Michael Behe without reference to design.
IIRC, David Berlinski took that approach in the beginning. But he was
in "Expelled" and agreed with its claims, both the conspiracy of the
"Darwinian orthodoxy" nonsence and the link to Nazism nonsense. So his
objection is not purely scientific.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
See also my reply to Steven L. I guess I am looking for "nutters", but
those who agree with us that "Expelled" is obnoxious propaganda, and
undermines their efforts to convince people that evolution's problems
are just lack of evidence. So far, every "nutter" I have read has
defended "Expelled" one way or another.
Devil's Advocaat
And humming birds only hum because they can't remember the words. :P
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
J. J. Lodder
They do make an impression on (at least *some* of)
the females of the species.
Not quite like playing a rock guitar of course,
but still...
> What
> skills did our primitive ancestors really need to survive except the
> ability to hunt, fish, and a few other basic skills? Yet even after our
> ancestors developed the brains to feed ourselves and our tribes, and
> defend ourselves from that nasty saber-tooth, we just kept right on
> evolving with highly advanced intellection that isn't really needed to
> put food on the table.
Who cares about a mere nasty sabretooth?
Your mother in law can deal with that.
It's the nasty neighbour that one should really worry about.
It really takes the brains of Li'l Abner to outwit them Scraggs.
> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> necessary for basic survival.
>
> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
> smarter in 100 million years.
Herbivores compete for tasty tree leaves,
but only girafffe have grown necks to get them.
You must have a beginning in the right direction
before an evolutionary arms race can take off,
Jan
noshellswill
<clip>
>> "Expelled"? What is this -expelled- you speak of ?
>
> You know. And the lurkers know you know. But thanks for playing
> anyway.
>
>>
>> " '..dissimulate..'" ... oh you poor poos.
>>
>> nss
>> ****- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
Frank:
I've opinioned before on the connection between "social"
Dawinism and Nazi behavior. I referenced a 'first person account' by W. J.
Bryant based on his experience as a US diplomat in Germany after WW1.
I don't remember any return comment, nor was my point so well-made that it
demanded an answer --YMMV. A local expert in early 20-th century German
history could enlighten us all. To my way of thinking, the issue is
historical not conceptual or logical.
As for the movie EXPELLED ... yes I've read about it on this n.g. , but
have read no further reviews nor have I seen it nor do I have any
particular interest in the movie. AFAIK the movie has NO relevance to
any scientific enterprise or concepts.
"Artistic merit" or lit-crit issues belong on another n.g.
nss
****
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bt that sounds like a scientific argument against abiogenesis. What
does it have to do with Evolution?
Harry K
Tim Tyler
> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>
> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> necessary for basic survival.
>
> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.
Tim Tyler
> Herbivores compete for tasty tree leaves,
> but only girafffe have grown necks to get them.
> You must have a beginning in the right direction
> before an evolutionary arms race can take off,
Hey, it's the girafffe neck problem again!
These days, it is thought that girafffe necks are
mostly for clubbing other girafffes with.
r norman
<seem...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>>
>> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
>> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
>> necessary for basic survival.
>>
>> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
>> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
>> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
>> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
>What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
>besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
>plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
So loons and barracuda must be incredibly smart?
Earle Jones
noshellswill <noshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:37:26 -0700, Frank J wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 9:01 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:48:06 -0700, Frank J wrote:
> >> > Before you jump to a łno way,˛ read on.
> >>
> >> > I donąt mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
> >> > explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of łdonąt ask,
> >> > donąt tell˛ makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> >> > better explanation, they have known it for decades.
> >>
> >> > But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> >> > (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine łI donąt know˛ with respect
> >> > to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> >> > stake in the design vs. łnaturalism˛ debate, and probably have no
> >> > reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
> >> > life. Their doubt might be only that łRM + NS˛ is the cause of changes
> >> > well above the species level. To be clear, I donąt think that there's
> >> > anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
> >> > leaked they didnąt try that hard to hide their real objection.
> >>
> >> > Actually, it has been years since I thought that there were many such
> >> > people (scientists or otherwise) anywhere. Thatąs because such people
> >> > would want to be clear what they doubt and what they donąt doubt, and
> >> > not really want to be associated with either classic creationists or
> >> > IDers. Sure, a few people have stopped by TO and indicated that they
> >> > are not creationists or IDers, and still had problems with evolution,
> >> > but I was always suspicious of them because I usually had to coax it
> >> > out of them to see what they doubt, what they donąt, and whatąs their
> >> > best guess for an alternate explanation.
> >>
> >> > This year we have a better criterion than ever for identifying someone
> >> > with purely scientific objection, and that is that they would be at
> >> > least as appalled at łExpelled˛ as we are. Think about it. Nothing in
> >> > recent memory has ever been so clear at asserting that "the" objection
> >> > to evolution is philosophical and emotional, e.g. łI want it to be
> >> > wrong, therefore it is wrong!˛ łExpelled˛ ironically makes that case
> >> > even better than we do. People who really do think that they have a
> >> > purely scientific objection (if any exist) have had an uphill battle
> >> > to begin with, and now they have *anti-evolutionists* telling the
> >> > world that they are either wrong or don't exist. Who wouldnąt want to
> >> > set the record straight about that?
> >>
> >> > So far I havenąt heard any objection to łExpelled˛ by anyone like
> >> > that, but if anyone has, Iąd be curious to hear it.
> >>
> >> Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?
> >>
> >> The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
> >> and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
> >> stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
> >>
> >> That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
> >> neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated >
> >> "Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
> >>
> >> *NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific *itches.
> >>
> >> In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle
> >> or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.
> >>
> >> nss
*
"Rebuttal"
earle
*
noshellswill
> On May 24, 6:01 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:48:06 -0700, Frank J wrote:
>> > Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.
>
>>
>> Hummm ... anti-evolution eh? How about this ?
>>
>> The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
>> and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
>> stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
>>
>> That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
>> neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated >
>> "Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
>>
>> *NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific *itches.
>>
>> In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle
>> or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.
>>
>> nss
>> *****- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Bt that sounds like a scientific argument against abiogenesis. What
> does it have to do with Evolution?
>
> Harry K
HK:
The quibble is ... if a polypeptide can't find ANY stable+amusing
configuration ( in eons! ), then it certainly(?) can't find a better one
quickly enough to make any difference in a competitive, biologic system.
Said otherwise, what can't happen to a single PP_chain also can't happen
to an organism.
Please note that the initial-poster did ASK for "static". I supplied some.
Now, we KNOW that lots of non-trivial P.P. find stable/'useful'
configurations in seconds. So something REALLY interesting
happens and AFAIK the science is very incomplete. Likely the proteome
phase-space is enormously (kinetically) constrained by 'slippery slopes'
which also place analogous constraints on organism adaptivity.
nss
****
noshellswill
> On May 25, 2:05 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
>> Herbivores compete for tasty tree leaves,
>> but only girafffe have grown necks to get them.
>> You must have a beginning in the right direction
>> before an evolutionary arms race can take off,
>
> Hey, it's the girafffe neck problem again!
>
> These days, it is thought that girafffe necks are
> mostly for clubbing other girafffes with.
TT:
I've seen lions bite giraffes' neck. Obviously that neck is meant to
provide lion 'purchase' ... kinda like love_handles.
So much for the "lock & key" argument.
nss
*****
Jim Lovejoy
news:vkkj34t65o4fslc54...@4ax.com:
Loons aren't as a quick perusal of Talk.Origins will demonstrate.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler
<seem...@googlemail.com>:
>On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>>
>> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
>> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
>> necessary for basic survival.
>>
>> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
>> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
>> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
>> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
>What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
>besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
>plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
So sharks are more intelligent than chimps?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
noshellswill
LF:
Study this article, then get back to me.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/phys/phys450/MARKO/N013.html
nss
*****
Chris Thompson
news:pan.2008.05.25....@gmail.com:
Did you cut out a bunch of words from a biochemistry book and toss the
scraps of paper into the air, and just transcribe the ones that fell
onto the keyboard into your post?
Chris
John Harshman
There are a few of us who might be interested in understanding what you
mean by all that apparent (to us, so far) gibberish. Are you at all
interested in explaining? You seem to be freely wandering back and forth
between primary and secondary/tertiary structure, which doesn't help.
And perhaps between single polypeptides and proteomes. For a guy who
demands mathematical rigor from everyone else, you seem amazingly
imprecise in expressing your ideas.
Kermit
Not all humans eat fish.
What you mean is that cetaceans and humans have big brains, from which
you draw dubious conclusions. What can we conclude from observing
elephants, chimps, and the other great apes? They also have big
brains. Why did you not mention them - because it doesn't support your
claim?
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
> reply.
Kermit
J. J. Lodder
> Scríobh Tim Tyler <seem...@googlemail.com>:
> >On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
> >>
> >> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> >> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> >> necessary for basic survival.
> >>
> >> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> >> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> >> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
> >> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
> >
> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> >besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>
> Plankton is a fish?
Of course.
It has been proven in court under US law
that whales are fish,
so why not plankton as well?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On May 25, 2:05 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Herbivores compete for tasty tree leaves,
> > but only girafffe have grown necks to get them.
> > You must have a beginning in the right direction
> > before an evolutionary arms race can take off,
>
> Hey, it's the girafffe neck problem again!
>
> These days, it is thought that girafffe necks are
> mostly for clubbing other girafffes with.
Human brains evolved just for finding better ways
of clubbing other humans brains in,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
> >
> > So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> > brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> > necessary for basic survival.
> >
> > Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> > begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> > and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
> > smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
> What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
> plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
Sure, that's why those ancient Greeks were so damn clever.
Aand another mystery solved:
that's why those dumb Americans live mostly in the interior,
and why what civilization there is is found near the coasts.
One learns every day here,
Jan
Tim Tyler
> On May 25, 1:33 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> > > brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> > > necessary for basic survival.
>
> > > Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> > > begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> > > and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
> > > smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
> > What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> > besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
> > plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>
> Not all humans eat fish.
>
> What you mean is that cetaceans and humans have big brains, from which
> you draw dubious conclusions. What can we conclude from observing
> elephants, chimps, and the other great apes? They also have big
> brains. Why did you not mention them - because it doesn't support your
> claim?
Humans & cetaceans represent the extreme points on:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/jerison1.gif
The elephant is also rather brainy - and seems a bit of an
exception to the general "eats fish" rule.
--
Tim Tyler
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler
> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> >besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>
> So sharks are more intelligent than chimps?
Checking with:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/jerison1.gif
...lower vertebrates are on a different scale - there is no
reason to expect such comparisons to be meaningful.
Ron O
wrote:
It sounds like he it trying to make some kind of argument about the
lack of knowledge about protein folding at the molecular level. It
may be that he thinks that there is some problem that may affect our
interpretation of the evolutionary data.
It seems to be the bumble bee argument where you had some expert
supposedly claiming that bumble bees could not possibly fly, but we
all know that they can.
It is a no brainer that proteins fold. Unless he has some
supernatural explanation that he isn't sharing with us, they fold very
well all on their own. Heck, we have had in vitro translation systems
since the 1970's and have made proteins outside the cell for decades.
How does he think that they fold?
Heck, ask him exactly what his argument is. What does it matter? Why
worry about how proteins fold? Does he think that his designer is in
there folding them up? What model is he trying to support?
Ron Okimoto
Geoff
Like the love handles on your brain?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
There's a taxing issue involving plankton?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler
>On May 26, 2:14 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler
>
>> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
>> >besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
>> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>>
>> So sharks are more intelligent than chimps?
>
>Checking with:
>
>http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/jerison1.gif
>
>...lower vertebrates are on a different scale - there is no
>reason to expect such comparisons to be meaningful.
Thanks for admitting that your comparison is meaningless.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
One certainly learns about bigots.
hersheyh
> explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
> don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
> But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
> to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
> reason to doubt common descent
If you grant common descent, the only scientific argument is about
which evolutionary mechanism is at work.
One can argue, of course, that common descent does not work at the
very base of life to generate the last common ancestor of all the
current life forms (which *did* arise by common descent). Before that
time one could argue for a sort of living collective, sharing genes
and functions at random, containing more or less of those genes. So
*that* would be my best bet for a 'scientific' argument against common
descent.
Secondarily, I would argue that the apparent dominance of common
descent is misleading when applied to the procaryotic world.
> or the 3-4 billion year history of
> life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
> well above the species level.
That is a bit to vague to come up with an actual objection, since all
the labels applied above the species level are often arbitrary in
nature. [Some would argue that 'species' itself is, to a great
extent, arbitrary.] But I would argue for a much larger role for RM +
neutral drift and fixation at all levels.
Perhaps I would try to argue that the conditions required to produce
natural selection *for* change rather than *against* change are too
rare. But I would have a hard time doing that.
I waited to give some creationist an opportunity to jump in, but none
did.
Another objection that could be made is that the 'altruism' involved
in the conversion of unicellulars into multicellulars (giving up their
ability to be the reproductive cell) is too large for such an event to
happen without an outside boost. That, and the existence of apoptosis
and 'suicide genes' in bacteria. [Yeah. I know the counterarguments,
at least in principle, but it would be a much more interesting
argument compared to the "It looks designed to me, so my particular
God must have done it the way the Bible sayz." crowd.] It is, of
course, an argument that Darwin was aware of.
I could also claim that there are examples, in nature, of "Lamarkian"
genetics that cannot work by RM + NS. But that would only apply to a
tiny possible fraction.
And I could always pull a Sean Pitman and pull numbers out of my arse
and make bogus assumptions to support my numerology. But you wanted
honest scientific objections...
r norman
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:50 +0200, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder):
>
>>Féachadóir <FÈach@d.Ûir> wrote:
>>
>>> Scríobh Tim Tyler <seem...@googlemail.com>:
>>> >On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>>> >>
>>> >> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
>>> >> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
>>> >> necessary for basic survival.
>>> >>
>>> >> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
>>> >> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
>>> >> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
>>> >> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>>> >
>>> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
>>> >besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
>>> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>>>
>>> Plankton is a fish?
>>
>>Of course.
>>It has been proven in court under US law
>>that whales are fish,
>>so why not plankton as well?
>
>There's a taxing issue involving plankton?
Have you ever tried to identify the stuff in a plankton haul? It is
quite taxing, indeed!
Ben Standeven
>
> Another objection that could be made is that the 'altruism' involved
> in the conversion of unicellulars into multicellulars (giving up their
> ability to be the reproductive cell) is too large for such an event to
> happen without an outside boost.
An "outside boost" wouldn't work; according to this argument you'd
have to continually cull the lineages that revert to the unicellular
state.
J. J. Lodder
You were not amused?
Jan
Devil's Advocaat
Personally I would like to learn about smallots. :P
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
Devil's Advocaat
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:50 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Scríobh Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com>:
> >> >On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>
> >> >> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> >> >> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> >> >> necessary for basic survival.
>
> >> >> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> >> >> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> >> >> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
> >> >> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
> >> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> >> >besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
> >> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>
> >> Plankton is a fish?
>
> >Of course.
> >It has been proven in court under US law
> >that whales are fish,
> >so why not plankton as well?
>
> There's a taxing issue involving plankton?
I would like to know who is taxing the plankton? After all, apart from
the one bit of plankton in Bikini Bottom I don't see any others trying
to earn a living even if it is one based on stealing someone else's
successful business strategy. :P
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
chris thompson
> On May 26, 2:14 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Tyler
> > >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> > >besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
> > >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>
> > So sharks are more intelligent than chimps?
>
> Checking with:
>
> http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/images/jerison1.gif
>
> ...lower vertebrates are on a different scale - there is no
> reason to expect such comparisons to be meaningful.
"Lower vertebrates"? People who live in the mountains are smarter than
people at sea level? Or dwarfs are smarter than giants?
Chris
chris thompson
Nos is constantly asserting that without an exact knowledge of every
single reaction, at every level down to muons, I imagine, there's no
way we can say evolution has occurred. We aren't even allowed to make
predictions based on known selection pressures. I provided that
simple system for him and he allowed as it probably did make accurate
predictions about allele and genotype frequencies, but unfortunately
for me, it still wasn't science. Unfortunately, his PC ran out
electrons (or something- maybe his dog ate his hard drive) before he
could tell me exactly _why_ it wasn't science.
Chris
r norman
Sunfood Nutrition sells 1 oz. of "Oceans Alive Marine Phytoplankton"
for $59.95. Certainly that company must pay tax!
Incidentally, the reason they sell it is that: "This unique
super-nutrient from the ocean provides the body with an increase in
residual energy that builds up significantly when it is ingested on a
daily basis. With its abundance of naturally produced vitamins,
minerals and original life force (absorbed directly from the Sun),
everyone that partakes will enjoy a ‘whole body’ inner strength that
they have never experienced before. "
The Enigmatic One
says...
>
>Gents:
>
>I see no calculations. That is your problem. I assign grades for work only.
>
>"Expelled"? What is this -expelled- you speak of ?
>
>" '..dissimulate..'" ... oh you poor poos.
Wow.
You're really stupid.
-Tim
Glend
> explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
> don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
> better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
> But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
> (i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
> to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
> stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
> life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
> anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
> leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.
>
> Actually, it has been years since I thought that there were many such
> people (scientists or otherwise) anywhere. That’s because such people
> would want to be clear what they doubt and what they don’t doubt, and
> not really want to be associated with either classic creationists or
> IDers. Sure, a few people have stopped by TO and indicated that they
> are not creationists or IDers, and still had problems with evolution,
> but I was always suspicious of them because I usually had to coax it
> out of them to see what they doubt, what they don’t, and what’s their
> best guess for an alternate explanation.
>
> This year we have a better criterion than ever for identifying someone
> with purely scientific objection, and that is that they would be at
> least as appalled at “Expelled” as we are. Think about it. Nothing in
> recent memory has ever been so clear at asserting that "the" objection
> to evolution is philosophical and emotional, e.g. “I want it to be
> wrong, therefore it is wrong!” “Expelled” ironically makes that case
> even better than we do. People who really do think that they have a
> purely scientific objection (if any exist) have had an uphill battle
> to begin with, and now they have *anti-evolutionists* telling the
> world that they are either wrong or don't exist. Who wouldn’t want to
> set the record straight about that?
>
> So far I haven’t heard any objection to “Expelled” by anyone like
> that, but if anyone has, I’d be curious to hear it.
I'd agree with Ron O, I think there are people who believe that they
have purely scientific objections, though generally they're pretty
pathetically ignorant about the matter.
Berlinski, who is at the DI, claims to be such a person. Well, he
doesn't claim ignorance, but it's obvious.
True, he seems to be a believer in the philosophers' god, or at least
in philosophers' metaphysics. So it's hard to judge whether his
objections should be considered scientific even in form.
And he seems to think that evolution is not science simply because
it's not hard physics. That I'd chalk up to gross ignorance, however,
meaning that his objection might still be "scientific" in at least his
own mind.
I suspect, as well, that many people fall for the IDist/creationist
line, and although predisposed not to believe in evolution, understand
their objections to be perfectly objective and honest. I think there
are a lot of people like that, whose understanding of science is
faulty because they don't know enough about science, and have been
misinformed, plus they don't want to believe in evolution, who
nevertheless see their objections to evolution as entirely reasonable
and honest. Whether this is so depends on how stringent one's
definition of "intellectual honesty" is, however it is not really very
difficult to mislead many people about how science works and how one
ought to understand the evidence.
I do not think that anyone actually has a solely scientific objection
to evolution, not within a proper understanding of both science and
evolution. Yet within their own incorrect understandings of science
and of evolution, I believe that there are many who understand their
objections to be solely scientific objections, regardless of the fact
that they were always prejudiced against evolutionary theory.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Ray Martinez
Evolution is false because the observation of design and organized
complexity seen in nature and living things logically corresponds
directly to Divine causation, not material or natural causation.
The second fact that falsifies evolution is the fact that there is no
such thing as material or natural causation - they don't exist. A few
truisms packaged together (and held together by arguments from
authority) are not a mechanism.
The Nature we see corresponds to Divine power and mind.
Evolution is Atheism packaged as science.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Whenever an evolutionist attempts to dismiss scientific evidence that
harms their theory as coming from ignorant persons, logically this is
the best evidence that they cannot refute, having no answer. This is
how we explain the misrepresentation of labelling scientific
objections as coming from "ignorant persons."
> Berlinski, who is at the DI, claims to be such a person. Well, he
> doesn't claim ignorance, but it's obvious.
>
> True, he seems to be a believer in the philosophers' god, or at least
> in philosophers' metaphysics. So it's hard to judge whether his
> objections should be considered scientific even in form.
>
What persons say who cannot refute. Very predictable.
> And he seems to think that evolution is not science simply because
> it's not hard physics. That I'd chalk up to gross ignorance, however,
> meaning that his objection might still be "scientific" in at least his
> own mind.
>
Evolutionists misrepresenting an IDist - what else is new?
> I suspect, as well, that many people fall for the IDist/creationist
> line, and although predisposed not to believe in evolution, understand
> their objections to be perfectly objective and honest. I think there
> are a lot of people like that, whose understanding of science is
> faulty because they don't know enough about science, and have been
> misinformed, plus they don't want to believe in evolution, who
> nevertheless see their objections to evolution as entirely reasonable
> and honest. Whether this is so depends on how stringent one's
> definition of "intellectual honesty" is, however it is not really very
> difficult to mislead many people about how science works and how one
> ought to understand the evidence.
>
The agree-with-me-or-you-do-not-understand-science-or-are-dishonest
card.
We know that this is what persons say who cannot address, much less
refute.
> I do not think that anyone actually has a solely scientific objection
> to evolution, not within a proper understanding of both science and
> evolution.
"If you object then you do not understand."
This is a tactic or circular defense.
It is countered by saying: if you agree that evolution is
scientifically true then you do not understand science.
> Yet within their own incorrect understandings of science
> and of evolution, I believe that there are many who understand their
> objections to be solely scientific objections, regardless of the fact
> that they were always prejudiced against evolutionary theory.
>
> Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This says unless you agree with me you are prejudiced and do not
understand science.
Okay, in reverse: if you agree with Glend you are prejudiced and do
not understand science.
So much for evolutionists are their silly rhetorical devices
attempting to undermine scientific objections of evolution.
Ray
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Evolution is false because the observation of design and organized
>complexity seen in nature and living things logically corresponds
>directly to Divine causation, not material or natural causation.
Evolution is a fact.
No design is seen in nature.
There is no evidence for anything "divine".
>
>The second fact that falsifies evolution is the fact that there is no
>such thing as material or natural causation - they don't exist.
Are we talking about causation?
> A few
>truisms packaged together (and held together by arguments from
>authority) are not a mechanism.
>
>The Nature we see corresponds to Divine power and mind.
No it doesn't.
>
>Evolution is Atheism packaged as science.
Evolution is a fact.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by r norman
<r_s_norman@_comcast.net>:
<snort!> Point taken... ;-)
Bob Casanova
You were joking? Is your next joke going to involve "stupid
blacks", or will it be about "queers"?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Devil's Advocaat"
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>On 27 May, 00:09, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:53 +0200, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>>
>> >> > So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
>> >> > brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
>> >> > necessary for basic survival.
>>
>> >> > Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
>> >> > begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
>> >> > and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
>> >> > smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>>
>> >> What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
>> >> besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
>> >> plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>>
>> >Sure, that's why those ancient Greeks were so damn clever.
>>
>> >Aand another mystery solved:
>> >that's why those dumb Americans live mostly in the interior,
>> >and why what civilization there is is found near the coasts.
>>
>> >One learns every day here,
>>
>> One certainly learns about bigots.
>
>Personally I would like to learn about smallots. :P
Don't forget the poor mediumots...
Richard Harter
<fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Before you jump to a “no way,” read on.
>
>I don’t mean does anyone really think they have a better scientific
>explanation. The 1980s origin and increasing prevalence of “don’t ask,
>don’t tell” makes it clear that anti-evolutionists not only have no
>better explanation, they have known it for decades.
>
>But conceivably there could be people with only a scientific objection
>(i.e. the evidence is weak), and a genuine “I don’t know” with respect
>to what might be a better explanation. Such a person would have no
>stake in the design vs. “naturalism” debate, and probably have no
>reason to doubt common descent or the 3-4 billion year history of
>life. Their doubt might be only that “RM + NS” is the cause of changes
>well above the species level. To be clear, I don’t think that there's
>anyone like that at the DI, because even before the Wedge document was
>leaked they didn’t try that hard to hide their real objection.
{snip]
If I may, I would like to make a few comments here. The
difficulty for the skeptic is not with the evidence for
evolutionary dogma but rather that there are few credible
alternatives. As for evolution itself, the evidences are far
weaker than many in this newsgroup admit.
Consider the supposed historical fact. The sundry departments of
science have discovered perhaps 10% of the extant species of
life, perhaps less. Of these most are known in the form of
mounted exhibits and a page or so of notes detailing a few
superficial features and some probably inaccurate guesses about
habitat. This is for multi-cellular life forms, of course. Our
knowledge of prokaryotes and viruses is abysmal.
Though our knowledge of current life forms is seriously
deficient, it is encyclopediac compared to our knowledge of past
life forms. It is doubtful that we are aware of even .001% of
all past species, let alone their life styles, the ecologies in
which they existed, or their reproductive habits. In short, our
ignorance is profound.
It is on the basis of this profound ignorance that we have based
that wildest of inductions, the doctrine of common descent. What
is the evidence? Evidently it is not knowledge of the actual
lineages of life; of these, we know almost nothing. No, the
argument rests on assumptions. Thus we observe that life forms
reproduce and do not observe spontaneous biogenesis. The
assumption is that our observations are complete and sufficient.
And yet we know (or believe we know) that abiogenesis must have
happened. We do not know how it happened or in what ways it
could have happened. At best, our knowledge consist of some
pretty experiments with suggestive results.
For all we know, abiogenesis could be going on right now in some
form or way that we simply don't recognize. The argument that it
couldn't happen now in the presence of existing life is simply a
bit of specious handwaving.
Another assumption underlying the doctrine of common descent is
that the commonality of basic biochemistry of life is universal
and is evidence for common descent. There are problems here.
One is (yet again) our profound ignorance. We don't the details
of the biochemistry of all lifeforms, particularly those of our
more eccentric prokaryote cousins. More importantly, commonality
of biochemistry does not guarantee common descent. Horizontal
transfer, the transfer of biochemicals between organisms, is
continually occurring and, as far as we can tell, always has been
throughout the history of life.
A third assumption is that life forms are unitary individuals
with a single heredity. That is, we are composed of cells that
all have the same DNA as the original fertilized egg. This
assumption is at best a simplification and can be seriously
misleading. As physical organisms we are, all of us
multi-cellular life forms, chimeras, communities of lifeforms
with different heredities and biological interests. Some of us,
lichens for example, are integral collaborations. Even the
eurkaryote cells themselves are collections of coordinated lines
of descent.
In short, the doctrine of common descent is at best a superficial
simplification and perhaps even seriously wrong. Why, then, is
it treated as a simple, obvious truth. The major reason,
perhaps, is that it is hard to think of plausible alternatives
and amendments. Some adduce this as evidence for common descent.
Failure to think of alternatives to a thesis is not evidence for
a thesis.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.
Christopher Denney
> Save the Earth now!!
> It's the only planet with chocolate.
Loki?
Rupert Morrish
Do you actually not see a difference between mocking someone's choice of
state of residence and mocking the colour of their skin?
However, the statement is not correct - Florida and Georgia are both
coastal states with high numbers of creationist idiots.
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Rupert Morrish
What scientific evidence?
>
>
>> Berlinski, who is at the DI, claims to be such a person. Well, he
>> doesn't claim ignorance, but it's obvious.
>>
>> True, he seems to be a believer in the philosophers' god, or at least
>> in philosophers' metaphysics. So it's hard to judge whether his
>> objections should be considered scientific even in form.
>>
>
> What persons say who cannot refute. Very predictable.
And yet you do not cite the post in which you predicted it.
>
>> And he seems to think that evolution is not science simply because
>> it's not hard physics. That I'd chalk up to gross ignorance, however,
>> meaning that his objection might still be "scientific" in at least his
>> own mind.
>>
>
> Evolutionists misrepresenting an IDist - what else is new?
In what way is this a misrepresentation?
>
>> I suspect, as well, that many people fall for the IDist/creationist
>> line, and although predisposed not to believe in evolution, understand
>> their objections to be perfectly objective and honest. I think there
>> are a lot of people like that, whose understanding of science is
>> faulty because they don't know enough about science, and have been
>> misinformed, plus they don't want to believe in evolution, who
>> nevertheless see their objections to evolution as entirely reasonable
>> and honest. Whether this is so depends on how stringent one's
>> definition of "intellectual honesty" is, however it is not really very
>> difficult to mislead many people about how science works and how one
>> ought to understand the evidence.
>>
>
> The agree-with-me-or-you-do-not-understand-science-or-are-dishonest
> card.
No, an observation, supported by statistics, that those who know more
about evolution are more likely to accept it, and therefore those that
oppose evolution are less likely to understand what it is they are opposing.
>
> We know that this is what persons say who cannot address, much less
> refute.
What is there to address or refute?
>
>
>> I do not think that anyone actually has a solely scientific objection
>> to evolution, not within a proper understanding of both science and
>> evolution.
>
> "If you object then you do not understand."
If you object, and understand, then you are dishonest.
If you object, and understand, and are honest, here is your Nobel Prize.
>
> This is a tactic or circular defense.
>
> It is countered by saying: if you agree that evolution is
> scientifically true then you do not understand science.
I see no reason to accept a definition of science from a man who does
not accept the conventional definitions of "rhetorical", "slander" or "all".
>
>> Yet within their own incorrect understandings of science
>> and of evolution, I believe that there are many who understand their
>> objections to be solely scientific objections, regardless of the fact
>> that they were always prejudiced against evolutionary theory.
>>
>> Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> This says unless you agree with me you are prejudiced and do not
> understand science.
>
> Okay, in reverse: if you agree with Glend you are prejudiced and do
> not understand science.
If you reverse the truth you get a lie.
I hate to point this out, since it is such basic logic, but one never
knows when responding to you: One might be prejudiced and ignorant of
science, and still agree with Glend. The truth of this statement does
not in any way imply that your "reversal" is true.
>
> So much for evolutionists are their silly rhetorical devices
> attempting to undermine scientific objections of evolution.
Please present a scientific objection to evolution. It would be so much
more interesting than what you usually post.
>
> Ray
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> The second fact that falsifies evolution is the fact that there is no
> such thing as material or natural causation - they don't exist. A few
> truisms packaged together (and held together by arguments from
> authority) are not a mechanism.
What happens when you jump off your roof, Ray? Will Divine Power dash
you to the ground, or will natural causes accelerate you down the local
gravity well?
>
> The Nature we see corresponds to Divine power and mind.
>
> Evolution is Atheism packaged as science.
You appear to be opposed to all science, and to believe in some kind of
shamanism.
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 08:20:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Devil's Advocaat"
> <mank...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>
> >On 27 May, 00:09, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:53 +0200, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder):
...
> >> >Aand another mystery solved:
> >> >that's why those dumb Americans live mostly in the interior,
> >> >and why what civilization there is is found near the coasts.
> >>
> >> >One learns every day here,
> >>
> >> One certainly learns about bigots.
> >
> >Personally I would like to learn about smallots. :P
>
> Don't forget the poor mediumots...
Also known as the Golden Meaniots.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
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."
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 May 2008 08:20:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Devil's Advocaat"
> > <mank...@yahoo.co.uk>:
> >
> > >On 27 May, 00:09, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:53 +0200, the following appeared
> > >> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> > >> Lodder):
> ...
> > >> >Aand another mystery solved:
> > >> >that's why those dumb Americans live mostly in the interior,
> > >> >and why what civilization there is is found near the coasts.
> > >>
> > >> >One learns every day here,
> > >>
> > >> One certainly learns about bigots.
> > >
> > >Personally I would like to learn about smallots. :P
> >
> > Don't forget the poor mediumots...
>
> Also known as the Golden Meaniots.
Meanie, meanie - tickle the parson!
John Wilkins
J. J. Lodder
Come on, we are in a completely silly subthread.
And it was the blue-s who were praised,
and the red-s mocked.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 May 2008 08:20:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Devil's Advocaat"
> > <mank...@yahoo.co.uk>:
> >
> > >On 27 May, 00:09, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:53 +0200, the following appeared
> > >> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> > >> Lodder):
> ...
> > >> >Aand another mystery solved:
> > >> >that's why those dumb Americans live mostly in the interior,
> > >> >and why what civilization there is is found near the coasts.
> > >>
> > >> >One learns every day here,
> > >>
> > >> One certainly learns about bigots.
> > >
> > >Personally I would like to learn about smallots. :P
> >
> > Don't forget the poor mediumots...
>
> Also known as the Golden Meaniots.
George W. Abnego for president!
Jan
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm curious. You say "the second fact". I re-read and I can't find
the 'first' fact. I see an unfounded assertion but no fact.
Harry K
Richard Harter
<christoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 27, 3:29 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Frank J
[snip]
>
>Loki?
Yes and no. I may have put in a purple phrase or two to attract
the attention of the gullible but the points made are valid.
Common descent is a rough approximation, good enough for
governmment work, but not for biology.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
chris thompson
Ray Martinez
What a person says who cannot address, much less refute.
>
>
> >> Berlinski, who is at the DI, claims to be such a person. Well, he
> >> doesn't claim ignorance, but it's obvious.
>
> >> True, he seems to be a believer in the philosophers' god, or at least
> >> in philosophers' metaphysics. So it's hard to judge whether his
> >> objections should be considered scientific even in form.
>
> > What persons say who cannot refute. Very predictable.
>
> And yet you do not cite the post in which you predicted it.
>
>
>
> >> And he seems to think that evolution is not science simply because
> >> it's not hard physics. That I'd chalk up to gross ignorance, however,
> >> meaning that his objection might still be "scientific" in at least his
> >> own mind.
>
> > Evolutionists misrepresenting an IDist - what else is new?
>
> In what way is this a misrepresentation?
>
Defense of misrepresentation, if not slander, by rhetorical question.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I suspect, as well, that many people fall for the IDist/creationist
> >> line, and although predisposed not to believe in evolution, understand
> >> their objections to be perfectly objective and honest. I think there
> >> are a lot of people like that, whose understanding of science is
> >> faulty because they don't know enough about science, and have been
> >> misinformed, plus they don't want to believe in evolution, who
> >> nevertheless see their objections to evolution as entirely reasonable
> >> and honest. Whether this is so depends on how stringent one's
> >> definition of "intellectual honesty" is, however it is not really very
> >> difficult to mislead many people about how science works and how one
> >> ought to understand the evidence.
>
> > The agree-with-me-or-you-do-not-understand-science-or-are-dishonest
> > card.
>
> No, an observation, supported by statistics, that those who know more
> about evolution are more likely to accept it, and therefore those that
> oppose evolution are less likely to understand what it is they are opposing.
>
Remove the first three words ("No, an observation") then the remainder
of comments agree that the card is being played.
In short, comment begs the question.
>
>
> > We know that this is what persons say who cannot address, much less
> > refute.
>
> What is there to address or refute?
>
Rhetorical question admitting inability to refute.
>
>
> >> I do not think that anyone actually has a solely scientific objection
> >> to evolution, not within a proper understanding of both science and
> >> evolution.
>
> > "If you object then you do not understand."
>
> If you object, and understand, then you are dishonest.
>
> If you object, and understand, and are honest, here is your Nobel Prize.
>
>
>
> > This is a tactic or circular defense.
>
> > It is countered by saying: if you agree that evolution is
> > scientifically true then you do not understand science.
>
> I see no reason to accept a definition of science from a man who does
> not accept the conventional definitions of "rhetorical", "slander" or "all".
>
>
>
> >> Yet within their own incorrect understandings of science
> >> and of evolution, I believe that there are many who understand their
> >> objections to be solely scientific objections, regardless of the fact
> >> that they were always prejudiced against evolutionary theory.
>
> >> Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > This says unless you agree with me you are prejudiced and do not
> > understand science.
>
> > Okay, in reverse: if you agree with Glend you are prejudiced and do
> > not understand science.
>
> If you reverse the truth you get a lie.
>
Agreed.
> I hate to point this out, since it is such basic logic, but one never
> knows when responding to you: One might be prejudiced and ignorant of
> science, and still agree with Glend. The truth of this statement does
> not in any way imply that your "reversal" is true.
>
>
>
> > So much for evolutionists are their silly rhetorical devices
> > attempting to undermine scientific objections of evolution.
>
> Please present a scientific objection to evolution. It would be so much
> more interesting than what you usually post.
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
> Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
> ------------------ Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Rupert Morrish
<rup...@morrish.org>:
Not really; an overgeneralizing bigot is a bigot.
>However, the statement is not correct - Florida and Georgia are both
>coastal states with high numbers of creationist idiots.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c1c47646-afd2-499f...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...snip
>> > Whenever an evolutionist attempts to dismiss scientific evidence that
>> > harms their theory as coming from ignorant persons, logically this is
>> > the best evidence that they cannot refute, having no answer. This is
>> > how we explain the misrepresentation of labelling scientific
>> > objections as coming from "ignorant persons."
>>
>> What scientific evidence?
>>
>
> What a person says who cannot address, much less refute.
It's a legitamate question, Ray. What scientific evidence? If you think
you have some please present it. Note that your own unsupported
assumptions about "design" are not evidence.
snip
>> >> And he seems to think that evolution is not science simply because
>> >> it's not hard physics. That I'd chalk up to gross ignorance, however,
>> >> meaning that his objection might still be "scientific" in at least his
>> >> own mind.
>>
>> > Evolutionists misrepresenting an IDist - what else is new?
>>
>> In what way is this a misrepresentation?
>>
>
> Defense of misrepresentation, if not slander, by rhetorical question.
The question isn't rhetorical. It requests an answer. How does the above
misrepresent any "IDist"? You have claimed "misrepresentation" many
times, but when asked to explain yourself, you run away.
swnip
>> > The agree-with-me-or-you-do-not-understand-science-or-are-dishonest
>> > card.
>>
>> No, an observation, supported by statistics, that those who know more
>> about evolution are more likely to accept it, and therefore those that
>> oppose evolution are less likely to understand what it is they are
>> opposing.
>>
>
> Remove the first three words ("No, an observation") then the remainder
> of comments agree that the card is being played.
Which is why the first three words are not removed.
>
> In short, comment begs the question.
What question do you feel is being begged? The problem is, Ray, you grab
onto concepts used to refute your own claims, and try to use them, when you
don't understand what they mean. Showing you wrong is not "begging the
question".
>
>>
>>
>> > We know that this is what persons say who cannot address, much less
>> > refute.
>>
>> What is there to address or refute?
>>
>
> Rhetorical question admitting inability to refute.
It's not rhetorical, Ray. He expects you to answer. Nor is he admitting
inability to refute. Just about anything you present is very simple to
refute, so why should anyone "admit" to being unable to?
What do you feel needs to be refuted?
snip
>> > Okay, in reverse: if you agree with Glend you are prejudiced and do
>> > not understand science.
>>
>> If you reverse the truth you get a lie.
>>
>
> Agreed.
You are agreeing that you lie? How refreshingly honest of you.
>
>> I hate to point this out, since it is such basic logic, but one never
>> knows when responding to you: One might be prejudiced and ignorant of
>> science, and still agree with Glend. The truth of this statement does
>> not in any way imply that your "reversal" is true.
>>
>>
>>
>> > So much for evolutionists are their silly rhetorical devices
>> > attempting to undermine scientific objections of evolution.
>>
>> Please present a scientific objection to evolution. It would be so much
>> more interesting than what you usually post.
No answer Ray? "Any objective person knows that this means".
DJT
Lee Jay
And there it is - Ray's Thesis. As expected, it's a fallacy of logic.
> The second fact that falsifies evolution is the fact that there is no
> such thing as material or natural causation - they don't exist. A few
> truisms packaged together (and held together by arguments from
> authority) are not a mechanism.
And in support of the fallacy of logic, we now have an assertion
without basis.
> The Nature we see corresponds to Divine power and mind.
And another one.
> Evolution is Atheism packaged as science.
And the cherry-on-top, a lie.
> Ray
You forgot your sig. Allow me:
"Angry pathological liar, scientific illiterate, logically inept
brainwashed disciple of of a dead television evangelist"
There, that would do nicely for you, and for once be the truth.
Lee Jay
Norton
>On Tue, 27 May 2008 16:35:01 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Denney
><christoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On May 27, 3:29 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Frank J
>[snip]
>>
>>Loki?
>Yes and no. I may have put in a purple phrase or two to attract
>the attention of the gullible but the points made are valid.
>Common descent is a rough approximation, good enough for
>governmment work, but not for biology.
Chemistry was "modernized" with the development of the
idea that matter was quantized starting in about 1800.
Physics was "modernized" with the development of quantum
mechanics and relativity in the period between 1905
and 1928.
Biology was modernized by, to pick a date, Watson and
Crick in the 1950s, but really modern biochemistry started
up about 10 to 15 years ago.
I'd give biology a few more years. It's a harder field than
chemistry or physics.
--
Norton.
Danwood
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3f3935c7-3681-4e28...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 9:01 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The proteome phase-space is too large ( ~2^400 ), too fragile ( E0~kt )
>> and too nucleation-dependent ( hydrophobic core ) to ever produce
>> stable organisms, let-alone allow them to dissimulate.
>>
>> That is -- in the spirit of the question -- proteomic life could
>> neither start nor adapt without an < wildly far from randomly generated >
>> "Arcturian Lifepod" motif.
>>
>> *NB* No originality here. All the above are well-known scientific
>> *itches.
>>
>> In response please do NOT explain. Demonstrate quantitative rebuttle
>> or admit the lacuna. It's all on your head.
>>
>> nss
>> *****-
>
> So what did you think of "Expelled"?
>
I finally saw "Expelled". I was surprised that it made no attempt to
disprove or falsify evolution, but rather it's main objective seemed
to be the historical aftermath of evolution and the castigation of
scientist who questioned the "fact" of evolution.
Ron O
> have purely scientific objections, though generally they're pretty
> pathetically ignorant about the matter.
>
> doesn't claim ignorance, but it's obvious.
It is more than ignorance in Berlinski's case. He claims to be an
agnostic, but all that ever comes out of him are the arguments that
the scientific creationists used to use 30 years ago. After his
fellow fellows at the Discovery Institute ran the dishonest bait and
switch scam on the Ohio rubes back in 2003 he came out and claimed
that he had never bought into the ID junk, but he didn't resign as a
fellow or even openly object to the other fellows running the bait and
switch.
What is the most unbelievable is that he seems to have some
antiscience agenda, and that he thinks that he can use the Discovery
Institute as some platform to support it. He could be lying, but how
can you tell? Beats me how much money he gets as a fellow, but all
the Discovery Institute uses him for is political propaganda. He used
to be the only Jewish agnostic that they had as a fellow and they used
to claim him as both. He probably is still the only guy claiming to
be an agnostic fellow.
It is just the cost of advertising for the ID perps.
Ron Okimoto
>
> True, he seems to be a believer in the philosophers' god, or at least
> in philosophers' metaphysics. So it's hard to judge whether his
> objections should be considered scientific even in form.
>
> And he seems to think that evolution is not science simply because
> it's not hard physics. That I'd chalk up to gross ignorance, however,
> meaning that his objection might still be "scientific" in at least his
> own mind.
>
> I suspect, as well, that many people fall for the IDist/creationist
> line, and although predisposed not to believe in evolution, understand
> their objections to be perfectly objective and honest. I think there
> are a lot of people like that, whose understanding of science is
> faulty because they don't know enough about science, and have been
> misinformed, plus they don't want to believe in evolution, who
> nevertheless see their objections to evolution as entirely reasonable
> and honest. Whether this is so depends on how stringent one's
> definition of "intellectual honesty" is, however it is not really very
> difficult to mislead many people about how science works and how one
> ought to understand the evidence.
>
> I do not think that anyone actually has a solely scientific objection
> to evolution, not within a proper understanding of both science and
> evolution. Yet within their own incorrect understandings of science
> and of evolution, I believe that there are many who understand their
> objections to be solely scientific objections, regardless of the fact
> that they were always prejudiced against evolutionary theory.
>
> Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7- Hide quoted text -
Ron O
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 08:19:20 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
>
>
>
>
>
> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 27 May, 00:08, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:44:50 +0200, the following appeared> >> >Féachadóir <FÈach@d.Ûir> wrote:
>
> >> >> Scríobh Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com>:
> >> >> >On May 25, 4:09 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> I've always been surprised at the evolution of human intelligence.
>
> >> >> >> So I guess I'm asking what the evolutionary pressure was for our higher
> >> >> >> brain centers to develop to the level they did--way past what is
> >> >> >> necessary for basic survival.
>
> >> >> >> Obviously we can blame intraspecies competition, but that's almost
> >> >> >> begging the question--many other species have intraspecies competition
> >> >> >> and yet their brains don't rapidly evolve. Ants haven't gotten much
> >> >> >> smarter in 100 million years. [...]
>
> >> >> >What else do dolphins, whales and humans have in common -
> >> >> >besides an active social life? They all eat fish - which are a
> >> >> >plentiful and nutrient-rich source of brain food.
>
>
> >> >Of course.
> >> >It has been proven in court under US law
> >> >that whales are fish,
> >> >so why not plankton as well?
>
> >> There's a taxing issue involving plankton?
>
> >the one bit of plankton in Bikini Bottom I don't see any others trying
> >to earn a living even if it is one based on stealing someone else's
> >successful business strategy. :P
>
> Sunfood Nutrition sells 1 oz. of "Oceans Alive Marine Phytoplankton"
> for $59.95. Certainly that company must pay tax!
>
> Incidentally, the reason they sell it is that: "This unique
> super-nutrient from the ocean provides the body with an increase in
> residual energy that builds up significantly when it is ingested on a
> daily basis. With its abundance of naturally produced vitamins,
> minerals and original life force (absorbed directly from the Sun),
> everyone that partakes will enjoy a ‘whole body’ inner strength that
> they have never experienced before. "-
Pond scum for nearly $1000.00 per pound. It is the American way.
Ron Okimoto
Ray Martinez
Unfortunately you are basically right.
Berlinski, the last I knew, claimed to be a "secular Jew" (not even an
Agnostic) but he clearly argues Creationism. He is equivalent to an
Agnostic attempting to stake-out a perceived state of objectivity that
does not exist. His self-imposed title contrasted next to what he
argues and says is an insult to intelligence, so I guess he is an
Agnostic in this respect.
I would bet that you do not have the intergrity to say Agnostics who
support evolution to be the same as Berlinski.
This is what separates myself - a Creationist - from most
evolutionists.
> > Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c1c47646-afd2-499f...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...> On May 27, 5:35 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> > Whenever an evolutionist attempts to dismiss scientific evidence that
> >> > harms their theory as coming from ignorant persons, logically this is
> >> > the best evidence that they cannot refute, having no answer. This is
> >> > how we explain the misrepresentation of labelling scientific
> >> > objections as coming from "ignorant persons."
>
> >> What scientific evidence?
>
> > What a person says who cannot address, much less refute.
>
> It's a legitamate question, Ray. What scientific evidence? If you think
> you have some please present it. Note that your own unsupported
> assumptions about "design" are not evidence.
> snip
>
You seem to not understand what is going on in this thread.
Thread title: "Does anyone have a purely scientific objection to
evolution?" is a rhetorical question announcing that no scientific
evidence exists that contradicts evolution. No matter what evidence is
presented or argued defenders will assert the same is not evidence or
it does not harm evolution. Defenders, though, are mainly playing the
"agree with us or you are ignorant" or "you do not understand" cards.
This tactic says if you say or believe evidence exists contradicting
evolution then you are ignorant or you do not understand evolution-
science. If you did then you would not be saying what you are saying.
Said tactic is perfectly circular. This is why it is a tactic and not
an argument.
Educated persons know that these defenders are engaged in ordinary
question begging protected by rhetoric-rhetorical questions or points.
Educated persons also know that all scientific theories have problems
and the perfect child being presented here does not exist. Many many
persons with science degrees reject evolution. Of course evolution is
simply one interpretation of scientific evidence. While it is by far
the overwhelming view of science it is still one view-interpretation.
Before 1859 science was the exact opposite endorsing creationism with
the same vigor.
Of course my comments are objective and the premise of thread topic is
anti-objective.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On May 28, 4:48 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c1c47646-afd2-499f...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...>
>> On May 27, 5:35 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> > Whenever an evolutionist attempts to dismiss scientific evidence
>> >> > that
>> >> > harms their theory as coming from ignorant persons, logically this
>> >> > is
>> >> > the best evidence that they cannot refute, having no answer. This is
>> >> > how we explain the misrepresentation of labelling scientific
>> >> > objections as coming from "ignorant persons."
>>
>> >> What scientific evidence?
>>
>> > What a person says who cannot address, much less refute.
>>
>> It's a legitamate question, Ray. What scientific evidence? If you think
>> you have some please present it. Note that your own unsupported
>> assumptions about "design" are not evidence.
>> snip
>>
>
> You seem to not understand what is going on in this thread.
Oh, I understand fine. You were asked to provide scientific evidence, and
you failed to do so.
>
> Thread title: "Does anyone have a purely scientific objection to
> evolution?" is a rhetorical question announcing that no scientific
> evidence exists that contradicts evolution.
No, it's a request for any scientific objection to evolution. I also
notice you haven't got any.
> No matter what evidence is
> presented or argued defenders will assert the same is not evidence or
> it does not harm evolution.
How would you know, if you don't present any? Going by your past
performace, you have not been able to present any actual evidence against
evolution, and what you claim does not "harm" evolution in any way. That
doesn't mean that there isn't any possible evidence that would 'harm'
evolution. Present something, and see if it sticks.
> Defenders, though, are mainly playing the
> "agree with us or you are ignorant" or "you do not understand" cards.
Well, creationists do tend to be ignorant and don't understand the evidence.
It's not a "card", it's the truth.
> This tactic says if you say or believe evidence exists contradicting
> evolution then you are ignorant or you do not understand evolution-
> science.
Again that's usually the case. It's not a "tactic" but a simple truth.
Creationists do tend to be ignorant, and misunderstand the evidence. You
are a good example of this.
> If you did then you would not be saying what you are saying.
Again, the vast majority of people who reject evolution are ignorant, and
are misunderstanding the situation.
> Said tactic is perfectly circular. This is why it is a tactic and not
> an argument.
But it's not a "tactic" at all, but a statement of fact. Note that your
own claims which you think are fatal to evolution, are based on your own
ignorance, and your own misunderstanding of the facts of evolution. You
are a good example of the truth of this adage.
>
> Educated persons know that these defenders are engaged in ordinary
> question begging protected by rhetoric-rhetorical questions or points.
Ray, why do you persist in speaking for groups you don't belong to?
"Educated persons" overwhelmingly accept evolution, and you are using the
term "begging the question" improperly.
> Educated persons also know that all scientific theories have problems
> and the perfect child being presented here does not exist.
What makes you think anyone is presenting a 'perfect child'? Evolution
has been very successful in explaining the reality of the diversity of life,
and creationist claims against evolution have been a woefully poor lot.
But that doesn't mean evolution is perfect, or explains everything.
> Many many
> persons with science degrees reject evolution.
The very few persons with advanced degrees in science, that reject
evolution, do so for religious reasons only. Among those scientists who
accept evolution, there is a lively debate over the mode and tempo of
evolution, but the number of actual working scientists who reject
evolutionary theory is tiny, practially negilgible.
> Of course evolution is
> simply one interpretation of scientific evidence.
In a scientific framework known as a scientific theory. Your attempts to
equate a scientific theory, with the WAG that is creationism are amusing,
but show your own ignorance.
> While it is by far
> the overwhelming view of science it is still one view-interpretation.
The only scientific theory in Biology that explains the evidence. There
isn't any other "view-interpretation" that scientists recognize to explain
biological diversity.
> Before 1859 science was the exact opposite endorsing creationism with
> the same vigor.
Creationism was never a scientific theory, so whether or not anyone
"endorsed" it is irrelevant. Scientists rejected creationism because it
failed to explain the evidence.
>
> Of course my comments are objective and the premise of thread topic is
> anti-objective.
Of course, you wouldn't know "objective" if it hit you with a 2X4. Your
own false opinions and skewed ideas of history are not objective. The
"premise" of the thread is asking if you have any purely scientific
objections to evolution. I note you still haven't provided any.
>
>
>> >> >> And he seems to think that evolution is not science simply because
>> >> >> it's not hard physics. That I'd chalk up to gross ignorance,
>> >> >> however,
>> >> >> meaning that his objection might still be "scientific" in at least
>> >> >> his
>> >> >> own mind.
>>
>> >> > Evolutionists misrepresenting an IDist - what else is new?
>>
>> >> In what way is this a misrepresentation?
>>
>> > Defense of misrepresentation, if not slander, by rhetorical question.
>>
>> The question isn't rhetorical. It requests an answer. How does the above
>> misrepresent any "IDist"? You have claimed "misrepresentation" many
>> times, but when asked to explain yourself, you run away.
Just as you are running away now.....
>>
>> swnip
>>
>> >> > The agree-with-me-or-you-do-not-understand-science-or-are-dishonest
>> >> > card.
>>
>> >> No, an observation, supported by statistics, that those who know more
>> >> about evolution are more likely to accept it, and therefore those that
>> >> oppose evolution are less likely to understand what it is they are
>> >> opposing.
>>
>> > Remove the first three words ("No, an observation") then the remainder
>> > of comments agree that the card is being played.
>>
>> Which is why the first three words are not removed.
>>
>>
>>
>> > In short, comment begs the question.
>>
>> What question do you feel is being begged? The problem is, Ray, you grab
>> onto concepts used to refute your own claims, and try to use them, when
>> you
>> don't understand what they mean. Showing you wrong is not "begging the
>> question".
More running away from a legitamte question.
snipping more of what Ray is running away from
DJT
backspace
> Evolution is false because the observation of design and organized
> complexity seen in nature and living things logically corresponds
> directly to Divine causation, not material or natural causation.
Depends on your mechanism. Punk-eek for example confuses the issues
because it has to do with a perception of scale instead of addressing
the mechanism resulting in species transition or monkeys giving birth
to humans.
Does x + y = z ? Who knows, without knowing what x and y is how could
we say, likewise without knowing what the mechanism is how could we
say that monkeys can't give birth to humans.
I AM
There never was peter pan ...
chris thompson
Wrong again. You can know if x + y = z without knowing x and y. You
can figure it out, if you have the brains of a screwdriver, if you
know x and z, or y and z. And because you seem to have missed it, you
already specified the mechanism- it's called "addition". Most of us
have heard of it by the time we're about six years old.
Chris
noshellswill
BigC:
It's a quibble -- but a useful one -- to note that NOT ALL sets are
complete under addition. That is you add two numbers and expect the SUM to
exist within that set. But it doesn't need to ! Surprise surprise. A
classic example is the <space> of rational numbers which contains sums
approaching an IRRATIONAL number and thus not "in the space".
x + y = ?
This is a cautionary example of hidden risks in assuming that any verbal
expression of a "behavior" ( say, chatty bio-evol ) may necessarily be
expressed in a consistent and thus predictive mathematical format.
A even more nasty possibility is seen at the end of the 19-th century, in
the calculation of BLACK BODY spectra. All the "continuous" maths appeared
to work --- but the maths made wildly unphysical predictions. Until Planck
summed, rather than integrated the distribution function and physics
changed fundamentally.
The implications for TOE ? Until the maths constructs are actually
produced and evaluated -- relating genome/proteome chemistry to organism
development -- you really don't know if you have a valid theory.
nss
*****
r norman
<noshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:43:04 -0700, chris thompson wrote:
>
>It's a quibble -- but a useful one -- to note that NOT ALL sets are
>complete under addition. That is you add two numbers and expect the SUM to
>exist within that set. But it doesn't need to ! Surprise surprise. A
>classic example is the <space> of rational numbers which contains sums
>approaching an IRRATIONAL number and thus not "in the space".
>
> x + y = ?
>
What nonsense. The rational numbers are closed under addition.
Period. The fact that you can find an infinite series of rationals
whose limit is not rational is an entirely different issue. That
simply means the set is not closed in a topological sense.
Woland
We do know about the mechanism, you just don't pay attention.
noshellswill
rn:
Granting my point - in response to CT - you would do better to just
grovel.
nss
******
Cj
Does anybody fee a need to refute the troll shit spattered about by the
spine that types? Why?
Cj
Cj
"Does anyone have a purely scientific objection to evolution?"
The answer is no
John McKendry
Grovel? When your "point" was a simple error? You said "you add two
numbers and expect the sum to exist within that set", and then you
said that the rationals don't have that property. The rationals do
have that property. There's no two ways to interpret it; what you
said is wrong. Your hand-waving in the direction of limits of sequences
suggests that you intended to say something else, but you didn't
manage it. In mathematics, you don't get credit for what you meant
to say.
John
Greg G.
Any number, rational or irrational, approaches an infinite number of
irrational numbers. No matter how close the sums of rational numbers
get to an irrational number, each sum is rational.
--
Greg G.
I wish I had a life-size Tickle-Me-Eva-Longoria doll.
chris thompson
Stuff and twaddle. Get thee back to Algebra I before you start making
random noises about integration, the way you do about biochemistry.
Chris
TT
--
“Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the
question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it
right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is
neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one
it is right.”
Martin Luther king Jr.
Ron O
My Calculus TA was a math grad student of a guy working on theoretical
algebra at Berkeley. He rattled it off as if it was a real field of
study. I never asked him what he did.
Ron Okimoto
>
> --
> “Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the
> question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it
> right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is
> neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one
> it is right.”
> Martin Luther king Jr.- Hide quoted text -
r norman
wrote:
The hardest course I ever took was called, if I recall correctly from
more than 45 years ago, "Algebra II". The fact that it had a course
number of 611 should have been a clue. It seemed to have a very large
enrollment until the first exam when only a small number of people
showed up. It turns out that the usual practice was to sit in on it
once, then take it for credit (a required course), then sit in on it
again before prelims.