The central ENIGMAS of neo-Darwinism
z@z
life and its evolution rather difficult. It's always possible
to find aspects under which apparently strange properties of
living organisms are advantageous. By declaring these aspects
relevant, natural selection can triumph over the enigma.
However, every explanation based on natural selection is based
on reproduction. So, if reproduction can be shown to be an enigma
within neo-Darwinism, then the number of neo-Darwinian enigmas
explodes.
Selection reduces the number of objects. Reproduction increases
the number of objects. The mystery of life is not death, because
all objects tend to decay. Reproduction must at first create the
objects selection can get rid of.
o How can reproduction be explained? The explanation by selection
would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
(http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html)
If one knows that the real problem of evolution is not selection
but reproduction with inheritance, then one must wonder why
simple selection experiments (or computer-simulations) can be
interpreted as proof for the effectiveness of the neo-Darwinian
mechanisms. In such experiments the really hard work is the
production (with mutations) of entities and not selection.
Here an example of such an experiment which is considered
as evidence that natural selection could have triggered the
emergence of life on Earth:
"They then carried out the lab equivalent of natural selection.
They plucked out the few successful candidates and made millions
of copies of them using protein enzymes. Then they mutated those
RNAs, tested them again, replicated them again, and so on to
'evolve' some ultra-effective new RNA-snipping ribozymes."
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins2.html
Two other central enigmas of neo-Darwinism:
o The SUDDEN emergence of life from dead matter. If there
is a continuous emergence of life, the distinction between
abiogenesis and evolution loses its foundation.
o The SUDDEN emergence of consciousness from living matter.
A continuous increase in consciousness (up to human
self-consciousness) already requires the existence of
consciousness.
Cheers, Wolfgang
The right alternative to neo-Darwinism:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
J Eidsath
"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> The selection theory makes the survival of enigmas concerning
> life and its evolution rather difficult. It's always possible
> to find aspects under which apparently strange properties of
> living organisms are advantageous. By declaring these aspects
> relevant, natural selection can triumph over the enigma.
>
> However, every explanation based on natural selection is based
> on reproduction. So, if reproduction can be shown to be an enigma
> within neo-Darwinism, then the number of neo-Darwinian enigmas
> explodes.
Reproduction is a fact. If there is a part of it you do not understand,
I'm sure someone on t.o. will be willing to explain the birds and the
bees to you.
>
> Selection reduces the number of objects. Reproduction increases
> the number of objects. The mystery of life is not death, because
> all objects tend to decay. Reproduction must at first create the
> objects selection can get rid of.
Yes, life is a requirement for Evolution. Those brain cells must really
have been working for you to have come up with that.
>
> o How can reproduction be explained? The explanation by selection
> would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
> Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
> (http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html)
>
> If one knows that the real problem of evolution is not selection
> but reproduction with inheritance, then one must wonder why
> simple selection experiments (or computer-simulations) can be
> interpreted as proof for the effectiveness of the neo-Darwinian
> mechanisms. In such experiments the really hard work is the
> production (with mutations) of entities and not selection.
But all we need is one living entity. Everything takes off from there.
The computer simulations are not trying to prove abiogenesis, rather
they are trying to demonstrate the process of evolution.
>
> Here an example of such an experiment which is considered
> as evidence that natural selection could have triggered the
> emergence of life on Earth:
>
> "They then carried out the lab equivalent of natural selection.
> They plucked out the few successful candidates and made millions
> of copies of them using protein enzymes. Then they mutated those
> RNAs, tested them again, replicated them again, and so on to
> 'evolve' some ultra-effective new RNA-snipping ribozymes."
>
A type of natural selection. Not exactly the type invoked by the theory
of Evolution. What part of the experiment don't you like? They were
using replicating molecules (hence the millions of copies).
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins2.html
>
> Two other central enigmas of neo-Darwinism:
>
> o The SUDDEN emergence of life from dead matter. If there
> is a continuous emergence of life, the distinction between
> abiogenesis and evolution loses its foundation.
Abiogenesis is the process by which non-living matter became living
matter. Evolution is how living matter got its diversity. No sudden
change ever occured to seperate non-life from life. It was undoubtably
a gradual process. What is wrong with that? The distinction is a human
one made to seperate fields of inquiry. Both are historical sciences.
And there is only one history. Does there have to be a SUDDEN change
between the Dark Ages and the Renisannce?
>
> o The SUDDEN emergence of consciousness from living matter.
> A continuous increase in consciousness (up to human
> self-consciousness) already requires the existence of
> consciousness.
Define consciousness please. What do you mean by it?
Let me explain the history of the human condition. Nervous
system-->Little Brain-->Big Brain. What part don't you understand?
>
> Cheers, Wolfgang
>
> The right alternative to neo-Darwinism:
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
>
>
--
J Martin Eidsath
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull" . . . and it
*WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0 --Dan Johnson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dick C.
Huh? Trying to argue about biology by using argements taken from
a lawyer makes little sense. And the arguements themselves make
no more sense.
> The selection theory makes the survival of enigmas concerning
> life and its evolution rather difficult. It's always possible
> to find aspects under which apparently strange properties of
> living organisms are advantageous. By declaring these aspects
> relevant, natural selection can triumph over the enigma.
>
> However, every explanation based on natural selection is based
> on reproduction. So, if reproduction can be shown to be an enigma
> within neo-Darwinism, then the number of neo-Darwinian enigmas
> explodes.
The problem with the entire arguement is that both reproduction
and evolution happen. And natural selection has been shown to play
a part in it.
>
> Selection reduces the number of objects. Reproduction increases
> the number of objects. The mystery of life is not death, because
> all objects tend to decay. Reproduction must at first create the
> objects selection can get rid of.
>
> o How can reproduction be explained?
If your parents haven't explained it to you, then I suggest you go to
a library and and ask for a book explaning sex.
The explanation by selection
> would be circular.
Circular? I don't follow here. Of course that could be Johnson's point,
trying to confuse the issue.
Reproduction happens. Natural selection works on the results of
reproduction.
That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
> Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
> (http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html)
No enigma, that gets asked and answered constantly here.
>
> If one knows that the real problem of evolution is not selection
> but reproduction with inheritance,
Huh??????!!!!!!!!!!
Half my children's genes are from me, the other half are from my wife,
their mother. That is heritance. Their traits come from those genes with
a few possible mutations thrown in. That is why the kids have traits
that appear in our families.
then one must wonder why
> simple selection experiments (or computer-simulations) can be
> interpreted as proof for the effectiveness of the neo-Darwinian
> mechanisms. In such experiments the really hard work is the
> production (with mutations) of entities and not selection.
What does that mean?
>
> Here an example of such an experiment which is considered
> as evidence that natural selection could have triggered the
> emergence of life on Earth:
>
> "They then carried out the lab equivalent of natural selection.
> They plucked out the few successful candidates and made millions
> of copies of them using protein enzymes. Then they mutated those
> RNAs, tested them again, replicated them again, and so on to
> 'evolve' some ultra-effective new RNA-snipping ribozymes."
>
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins2.html
>
> Two other central enigmas of neo-Darwinism:
>
> o The SUDDEN emergence of life from dead matter. If there
> is a continuous emergence of life, the distinction between
> abiogenesis and evolution loses its foundation.
What is meant by a continous emergence of life? And how in the hell
does that create an enigma?
>
> o The SUDDEN emergence of consciousness from living matter.
> A continuous increase in consciousness (up to human
> self-consciousness) already requires the existence of
> consciousness.
Why?
I see in these arguements a lot of assertions made by an ignorant
lawyer, one whose main claim to fame is a book or 2 devoted to making
court room arguements against evolution. Not scientific arguements which
is where the arguements belong.
Oh, you might be interested knowing that Phillip Johnson tried posting
here a few years ago, but left in a hurry.
--
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
J. Thomas Ford
"z@z" wrote:
>
> The selection theory makes the survival of enigmas concerning
> life and its evolution rather difficult. It's always possible
> to find aspects under which apparently strange properties of
> living organisms are advantageous. By declaring these aspects
> relevant, natural selection can triumph over the enigma.
>
> However, every explanation based on natural selection is based
> on reproduction. So, if reproduction can be shown to be an enigma
> within neo-Darwinism, then the number of neo-Darwinian enigmas
> explodes.
>
> Selection reduces the number of objects. Reproduction increases
> the number of objects. The mystery of life is not death, because
> all objects tend to decay. Reproduction must at first create the
> objects selection can get rid of.
>
> o How can reproduction be explained? The explanation by selection
> would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
> Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
> (http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html)
Have you _missed_ Ian's posting's on self-replicating polymers? Or are
you simply ignoring them?
--
"Apparently, the Wiccan Creed is evil because it runs counter to
mainstream Judeo-Christian military beliefs of truly loving your fellow
man by training to drop napalm on him."
Gene Douglas
z@z wrote in message <7ldifg$21s$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>...
:The selection theory makes the survival of enigmas concerning
:life and its evolution rather difficult. It's always possible
:to find aspects under which apparently strange properties of
:living organisms are advantageous. By declaring these aspects
:relevant, natural selection can triumph over the enigma.
:
:However, every explanation based on natural selection is based
:on reproduction. So, if reproduction can be shown to be an enigma
:within neo-Darwinism, then the number of neo-Darwinian enigmas
:explodes.
:
:Selection reduces the number of objects. Reproduction increases
:the number of objects. The mystery of life is not death, because
:all objects tend to decay. Reproduction must at first create the
:objects selection can get rid of.
:
: o How can reproduction be explained? The explanation by selection
: would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
: Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
: (http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html)
Reproduction can be explained if you also consider the selection of
chemistry. That is, molecules which reproduce themselves. If there are
say, a trillion-trillion events which do not result in this, then those
events have little reason to repeat. But if in that number there is just
one, then it continues to do so with 2,4,8,16, etc. copies of itself.
:
:If one knows that the real problem of evolution is not selection
:but reproduction with inheritance, then one must wonder why
:simple selection experiments (or computer-simulations) can be
:interpreted as proof for the effectiveness of the neo-Darwinian
:mechanisms. In such experiments the really hard work is the
:production (with mutations) of entities and not selection.
:
Not proof, evidence.
:Here an example of such an experiment which is considered
:as evidence that natural selection could have triggered the
:emergence of life on Earth:
:
: "They then carried out the lab equivalent of natural selection.
: They plucked out the few successful candidates and made millions
: of copies of them using protein enzymes. Then they mutated those
: RNAs, tested them again, replicated them again, and so on to
: 'evolve' some ultra-effective new RNA-snipping ribozymes."
: http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins2.html
:
And in doing so, some were more productive than others. Some may have been
vulnerable to the elements, and some m ay not have had sufficient ambient
chemistry to continue at a great pace compared to others. Some may have
competed for the necessary chemicals with which to build replicas, at a
greater pace than others, and like crabgrass, crowded out those having
slower reactions.
:
:Two other central enigmas of neo-Darwinism:
:
: o The SUDDEN emergence of life from dead matter. If there
: is a continuous emergence of life, the distinction between
: abiogenesis and evolution loses its foundation.
:
Which happened where? There needs be a definition of "life." Then, the
first example which fits that definition would be a sudden emergence of life
from dead matter, which probably differed from its origin matter by a
microscopic degree.
: o The SUDDEN emergence of consciousness from living matter.
: A continuous increase in consciousness (up to human
: self-consciousness) already requires the existence of
: consciousness.
:
Again, we must define consciousness. Once we have that definition, then we
ask, does an amoeba have consciousness? Does an earthworm have
consciousness, and so forth. If we say that all irritibility equals
consciousness, then a mimosa leaf which folds when touched would have
consciousness. And so would a mousetrap, which also operates by an
automatic mechanism.
:Cheers, Wolfgang
:
:
:The right alternative to neo-Darwinism:
:http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
:Everybody likes to tell jokes about lawyers,
but we must remember that some of the stories are true."
...........Attributed to Aristotle, 243 BC
--
Un-moderated UU group at: alt.religion.unitarian-univ.
Or use DejaNews portal at:
http://www.deja.com/~soc_religion_uu%20/j.xp?j=soc_religion_uu
Remember Rich Puchalski, Gene Douglas, and (Your Name Here)
--
"Mind if I smoke?" "Not at all, mind if I fart?" (Steve Martin)
z@z
> would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
> Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism. If abiogenesis can
be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house of cards folds
up, leaving a lot of valuable stuff for alternative paradigms.
The difficulty to refute reductionist abiogenesis lies in the lack
of concrete knowledge. The more concrete facts and explanations are
brought forward, the more difficult it becomes for neo-Darwinism to
survive.
Everybody should agree that the common ancestor of terrestrian life
must have had the capacity of reproducing and the potential of further
evolving by selection. In order to refute neo-Darwinism, I have to
replace the gaps in knowledge by concrete assumptions concerning the
neo-Darwinian Adam.
1) Adam was a bacteria-like creature with a cell wall.
2) Adam contained 10 different enzymes consisting of each 100 amino
acids.
3) The genome of Adam consisted of 10 x 100 x 3 = 3000 nucleotides.
4) There were 100 copies of each enzyme within Adam.
5) Adam lived in a primordial pond with high proportions of
prefabricated amino acids, nucleotides and high energy molecules.
6) These nutrient molecules and waste molecules could easily cross
the cell wall.
7) The cell wall protected Adam from harmful molecules.
8) The replication of Adam occured by
a) doubling the number of each enzyme from 100 to 200,
b) doubling the genome molecule(s),
c) splitting the cell into two equal parts by randomly
distributing enzymes and genome molecules to the parts.
If we ignore the cell wall, we conclude that 103'000 chemical uphill
reactions had to be carried out for Adam to replicate. It is perfectly
natural that the enzymes of very early life on earth could not have
worked as efficiently as the enzymes of modern bacteria. Error
correcting mechanisms did not yet exist.
So I think it is reasonable to assume that the error rate in building
chemical bonds was not lower than 1 percent. The task of chaining
building blocks correctly by using templates and energy from other
molecules is certainly not trivial. An error rate of 1 percent leads
on average to 1'030 errors per replication, 30 of them in the
genome molecules.
The assumption that the majority of these errors have no or even
have positive effects is not reasonable. So even without fatal errors
or dangers from the environment, Adam and his descendants would have
degenerated during every cell division and certainly would have
become extinct after some generations, unless ...
Cheers, Wolfgang
Evolution based on panpsychism (a philosophically elaborate
alternative to reductionism, advocated at least by Cusanus,
Paracelsus, Bruno, Kepler, Spinoza, Leibniz):
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
Michael Alexander
> Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
> abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism. If abiogenesis can
> be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house of cards folds
> up, leaving a lot of valuable stuff for alternative paradigms.
That is like saying that the Siberian-Alaskan land bridge theory is a
prerequisite to Native Americans existing. If the land-bridge theory can be
proven false then Geronomo never existed and all legends about him are
false.
The first living cell on earth came to be via some mechanism. We know that
is true, because cells exist on earth and the earth has a finite age.
Scientists may be wrong about where the first cells came from. I believe
that scientists are correct about what happened after the first cells
arrived.
The farther back in time you go, the less evidence there is. You use this
fact to attack scientists, but your attacks are unfair.
> The assumption that the majority of these errors have no or even
> have positive effects is not reasonable. So even without fatal errors
> or dangers from the environment, Adam and his descendants would have
> degenerated during every cell division and certainly would have
> become extinct after some generations, unless ...
We already know that modern day bacteria can overcome these problems. Why
do think that primative cells couldn't?
Loren King
> Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
> abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
> If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house
> of cards folds up, ...
No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering by
an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically designed
earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion years.
Even if this turns out to be the actual origin of life on earth,
Darwinian and post-Darwinian evolutionary models are still fruitful
explanatory strategies (for scientists studying the origins of diversity
and the mechanisms of speciation, for instance). And the study of
genetics will be no different, in methods or findings, regardless of
whether the first life on earth was designed or not.
L.
--------------------------------------
Loren King lk...@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/home.html
z@z
A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat
the same arguments over and over again.
| > Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
| > abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
|
| I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
| post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
| that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
| how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline. It is also a
philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
finalism, no souls, no God, ...
Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
and any theory based on them are refuted.
| > If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house
| > of cards folds up, ...
|
| No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering by
| an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically designed
| earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
| could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion years.
The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
No abiogenesis ->
no life on other planets ->
no advanced civilization ->
no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
Cheers, Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html
Ken Cox
> Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline. It is also a
> philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
> finalism, no souls, no God, ...
Who's been telling you these lies?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Adam Noel Harris
:Hi Loren King!
[meaning that Loren King wrote:]
:| I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
:| post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
:| that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
:| how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
:Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline. It is also a
:philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
:finalism, no souls, no God, ...
Right. And carrots are enormous spacecraft used to put satellites in
orbit. Psychons are the fibers which accumulate to form bellybutton lint.
Whee!
:Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
:with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
That is one possible mechanism for abiogenesis.
:If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
:and any theory based on them are refuted.
No.
[snip]
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Paul J. Koeck
z@z wrote in message <7lg90t$2dp$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>...
>Hi Loren King!
>
>A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat
>the same arguments over and over again.
You have a point, abeit a tiny one. Arguments are constantly
repeated by cretinists and intelligent folks alike. But so what?
Cretinists repeat their arguments because they're too dimwitted
to come up with anything new, but they sincerely believe that
repeating lies often enough makes the lies become truth.
More educated folk repeat arguments simply because they're
correct. Why come up with a new argument when the old one
is perfectly fine? Mere repetition does not invalidate a correct
argument any more than it validates an incorrect one.
>
>| > Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
>| > abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
>|
>| I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
>| post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
>| that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
>| how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
>
>Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline. It is also a
>philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
>finalism, no souls, no God, ...
Only to those with self-inflicted lobotomies.
>
>Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
>with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
Nope. No relation at all. But then, this is one of those oft-repeated
lies cretinists would have people believe.
>
>If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
>and any theory based on them are refuted.
Well, sure, but evolution isn't based on abiogenesis, so you've
just refuted yourself.
>
>| > If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house
>| > of cards folds up, ...
>|
>| No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering by
>| an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically designed
>| earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
>| could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion years.
>
>The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
Well, there you go, you got one correct. Go have a party,
you should celebrate such a rare occurrence.
>
>No abiogenesis ->
> no life on other planets ->
Nope, doesn't follow. Why do you discount the possibility
that your own deity did the biogenesis, and then left the
rest up to natural processes? Why couldn't that same
deity have started up the life-engine in multiple places?
Again, evolution has nothing to say about the origins of
life itself, merely the processes that shaped the current
species from the life that already existed. Geez, if you're
going to argue against something, you should at least
get it right first.
> no advanced civilization ->
> no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
> no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
>
>I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
>not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
>abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
Actually, they've never been together. But admitting that would
be admitting you're wrong, something a cretinist is incapable
of doing.
>
>
>Cheers, Wolfgang
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html
>
>
Paul J. Koeck, #360
EAC MindControl Beam(tm) Operator #34529085783828-4875
EAC Tech - Personal Mind Control at a great price!
Volume discounts available.
Don't let reality hit you in the ass on your way out.
Only an idiot or a PromiseKeeper cult member would
think that my opinions necessarily reflect those of
my employer.
To reply, change Byte.Me to newsguy
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Hi Loren King!
>
> A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat
> the same arguments over and over again.
>
> | > abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
> |
> | I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
> | post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of
organisms
> | that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring.
But
> | how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
>
> Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline.
No.
It is also a
> philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
> finalism, no souls, no God, ...
This is the *world view of some neo-Darwinians* and nothing else.
But neo-Darwinism is a scientific discipline and thus is bound to
attempt explanations without recourse to finalism (except as a
metaphor: e.g. Dennett's "intentional stance") or God.
> Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
> with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
"Basic principles" - such as ? Are they in any way different from the
basic principles of other scientific disciplines ?
> If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
> and any theory based on them are refuted.
>
> | > If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian
house
> | > of cards folds up, ...
> |
> | No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-
engineering by
> | an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically
designed
> | earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
> | could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion
years.
>
> The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
>
> No abiogenesis ->
> no life on other planets ->
> no advanced civilization ->
> no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
> no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
>
> I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
> not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
> abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
emergence of <> evolution of
life life
Leverrier did not need an established theory of planetogenesis either
in order to predict the planet Neptune, did he ?
Regards,
Hans-Richard Grümm
> Cheers, Wolfgang
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html
Loren King
> A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat the same
> arguments over and over again.
I for one only return to arguments if earlier versions have failed to
convince.
>>> Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
>>> abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
>> I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
>> post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of
>> organisms that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their
>> offspring. But how those organisms first originated doesn't much
>> matter.
> Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline.
So you say (and keep saying), but I've seen no convincing argument
supporting this claim. If what you really mean is `a strong version of
ontological materialism and naturalism commit us to abiogenesis as the
origin of life', then why don't you just say that? Why invent
controversial meanings for terms that most people already agree on the
meaning of (more or less)? And even if you stick with your
controversial definition of "neo-Darwinism", you need to demonstrate
that Darwinian and post-Darwinian evolutionary ideas and models require
a stringent assumption of ontological naturalism and materialism. This
doesn't seem at all obvious to me.
> It is also a philosophical or religious system, based on principles
> such as: no finalism, no souls, no God, ...
No, you are conflating evolutionary ideas with a strong
materialist-naturalist ontology. This linkage needs to be demonstrated,
not merely asserted.
> Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
> with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
Which "basic principles" of "neo-Darwinism" do you have in mind here?
Why do you think that evolutionary concepts and models depend so
critically on strong ontological claims about the possible origins of
life?
> If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
> and any theory based on them are refuted.
The simple fact is that specific the origin of life doesn't much affect
the efficacy of evolutionary concepts and models.
>>> If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house
>>> of cards folds up, ...
>> No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering
>> by an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically
>> designed earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so
>> that they could be left alone to evolve over the course of several
>> billion years.
> The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
The existence of reproduction and heritability of traits are essential.
> No abiogenesis ->
> no life on other planets ->
> no advanced civilization ->
> no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
> no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
Okay, lets say the designers where "supernatural": they were gods, or
trans-dimensional beings whose origins and capabilities are beyond our
feeble understanding (perhaps these beings have always existed, or maybe
they emerged in some freak cosmic coincidence in other dimensions, the
product of complex processes we will never understand). Suppose these
beings wandered into our time-space continuum a few billion years ago,
set a biology experiment running on a backwater planet, then left and
forgot to come back ... how would this affect Darwinian and
post-Darwinian models of evolution? How would it affect the study of
genetics?
> I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
> not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
> abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
Well, now you know.
David Johnston
>
> Hi Loren King!
>
> A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat
> the same arguments over and over again.
>
> | > abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
> |
> | I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
> | post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
> | that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
> | how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
>
> philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
> finalism, no souls, no God, ...
Neo-Darwinism sounds like a bit of a strawman. Does it even exist?
Andrew MacRae
No. The scientific theory implies none of that. Those are what
some people philosophically or theologically (versus scientifically)
derive from it, but plenty of other people don't derive that from it,
eventhough they still accept the scientific theory.
|Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
|with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
|
|If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
|and any theory based on them are refuted.
Not unless it implies that life did not emerge by any means, which
does not fit reality.
|| > If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian
|| > house of cards folds up, ...
||
|| No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering by
|| an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically
|| designed
|| earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
|| could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion years.
|
|The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
Yes, but this does not have the implications that you think,
because, obviously, life does exist.
|No abiogenesis ->
| no life on other planets ->
| no advanced civilization ->
| no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
| no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
|
|I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
|not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
|abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
The two are related, and distinct, in much the same way as the
origin of matter versus the theory of gravity. Obviously, the theory of
gravity needs matter to act upon in order for it to have relevance, but an
understanding of the details of matter's origin is not a requirement to
understand or apply the theory of gravity in most situations. Masses
exist, and there is plenty of evidence they existed and behaved much as
they do now in the distant past. It certainly would be interesting to
know exactly how they ultimately originated, and scientists expend plenty
of effort on the question too, but not having an answer is not a
hinderance to describing the way they do behave now, or over most of the
history of the universe.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Michael Cooper
Spoken like a true ignoramus.
J. Thomas Ford
"z@z" wrote:
>
> > How can reproduction be explained? The explanation by selection
> > would be circular. That leads us to the central enigma of neo-
> > Darwinism: the emergence of REPRODUCTION.
>
> Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
> abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
This is a construct of your own mind, for which you immediately give
your agenda in for constructing this strawman:
> If abiogenesis can
> be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house of cards folds
> up, leaving a lot of valuable stuff for alternative paradigms.
....IOW, hoping to invalidate an entire field of science and the hard
data it's based on by attacking an as yet underdeveloped field.
Drek.
Coincidentally, betting on what science will never learn is foolish. As
abiogenesis develops, I'm going to enjoy heckling you about this one.
<snip>
Michael Cooper
Yeah, sure it does. It's Darwinism, updated with all kinds of things which
we now know. And despite what anyone claims it has nothing to say about God,
Souls or Morality.
z@z
| > It [neo-Darwinism] is also a philosophical or religious system,
| > based on principles such as: no finalism, no souls, no God, ...
This statement has been critized several times in this thread, e.g.
in the typical 'evolutionist' way: "Who's been telling you these
lies?" [Ken Cox]
There is no science without philosophical or religious premises.
Only those who aren't conscious of such premises can think that
science only depends on empirical facts.
And one must not forget that not too long ago, it was a fact
that God created the earth and that all persons descended from
Adam. Kepler for instance took into consideration that God
created our planetary system when trying to explain it. If God
exists or existed, then it is or would be a scientific statement
which has to be taken into account when trying to understand
nature.
Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
are simply wrong.
Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data). So
neo-Darwinism is simply wrong, and if we call wrong beliefs
of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
| No, you are conflating evolutionary ideas with a strong
| materialist-naturalist ontology. This linkage needs to be
| demonstrated, not merely asserted.
Neo-Darwinism explicitely rules out any relevance of non-
reductionist principles or entities to the evolution of life.
But according to Ockham's razor, entities (e.g. souls) or
principles (e.g. ontological purposefulness) having no effect
at all are superflous and should be eliminated.
It is at least inconsistent (maybe even dishonest) to claim on
the one hand that neo-Darwinism has nothing to say about "God,
Souls or Morality" [M.Cooper in this thread] and to postulate
on the other hand that such entities or principles have no
influence at all on the evolution of the world.
Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
"knockout blow to Darwinism"?
Cheers, Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#epistemology
Loren A. King
> There is no science without philosophical or religious premises.
> Only those who aren't conscious of such premises can think that
> science only depends on empirical facts.
No one is disputing the fact that science requires philosophical
commitments -- or as you say, premises (I don't think this is the best
word to use, but whatever). The problem is that you've got the wrong
premises, and thus you are attacking a straw man. The philosophical
commitments required by science are provisional, and are open to
critical re-assessment according to the logic of scientific inference
itself. That's why science is so powerful.
> Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
> proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data).
What does this mean? What evidence do you have for reincarnation? Do
you even have a coherent model to guide your search for such evidence?
If so, I haven't seen it (here or at your web site).
>> No, you are conflating evolutionary ideas with a strong
>> materialist-naturalist ontology. This linkage needs to be
>> demonstrated, not merely asserted.
> Neo-Darwinism explicitely rules out any relevance of non-reductionist
> principles or entities to the evolution of life.
Where do you get this from? What do you mean by "non-reductionist
principles or entities"? And even if Darwinian and post-Darwinian
evolutionary models did `explicitly rule out the relevance of
non-reductionist priniciples or entities to the evolution of life', so
what? Before your assertion was that evolutionary explanations depend
on strong claims about how life *originated* (not how life evolved), and
that your claim was that this conceptual dependence is a problem for
Darwinian and post-Darwinian approches. Are you now arguing for a
different position (i.e. that evolutionary explanations require
reductionism)?
> It is at least inconsistent (maybe even dishonest) to claim on the one
> hand that neo-Darwinism has nothing to say about "God, Souls or
> Morality" [M.Cooper in this thread] and to postulate on the other hand
> that such entities or principles have no influence at all on the
> evolution of the world.
Darwinian and post-Darwinian ideas and explanations do not have anything
substantive to say about the "God, Souls or Morality", save that
spiritual/supernatural mechanisms or entities do not seem to be required
to explain a great deal about the way life behaves on earth; nor is
there any reason to expect that science will need to draw on a
spiritual/supernatural realm to explain things in the future.
> Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
> "knockout blow to Darwinism"?
Because there was no "knockout blow." Nor do I expect to see one (at
least not in this thread). But who knows?
Dick C.
>Hi Loren!
>
>| > It [neo-Darwinism] is also a philosophical or religious system,
>| > based on principles such as: no finalism, no souls, no God, ...
>
>This statement has been critized several times in this thread, e.g.
>in the typical 'evolutionist' way: "Who's been telling you these
>lies?" [Ken Cox]
>
>Only those who aren't conscious of such premises can think that
>science only depends on empirical facts.
Please describe the philosophical and religious basis of science.
I am not denying there is a philosophical basis to it, but I wonder if
you have any idea what it might be.
I do deny the religious basis.
>
>And one must not forget that not too long ago, it was a fact
>that God created the earth and that all persons descended from
>Adam.
Fact? No, that was a religious belief, it was never a fact. Some
religious people might have considered it a fact, but then some
tend to consider any silly religious idea a fact.
Kepler for instance took into consideration that God
>created our planetary system when trying to explain it. If God
>exists or existed, then it is or would be a scientific statement
>which has to be taken into account when trying to understand
>nature.
Kepler had little, if any, reason to think differently. He was at the
beginning of modern science. He lived from 1571 to 1630, at a time
that the christian had complete control over Europe. There was
little, if anything, known to kepler that would contradict the bible.
>
>Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
>like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
>from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
>are simply wrong.
Because the adam statement is taken from a religious text. The
scientific statement is based on observation, and why would
both statements be wrong? They might both be wrong, or maybe
one of them is wrong, or maybe one of them is not as accurate as
it could be.
>
>Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
>proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data). So
Really? If it is so easily provable, why hasn't it been done yet?
And what is the reliable part of demographic data, and how
would that support your assertion?
>neo-Darwinism is simply wrong,
No, it is not. You have not provided any reason to even begin to
consider that there might be an error in it, let alone that it might be
wrong.
>and if we call wrong beliefs
>of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
Except, that neo-Darwinism is not a belief, it is a description of
modern scientific thinking. And it is not a religion, there are no
churches devoted to it, there are no religous rights, no bibles,
none of the normal trappings of religion.
snip
>It is at least inconsistent (maybe even dishonest) to claim on
>the one hand that neo-Darwinism has nothing to say about "God,
>Souls or Morality" [M.Cooper in this thread] and to postulate
>on the other hand that such entities or principles have no
>influence at all on the evolution of the world.
How is that inconsistant? It seems to be perfectly logical to me,
especially since both positions are brought up by people like you
all the time. Thus someone who is looking at science is forced to
discuss both, even though morality is irrelevant to science and
there is morality has no bearing on evolution.
>
>Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
>"knockout blow to Darwinism"?
Because noone has provided one.
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
WRowe0521
>Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
>like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
>from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
>are simply wrong.
>
>proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data). So
>of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
Before anyone responds to this crap they should take a look at
http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=477830371
where Wolfgang confesses:
"I must admit that sometimes I like to be a little bit provocative."
Bill Rowe.
z@z
| > Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
| > proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data).
|
| What does this mean?
Here an analogy:
Kepler could have written in 1609 that elliptical orbits of the
planets are a provable and even proved fact (by the reliable
part pf astronomical data). The scientific world, however,
accepted these proofs only decades later.
| What evidence do you have for reincarnation?
Plenty of evidence! Unfortunately it is very difficult to
appreciate evidence for something in disagreement with one's
own prejudices. What kind of evidence for reincarnation would
you accept?
| Do you even have a coherent model to guide your search for such
| evidence? If so, I haven't seen it (here or at your web site).
Have you really studied well enough the Demographic Saturation
Theory to make such a statement. If you have, you should have
recognized that the theory makes very concrete predictions. And
these predictions correspond much better to the really confirmed
demographic facts than the predictions of orthodox demography.
Here an example: in several European regions there are more old
women than old man (because of the war). Therefore the death
rate of women is now higher than the death rate of man. A simple
prediction of the Demographic Saturation Theory is that more
girls than boys should be born. The fact that actually more
girls are born is explained by a supposed or real loss in
qualitity of sperm, resulting from pollutants.
The Demographic Saturation Theory:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html
Further evidence:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#demography
| > Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
| > "knockout blow to Darwinism"?
|
| Because there was no "knockout blow." Nor do I expect to see one (at
| least not in this thread). But who knows?
Here once again the "knockout blow" (maybe not yet in its most
convincing form):
The assumption that the majority of these errors have no or even
have positive effects is not reasonable. So even without fatal errors
or dangers from the environment, Adam and his descendants would have
degenerated during every cell division and certainly would have
become extinct after some generations, unless ... "
Cheers, Wolfgang
J. Thomas Ford
"z@z" wrote:
>
> Hi Loren King!
>
> A problem of discussing on t.o. is that one should repeat
> the same arguments over and over again.
>
> | > Despite many contradicting claims, it is a (logical) fact that
> | > abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism.
> |
> | I disagree. Natural selection (as described by Darwinian and
> | post-Darwinian evolutionary models) requires the existence of organisms
> | that can reproduce and pass on certain traits to their offspring. But
> | how those organisms first originated doesn't much matter.
>
> Neo-Darwinism is more than a scientific discipline. It is also a
> philosophical or religious system, based on principles such as: no
> finalism, no souls, no God, ...
>
> Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from dead matter in agreement
> with the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, isn't it?
No. Abiogenesis is the emergence of life from non-living matter, period.
It appears that evolutionary principles apply to abiogenesis. It is too
early to tell, however.
> If the emergence of life violates these premises, then these premises
> and any theory based on them are refuted.
The hypothesis of evolutionary abiogenesis would be refuted.
NeoDarwiniam Evolutionary Theory would not be.
> | > If abiogenesis can be proven impossible, the whole neo-Darwinian house
> | > of cards folds up, ...
> |
> | No. Suppose the first life on earth originated from bio-engineering by
> | an advanced civilization, but that these engineers specifically designed
> | earth's ecosystems and these first primitive organisms so that they
> | could be left alone to evolve over the course of several billion years.
>
> The existence of life is prerequisite of neo-Darwinism.
The existence of life _on Earth_ is a prerequisite. We don't even know
if life exists elsewhere, or if it does or what form it takes, much less
how it got to that form.
> No abiogenesis ->
> no life on other planets ->
> no advanced civilization ->
> no bio-enginieering of the terrestrian common ancestor ->
> no terrestrian neo-Darwinists.
Wolfgang, you would learn a whole lot faster if you would stop building
strawmen to fit your preconceived notions.
> I must admit that before starting posting here on t.o., I did
> not even know that the evolution of life had been splitted into
> abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism.
Which should be an indication of how little you know about the subject.
> Cheers, Wolfgang
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja1.html
g&g
>Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
>neo-Darwinism is simply wrong, and if we call wrong beliefs
>of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
>
Glenn R. wrote:
"Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even proved fact"?
References please.
g&g
>women than old man (because of the war). Therefore the death
>rate of women is now higher than the death rate of man. A simple
>prediction of the Demographic Saturation Theory is that more
>girls than boys should be born. The fact that actually more
>girls are born is explained by a supposed or real loss in
>qualitity of sperm, resulting from pollutants.
Glenn R. wrote:
So sick sperm select for feminine? Why is that so? You do realize how
completely this appears to be. Also, you make a few statements here that
are completely inane. First off, because the death rate of women is greater
due to more of them in the population in no way means that individual sperms
should be aware of this fact and produce more women. That is just a
downright stupid argument.
David Johnston
>
> Hi Loren!
>
> | > It [neo-Darwinism] is also a philosophical or religious system,
> | > based on principles such as: no finalism, no souls, no God, ...
>
> in the typical 'evolutionist' way: "Who's been telling you these
> lies?" [Ken Cox]
>
> There is no science without philosophical or religious premises.
Philosophical, yes. Religious, no.
> Only those who aren't conscious of such premises can think that
> science only depends on empirical facts.
>
> And one must not forget that not too long ago, it was a fact
> that God created the earth and that all persons descended from
You are unaware of the distinction between something being a fact
and something being believed to be a fact?
> Adam. Kepler for instance took into consideration that God
> created our planetary system when trying to explain it. If God
> exists or existed, then it is or would be a scientific statement
> which has to be taken into account when trying to understand
> nature.
Only if God's existence was detectable.
>
> Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
> like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
> from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
> are simply wrong.
Because one of them comes from scientific inquiry and the other comes
from a religion.
>
> Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
> proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data). So
Thank you for lieing to us. We enjoy it.
> neo-Darwinism is simply wrong, and if we call wrong beliefs
> of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
There is no such thing as neo-Darwinism so far as I have been
able to determine. It is a strawman created by you, a point
of view against which you argue, but which seems to have no
adherents.
>
> | No, you are conflating evolutionary ideas with a strong
> | materialist-naturalist ontology. This linkage needs to be
> | demonstrated, not merely asserted.
>
> Neo-Darwinism explicitely rules out any relevance of non-
> reductionist principles or entities to the evolution of life.
> But according to Ockham's razor, entities (e.g. souls) or
> principles (e.g. ontological purposefulness) having no effect
> at all are superflous and should be eliminated.
>From consideration as a causative element in the specific case
being examined.
>
> It is at least inconsistent (maybe even dishonest) to claim on
> the one hand that neo-Darwinism has nothing to say about "God,
> Souls or Morality" [M.Cooper in this thread] and to postulate
> on the other hand that such entities or principles have no
> influence at all on the evolution of the world.
That is not the correct postulate. Correctly phrased it would read
"should not be used as an explanation when a less complex explanation
will suffice to explain the observation".
>
> Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
> "knockout blow to Darwinism"?
Because it is meaningless. Absence of evidence does not prove or disprove
anything.
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li>:
>Hi Loren!
>
>| > It [neo-Darwinism] is also a philosophical or religious system,
>| > based on principles such as: no finalism, no souls, no God, ...
>
>This statement has been critized several times in this thread, e.g.
>in the typical 'evolutionist' way: "Who's been telling you these
>lies?" [Ken Cox]
Did you answer him? If not, why not? It *is* a false
statement, after all... The lack of a belief isn't, in
itself, a belief.
>
>There is no science without philosophical or religious premises.
Really? Then you should have no trouble stating the
religious premises underlying the fields of, for instance,
petroleum chemistry or solid-state physics, should you?
Please do so.
>Only those who aren't conscious of such premises can think that
>science only depends on empirical facts.
Only those who see religion in everything would make such an
incorrect and insupportable statement.
>
>And one must not forget that not too long ago, it was a fact
>that God created the earth and that all persons descended from
>Adam.
An assumption, not a fact (assuming you are aware of the
difference).
> Kepler for instance took into consideration that God
>created our planetary system when trying to explain it.
Did it work? Cites, please.
> If God
>exists or existed, then it is or would be a scientific statement
>which has to be taken into account when trying to understand
>nature.
And as soon as hard evidence is presented that this is
indeed the case, it will be incorporated into all relevant
scientific disciplines. Here's a tip: Don't hold your breath
waiting.
>
>Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
>like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
>from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
>are simply wrong.
It's a little thing called "preponderance of evidence";
according to the preponderance of evidence, only one of the
above claims is wrong (guess which).
>
>Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
>proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data). So
>neo-Darwinism is simply wrong, and if we call wrong beliefs
>of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
Bad premises lead to incorrect conclusions. Please cite the
evidence supporting your claim that reincarnation is a
"proved fact".
>
>| No, you are conflating evolutionary ideas with a strong
>| materialist-naturalist ontology. This linkage needs to be
>| demonstrated, not merely asserted.
>
>Neo-Darwinism explicitely rules out any relevance of non-
>reductionist principles or entities to the evolution of life.
>But according to Ockham's razor, entities (e.g. souls) or
>principles (e.g. ontological purposefulness) having no effect
>at all are superflous and should be eliminated.
There is zero evidence for the existence of souls as well as
for any purpose to existence; these are matters of faith,
not science.
>
>It is at least inconsistent (maybe even dishonest) to claim on
>the one hand that neo-Darwinism has nothing to say about "God,
>Souls or Morality" [M.Cooper in this thread] and to postulate
>on the other hand that such entities or principles have no
>influence at all on the evolution of the world.
You seem to be somewhat confused. If a particular field of
knowledge doesn't concern itself with a particular idea,
stating that that idea has no relevance in that field is
hardly inconsistent or dishonest. Would you expect a
wildlife biologist to concern himself with stellar physics?
If he didn't, would you consider that to be "inconsistent"?
>
>Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
>"knockout blow to Darwinism"?
Because none has been observed to exist.
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Keith Doyle
>1) Adam was a bacteria-like creature with a cell wall.
>2) Adam contained 10 different enzymes consisting of each 100 amino
> acids.
>3) The genome of Adam consisted of 10 x 100 x 3 = 3000 nucleotides.
>4) There were 100 copies of each enzyme within Adam.
>5) Adam lived in a primordial pond with high proportions of
> prefabricated amino acids, nucleotides and high energy molecules.
>6) These nutrient molecules and waste molecules could easily cross
> the cell wall.
>7) The cell wall protected Adam from harmful molecules.
>8) The replication of Adam occured by
> a) doubling the number of each enzyme from 100 to 200,
> b) doubling the genome molecule(s),
> c) splitting the cell into two equal parts by randomly
> distributing enzymes and genome molecules to the parts.
These are ALL unwarranted assumptions, as there are examples of
replication that consist of much less. And this fact makes the rest
of your arguments moot.
--
Keith Doyle
(remove underbars in reply address for E-mail)
Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows.
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
Keith Doyle
>science only depends on empirical facts.
If you are trying to say that science is no different than
theology, then you are less than conscious of one or the other
(or both) of them.
>Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
>like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
>from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
>are simply wrong.
Because one is subject to correction based on evidence, the other
is not.
>Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
>proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data).
Huh? Demographic data? You mean like all the new souls that
must exist now that didn't before now that the world population
has increased? I thought this sort of "demographic" data cast
more doubt on reincarnation, not "proved" it. Last I heard the
apologists had to argue for the reincarnation of animals to
explain the existance of these "new" souls. What sort of
evidence could disprove this "proved fact."
>So
>neo-Darwinism is simply wrong, and if we call wrong beliefs
>of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
Only you are calling "wrong beliefs of the past" religion.
Newton's celestial mechanics were wrong as a complete theory of
motion, that doesn't make it religious.
>Neo-Darwinism explicitely rules out any relevance of non-
>reductionist principles or entities to the evolution of life.
>But according to Ockham's razor, entities (e.g. souls) or
>principles (e.g. ontological purposefulness) having no effect
>at all are superflous and should be eliminated.
You don't need to specialize in Neo-Darwinism, *any* sort of
science will tell you that.
>Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
>"knockout blow to Darwinism"?
Probably because we haven't heard one from you yet.
--
Keith Doyle
(remove underbars in reply address for E-mail)
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Einstein
Loren King
>>> Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
>>> proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data).
>> What does this mean?
> Here an analogy ...
I don't want an analogy. I want to know what you mean when you say that
reincarnation is (a) "easily provable", and (b) a proven fact "by a
reliable part of demographic data". In particular, I have no idea what
you mean by the qualification to (b).
>> What evidence do you have for reincarnation?
> Plenty of evidence! Unfortunately it is very difficult to appreciate
> evidence for something in disagreement with one's own prejudices.
Well, show it to me and we'll see if it overcomes my prejudices. If it
doesn't, we can go from there in figuring out what it is about my
prejudices that prevents me from appreciating your evidence.
> What kind of evidence for reincarnation would you accept?
What kind do you have?
>> Do you even have a coherent model to guide your search for such
>> evidence? If so, I haven't seen it (here or at your web site).
> Have you really studied well enough the Demographic Saturation
> Theory to make such a statement.
I've read your essay, yes, and frankly I find it bizarre and very nearly
incoherent. I see nothing in this or its companion essay (on psychons
and reincarnation) that even remotely resembles a detailed model of what
the soul is, what reincarnation is, what mechanisms facilitate the
process, and what any of this has to do with demography and evolution.
> If you have, you should have recognized that the theory makes very
> concrete predictions.
Such as ...? I see no clear statement of theory and predictions on your
website, only rambling and unsupported remarks about early biologists
and demography.
> And these predictions correspond much better to the really confirmed
> demographic facts than the predictions of orthodox demography.
This statement is just bizarre
> Here an example: in several European regions there are more old
> women than old man (because of the war). Therefore the death
> rate of women is now higher than the death rate of man. A simple
> prediction of the Demographic Saturation Theory is that more
> girls than boys should be born. The fact that actually more
> girls are born is explained by a supposed or real loss in
> qualitity of sperm, resulting from pollutants.
This is nonsense, and it certainly isn't evidence supporting
reincarnation. What does your "psychon" theory have to do with your
"demographic saturation theory"?
>>> Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
>>> "knockout blow to Darwinism"?
>> Because there was no "knockout blow." Nor do I expect to see one (at
>> least not in this thread). But who knows?
> Here once again the "knockout blow" (maybe not yet in its most
> convincing form):
[long list of assumptions and conjectures about the biochemistry of
early replicases snipped]
This isnt't a knock-out blow at all. We do not yet understand how early
life on our planet began and proliferated. But once life was
established, we have some pretty good ideas about the mechanisms
involved in its subsequent evolution. Some of these ideas are
well-tested and relatively uncontroversial; others are more speculative,
difficult or impossible to test directly, and thus the subject of
controversy. So what? None of this diminishes the conceptual coherence
and explanatory power of Darwinian and post-Darwinian ideas and models.
So the theory still has gaps, and may require revision. So what? Hell,
in the future, evolutionary theory may even need to be supplemented with
other theories that are not remotely Darwinian: complexity and
self-organization theories, intelligent design theories, or some other
as-yet-unformulated scientific theory of how functional complexity can
arise and persevere ... who knows? But none of this would be a
knock-out blow for Darwinian ideas and models, any more than the general
theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are "knock out blows" for
classical physics. Rather, it'll be science doing what science does:
correcting, revising and extending old ideas, and coming up with new
ones, all in the light of clear thinking, careful observation, and
multiple independent replications and critiques by other researchers.
You seem to think of Darwinism as something akin to Maoism or Stalinism,
i.e. a totalizing theory, worshipped and imposed by a self-interested
and corrupt inner-circle, all of which needs to be completely refuted
and overthrown. But that isn't the case, and that isn't how science
works.
z@z
| >Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
| >like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
| >from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
| >are simply wrong.
|
| Because one is subject to correction based on evidence, the other
| is not.
What can be accepted as evidence depends on one's own world view.
The evidence of the existence of a first human couple from which
we all descend seemed overwhelming to most European scientists
(theologians) some centuries ago. The evidence that a single
living organism could have survived by replicating in a hostile
environment of only dead matter is in some respect even more
questionable than the evidence for a first human couple in a
functioning ecosystem.
| >Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
| >proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data).
|
| Huh? Demographic data? You mean like all the new souls that
| must exist now that didn't before now that the world population
| has increased? I thought this sort of "demographic" data cast
| more doubt on reincarnation, not "proved" it. Last I heard the
| apologists had to argue for the reincarnation of animals to
| explain the existance of these "new" souls. What sort of
| evidence could disprove this "proved fact."
Your argument is nothing more than cyclic reasoning. You cannot
disprove reincarnation by "facts" derived from the premises of
the prevailing reductionist world view. There are rather less
than 7 billion human souls and the mean world population may
have been on average two, three or even four billion during
hundreds of thousands of years.
| >So neo-Darwinism is simply wrong, and if we call wrong beliefs
| >of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
|
| Only you are calling "wrong beliefs of the past" religion.
| Newton's celestial mechanics were wrong as a complete theory of
| motion, that doesn't make it religious.
You are right. I should have written: if we call wrong beliefs
concerning the the origin of the univere and of life religion,
neo-Darwinism (in the same way as big-bang-cosmology) must be
called religion.
| "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
| a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Einstein
The problem with this statement is that the results of
experiments are normally not independent of theoretical
premises and interpretations.
For instance the simplest interpretation of some experiments
(e.g. carried out by Heinrich Hertz) show that electrostatic
attraction and repulsion propagate instantanously. Because
this result does not correspond to the dogma, more complicated
interpretations are chosen.
--> 'Hertz' in http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/talkorigins.html
Cheers, Wolfgang
Keith Doyle
>Hello Keith Doyle!
>
>
>| >Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
>| >like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
>| >from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
>| >are simply wrong.
>|
>| Because one is subject to correction based on evidence, the other
>| is not.
>
>What can be accepted as evidence depends on one's own world view.
>The evidence of the existence of a first human couple from which
>we all descend seemed overwhelming to most European scientists
>(theologians) some centuries ago. The evidence that a single
>living organism could have survived by replicating in a hostile
>environment of only dead matter is in some respect even more
>questionable than the evidence for a first human couple in a
>functioning ecosystem.
Seeing of how there exist now bacteria that survive in a "hostile
environment of only dead matter" it hardly seems to me to be
a particularly questionable scenario.
>Your argument is nothing more than cyclic reasoning. You cannot
>disprove reincarnation by "facts" derived from the premises of
>the prevailing reductionist world view.
So then what "facts" would disprove reincarnation?
>| Only you are calling "wrong beliefs of the past" religion.
>| Newton's celestial mechanics were wrong as a complete theory of
>| motion, that doesn't make it religious.
>
>You are right. I should have written: if we call wrong beliefs
>concerning the the origin of the univere and of life religion,
>neo-Darwinism (in the same way as big-bang-cosmology) must be
>called religion.
Big-bang cosmology explains the evidence in such a way that
can be contradicted by the discovery of conflicting evidence.
In fact, current big-bang theory has been modified over time
as new evidence has been discovered-- a hallmark of good
science. I'm not aware of any other explanation that ties
together things like background radiation and the expansion
of the universe that is subject to disproof by newfound evidence.
Neo-Darwinism is also in the category. What modifications has
the "proof" of reincarnation undergone upon the discovery of
new evidence?
>| "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
>| a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Einstein
>
>The problem with this statement is that the results of
>experiments are normally not independent of theoretical
>premises and interpretations.
The results of experiments produce facts in the form of
data. The interpretation of such facts is often done in
the context of specific theoretical premises, but that does
not mean that there is no evidence that can be found that
would contradict those theoretical premises, and in fact
many scientists understand they could make their careers
if they could identify evidence contradicting the current
popular theories in favor of some new theory that would
make them famous.
>For instance the simplest interpretation of some experiments
>(e.g. carried out by Heinrich Hertz) show that electrostatic
>attraction and repulsion propagate instantanously. Because
>this result does not correspond to the dogma, more complicated
>interpretations are chosen.
There you go, sounds like a potential career opportunity for
some enterprising scientists. If there's some additional anomalous
data out there that would support Hertz' original findings over the
current paradigm, there's big bucks in it for someone.
--
Keith Doyle
(remove underbars in reply address for E-mail)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'"
-- Isaac Asimov
Avital Pilpel
So does religion; if there was no life, nobody could have written the bible,
the virgin mary would never have given birth to Jesus, etc...
Since you apparently proved, by your attack on abiogenesis, that life does
not exist, you just proved Christianity is wrong.
Avital Pilpel
> that God created the earth and that all persons descended from
> Adam.
So what? During that time it was also considered a fact that witches exist
and must be burned, that the devil is the cause of disease, that astrology
rules people's lives, and that the earth is the center of the universe. They
were wrong as well.
> Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
> like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
> from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
> are simply wrong.
They are not both wrong.
The first one has as evidence the entire fossil record, the fact that DNA is
the genetic material of all life-forms, and the agreement with the rest of
science to support it.
The other has merely an old, seif-contradictory fable (known as the first
two chapters of Genesis) to support it; that fable also contradicts just
about anything we know about the age of the universe and the earth, the
shape of the universe (the universe is *not* a flat circle of the earth with
a half-sphere of the firament above it, as Genesis claims), and so on.
That is why it is very likely the first one is correct, and the second
merely a fable.
> Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
> proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data).
Utter nonsense. Incidentally, if it *was* so, then christian theology would
have been *definitely* wrong...
z@z
| >What can be accepted as evidence depends on one's own world view.
| >The evidence of the existence of a first human couple from which
| >we all descend seemed overwhelming to most European scientists
| >(theologians) some centuries ago. The evidence that a single
| >living organism could have survived by replicating in a hostile
| >environment of only dead matter is in some respect even more
| >questionable than the evidence for a first human couple in a
| >functioning ecosystem.
|
| Seeing of how there exist now bacteria that survive in a "hostile
| environment of only dead matter" it hardly seems to me to be
| a particularly questionable scenario.
Simple bacteria turned out to be (almost) as complex as Darwin
and his contemporaries thought animals and plants are. One must
not forget that the complexity of life was once considered so low
that even spontanous generation of simple macroscopic organisms
seemed reasonable.
Autotroph bacteria must be able to carry out a huge number
of different tasks in order to build up functioning copies of
themselves. The spontaneous generation of one autotroph first
progenote based on the chemistry of modern bacteria (amino
acids, nucleotides, etc.) or on a related one is virtually
zero. There must have been some kind of a continuous emergence
of a 'primitive ecosystem' which provided 'food' and made
possible innumerous attempts for the creation of more and more
autonomous cells by enzymes, ribozymes and other molecules.
One can compare the formation of cells by enzymes with
the formation of complex cities by humans. There never has
existed a first city all other cities derive from. There
has been a lot of horizontal technological transfer between
villages and cities (of different cultures).
| What modifications has the "proof" of reincarnation undergone
| upon the discovery of new evidence?
All new (especially demographic) evidence I have encountered is
in favour of reincarnation. That is expected if reincarnation
is a fact. On the other hand, look at the predictions made by
Malthusian demography. The predictions made only a few years ago
have already been completely refuted by reality. The world
population is still below 6 billion.
If the current UN predictions became reality, reincarnation
as conceived by the psychon theory would be refuted. The psychon
theory is a theory with a strong predictive power, therefore
it is easily testable (much easier than neo-Darwinism which
according to Joe Potter explains all and nothing at the same
time).
If cloning will work as expected then the psychon theory is
also refuted. There are lots of other predictions, ranging
from birth and fertility rates to a new method to fight
pests:
"On the one hand the pests are fighted where they are harmful,
and on the other hand they are breeded to saturation in places
where they don't do any harm."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html
| The results of experiments produce facts in the form of
| data. The interpretation of such facts is often done in
| the context of specific theoretical premises, but that does
| not mean that there is no evidence that can be found that
| would contradict those theoretical premises, and in fact
| many scientists understand they could make their careers
| if they could identify evidence contradicting the current
| popular theories in favor of some new theory that would
| make them famous.
That's certainly not true. Look at the history of science.
New findings refuting beloved principles of orthodoxy were
genereally fought. Do you think that e.g. Kepler could have
published his theory of planetary motion in a peer reviewed
journal. Heliocentrism (even in the traditional form of
Aristarchus and Copericus) seemed as absurd as reincarnation
seems to most contemporary scientists.
Cheers, Wolfgang
Panpsychism, evolution, reincarnation:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
Avital Pilpel
>
> Yeah, sure it does. It's Darwinism, updated with all kinds of things which
God,
> Souls or Morality.
A better name is the theory of evolution.
Creationists like to call it "the philosophy of neo-darwinism" in order to
make people think it is just an untestable, unverified "philosophy" (wrong)
that is followed blindly by people just becasue Darwin said it (also wrong).
David Johnston
> | The results of experiments produce facts in the form of
> | data. The interpretation of such facts is often done in
> | the context of specific theoretical premises, but that does
> | not mean that there is no evidence that can be found that
> | would contradict those theoretical premises, and in fact
> | many scientists understand they could make their careers
> | if they could identify evidence contradicting the current
> | popular theories in favor of some new theory that would
> | make them famous.
>
> That's certainly not true. Look at the history of science.
> New findings refuting beloved principles of orthodoxy were
> genereally fought. Do you think that e.g. Kepler could have
> published his theory of planetary motion in a peer reviewed
> journal. Heliocentrism (even in the traditional form of
> Aristarchus and Copericus) seemed as absurd as reincarnation
> seems to most contemporary scientists.
What you say does not refute what you are responding to.
lmu...@my-deja.com
Wolfgang,
There really is no need for a reincarnation theory to explain the
decrease in fertility in industrialised countries when a more prosaic
explanation is availiable. It's called demographic transition theory.
It says basically that contrary to Malthus, people can and do control
their fertility. And as the transition to industrial society occurs
people will choose to limit their fertility because large families
become unnecessary because:
a)The decrease in mortality of children means the bearing of many babies
is no longer necessary to insure to continuance of a family and,
b) children in cities become an economic burden, rather than an asset
as they are on farms.
>
> If the current UN predictions became reality, reincarnation
> as conceived by the psychon theory would be refuted. The psychon
> theory is a theory with a strong predictive power, therefore
> it is easily testable (much easier than neo-Darwinism which
> according to Joe Potter explains all and nothing at the same
> time).
>
> If cloning will work as expected then the psychon theory is
> also refuted. There are lots of other predictions, ranging
> from birth and fertility rates to a new method to fight
> pests:
>
> "On the one hand the pests are fighted where they are harmful,
> and on the other hand they are breeded to saturation in places
> where they don't do any harm."
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html
>
> Cheers, Wolfgang
>
> Panpsychism, evolution, reincarnation:
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Keith Doyle
>Hello Keith Doyle!
>
>
>| >What can be accepted as evidence depends on one's own world view.
>| >The evidence of the existence of a first human couple from which
>| >we all descend seemed overwhelming to most European scientists
>| >(theologians) some centuries ago. The evidence that a single
>| >living organism could have survived by replicating in a hostile
>| >environment of only dead matter is in some respect even more
>| >questionable than the evidence for a first human couple in a
>| >functioning ecosystem.
>|
>| Seeing of how there exist now bacteria that survive in a "hostile
>| environment of only dead matter" it hardly seems to me to be
>| a particularly questionable scenario.
>
>Simple bacteria turned out to be (almost) as complex as Darwin
>and his contemporaries thought animals and plants are. One must
>not forget that the complexity of life was once considered so low
>that even spontanous generation of simple macroscopic organisms
>seemed reasonable.
How complex it may be has nothing to do with "surviving in a
hostile environment of only dead matter" which was the point
I was responding to.
Your assertion that the first replicator must be a cellular organism
is clearly bogus. And your assertion here that the complexity of
bacteria is required is not supported by any evidence you have
provided. Therefore improbability arguments are similarly unsupported
for at least that reason.
>One can compare the formation of cells by enzymes with
>the formation of complex cities by humans. There never has
>existed a first city all other cities derive from. There
>has been a lot of horizontal technological transfer between
>villages and cities (of different cultures).
Interesting you should use such a metaphor, which strikes me
as a reasonable metaphor for the evolutionary derivation of
cities from villages.
>| The results of experiments produce facts in the form of
>| data. The interpretation of such facts is often done in
>| the context of specific theoretical premises, but that does
>| not mean that there is no evidence that can be found that
>| would contradict those theoretical premises, and in fact
>| many scientists understand they could make their careers
>| if they could identify evidence contradicting the current
>| popular theories in favor of some new theory that would
>| make them famous.
>
>That's certainly not true. Look at the history of science.
>New findings refuting beloved principles of orthodoxy were
>genereally fought. Do you think that e.g. Kepler could have
>published his theory of planetary motion in a peer reviewed
>journal. Heliocentrism (even in the traditional form of
>Aristarchus and Copericus) seemed as absurd as reincarnation
>seems to most contemporary scientists.
The fact that ultimately Kepler's findings were accepted by the
scientific community illustrates my point. I never said new
findings aren't fought.
Ken Cox
> This statement has been critized several times in this thread, e.g.
> in the typical 'evolutionist' way: "Who's been telling you these
> lies?" [Ken Cox]
I'm still interested in the answer to that question. Or did you
make all this up by yourself?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Colin R. Day
>
> What can be accepted as evidence depends on one's own world view.
But if one's world view is wrong, then one's acceptance or
nonacceptance of evidence may be epistemologically unjustified.
>
> The evidence of the existence of a first human couple from which
> we all descend seemed overwhelming to most European scientists
> (theologians) some centuries ago.
What evidence?
> The evidence that a single
> living organism could have survived by replicating in a hostile
> environment of only dead matter is in some respect even more
> questionable than the evidence for a first human couple in a
> functioning ecosystem.
>
Questionable to whom?
> | explain the existance of these "new" souls. What sort of
> | evidence could disprove this "proved fact."
>
> Your argument is nothing more than cyclic reasoning. You cannot
> disprove reincarnation by "facts" derived from the premises of
> the prevailing reductionist world view. There are rather less
> than 7 billion human souls
In the Christian sense of soul, there are rather less than one soul.
But how would you know how many souls there were?
> and the mean world population may
> have been on average two, three or even four billion during
> hundreds of thousands of years.
>
Unlikely. What would they have used for food.
>
> | >So neo-Darwinism is simply wrong, and if we call wrong beliefs
> | >of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
> |
> | Only you are calling "wrong beliefs of the past" religion.
> | Newton's celestial mechanics were wrong as a complete theory of
> | motion, that doesn't make it religious.
>
> You are right. I should have written: if we call wrong beliefs
> concerning the the origin of the univere and of life religion,
> neo-Darwinism (in the same way as big-bang-cosmology) must be
> called religion.
>
It may depend on how the beliefs were formed.
>
> | "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
> | a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Einstein
>
> The problem with this statement is that the results of
> experiments are normally not independent of theoretical
> premises and interpretations.
>
> For instance the simplest interpretation of some experiments
> (e.g. carried out by Heinrich Hertz) show that electrostatic
> attraction and repulsion propagate instantanously. Because
> this result does not correspond to the dogma, more complicated
> interpretations are chosen.
>
> --> 'Hertz' in http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/talkorigins.html
>
> Cheers, Wolfgang
--
Colin R. Day cd...@ix.netcom.com alt.atheist #1500
What Linux and atheism have in common, that which their
advocates most energetically embrace and their detractors
most vociferously vilify, is that they both encourage
an independent view of the world.
Franclim Ribeiro
imperfections. Adam's descent would have inherited so many different genes
one would expect some of them to be positive according to the environment at
that time. And those positive mutations would have been selected, and they
would probably give origin to better control mechanisms that would
eventually give rise to new species...
You (z&z) have a problem against science, and you solve it by attacking one
of science's greatest achievements - the evolution theory. But you´re using
a false method based on logic. Logicall arguments can prove virtually
everything - I mean, you can say if A happened, then B came along, then C
derived from B. So if A doesn't happen, C doesn´t exist. -
But true logic must be based upon true facts, or it will be meaningless.
In the e.g. given, picture A as the first living organism, B as evolution,
and C as todays' species. Evolutionists' reasoning starts at A: life
appears, evolution occurs, diversity follows.
You distorted the meaning of A, and followed to a conclusion that refutes B
and C. The problem is B and C are existing facts. Or maybe I shouldn't use
the word facts: B and C exist today, we can "look" at them, see they exist.
It doesn't matter that you can logically discard them from the beggining-
they are real today.
You have been toying with words in order to prove impossible something that
does exist. Try throwing in some hard facts next time.
Kevin Delgado
> Hi Loren!
>
> | > It [neo-Darwinism] is also a philosophical or religious system,
> | > based on principles such as: no finalism, no souls, no God, ...
None of the principals of evolution mention god or souls. Isn't there a
commandment about lying?
> This statement has been critized several times in this thread, e.g.
> in the typical 'evolutionist' way: "Who's been telling you these
> lies?" [Ken Cox]
>
> There is no science without philosophical or religious premises.
> Only those who aren't conscious of such premises can think that
> science only depends on empirical facts.
Sure, scientists view observable facts through their own biased eyes,
that's just a simple part of being a thinking being. Good science tries
to minimize the biases so that the most objective evaluation of the
facts is used to come to the conclusion. Neo Darwinism (what the hell
is that anyway, is it some kind of goofy creationist lingo for
evolution?) isn't a religion. And just what sciences are you talking
about that have religious premises. The only one I can think of is
creationism, and it's not really a science.
> And one must not forget that not too long ago, it was a fact
> that God created the earth and that all persons descended from
> Adam.
Damned glad that's changed!
> Kepler for instance took into consideration that God
> created our planetary system when trying to explain it. If God
> exists or existed, then it is or would be a scientific statement
> which has to be taken into account when trying to understand
> nature.
Fortunately god doesn't exist so it doesn't have to be a one of the
assumptions required to understand nature. Kepler may have believed (I
would have said I was a believer back then too), but that has nothing to
do with whether or not the earth revolves around the sun or Keplers data
showing such.
> Why should the claim that all humans descend from a bacteria-
> like Adam be scientific and the claim that all humans descend
> from a human Adam be a religious statement, if both statements
> are simply wrong.
Because there is a preponderance of evidence that humans evolved that
way, although I'm sure there weren't any bacteria named Adam. If any
actual evidence came up proving otherwise, evolutionary theory would be
ammended - that's the nature of science. The human Adam doesn't have
any reality outside of a mythos created a few thousand years ago by some
bronze age semi-literate shepherds. When evidence came up that the
mythos was just that, believers made up a bunch of lame, unscientific
and often irrational excuses to "disprove" the evidence so it wouldn't
show them to be the supernaturalist boobs they are. That's the nature
of religion.
> Reincarnation for instance is an easily provable and even
> proved fact (by the reliable part of demographic data).
What the hell are you talking about? Surely you don't believe this as
well? What about numerology and astrology? And how would you go about
proving reincarnation. Wouldn't you have to kill somebody? How would
you find the body that the soul moved into? It would be a newborn so
you couldn't ask it.
> So neo-Darwinism is simply wrong, and if we call wrong beliefs
> of the past religion, neo-Darwinism must be called a religion.
But you didn't prove neo-darwinism (if you're talking about evolution)
is wrong, you've only proved you are wrong.
> | No, you are conflating evolutionary ideas with a strong
> | materialist-naturalist ontology. This linkage needs to be
> | demonstrated, not merely asserted.
>
> Neo-Darwinism explicitely rules out any relevance of non-
> reductionist principles or entities to the evolution of life.
> But according to Ockham's razor, entities (e.g. souls) or
> principles (e.g. ontological purposefulness) having no effect
> at all are superflous and should be eliminated.
>
> It is at least inconsistent (maybe even dishonest) to claim on
> the one hand that neo-Darwinism has nothing to say about "God,
> Souls or Morality" [M.Cooper in this thread] and to postulate
> on the other hand that such entities or principles have no
> influence at all on the evolution of the world.
Evolution has nothing to say about God or souls. Period. They aren't
necessary to the theory. Period. A belief in the christian god surely
has had an effect on the evolution of societies in this world, but so
has a belief in Zeus and Shiva. That's part of social anthropology, not
evolutionary biology.
> Why does nobody comment on the part constituting the actual
> "knockout blow to Darwinism"?
No such "knockout blow" animal exists, and I don't expect one to evolve
any time soon. The traits required result in too low of a fitness value
(too stupid to advance or even sustain itself, overly agressive while
being blind to the world, and just plain ugly)
> Cheers, Wolfgang
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#epistemology