What evidence would McCoy/MurphyInOhio/Glenn/Pagano/David Horn etc accept?
Louis
biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
title,
What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
synthesis of evolutionary biology?
This question encompasses all of "microevolution" and
"macroevolution", and assumes an "original" replicating system which
has then subsequently evolved as described in the modern synthesis. It
is expressedly NOT the contention of the question to deal with
abiogenesis/very early protocells etc, these will be dealt with later.
Oh and please don't muck around with word games, it is blatantly
obvious what I am asking, let's make this short and painless.
Thanks in advance
Louis
P.S. The reason I ask this question is that whenever I read this group
I find that the standard flow runs somthing like this:
Evolution opponent (EO): Such and such an argument proves bibical
creation/ID/pixies did it.
Evolution proponent (EP): Such and such an argument has been refuted
many times and is demonstrably wrong, see ref X
EO: Ah, but AIG/ICR/Hovind/Gastrich/L Ron Hubbard/pixies said this:
regurgitation of above argument in different form or total change of
topic.
EP: That's the same argument, and has been refuted here, see ref Y.
Or, that's a total change of topic, and even if it were relevant
(which it ain't) here is a refutation of that falsehood/fallacy, see
ref Z.
EO: Repetition of above argument or claim of censorship/percsecution
or avoidance of issue.
EP: You're a fucking idiot
EO: Aha, that's not a good argument/moderator he's being mean/no
you're a fucking idiot etc
My question is aimed at avoiding this standard idiocy (on who's part I
don't say!) by asking what you would like to see. What would seal the
deal for you. Doubtless this has been tried before, and doubtless it
hasn't worked, but I am feeling hopeful tonight so play along boys eh?
Paul Jones
> What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> synthesis of evolutionary biology?
No coherently-framed, logically-impeccable, evidence-based argument for
the evolution of the species can prove that the world was not created.
Similarly, no amount of evidence of god-creator (even the appearance of
the angel Gabriel complete with cherubs and hallelujah choruses) can
prove the existence of a god nor the fact of a creation event.
No amount of empirical evidence can swing the argument decisively one
way or the other.
One theory is scientifically useful, the other is not. That's as good as
you are going to get.
Take care,
Paul
Geoff
news:2i6o8gF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Louis wrote:
>
> > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> No coherently-framed, logically-impeccable, evidence-based argument for
> the evolution of the species can prove that the world was not created.
>
> Similarly, no amount of evidence of god-creator (even the appearance of
> the angel Gabriel complete with cherubs and hallelujah choruses) can
> prove the existence of a god nor the fact of a creation event.
>
> No amount of empirical evidence can swing the argument decisively one
> way or the other.
Well since all the empirical evidence points to one side (sorry, haven't
heard from Gabriel in over 2 millenia), the argument is over for any
rational person. The problem at hand is that so many people, especially
Americans of late, are increasingly irrational.
chmc
"Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Mdrvc.37518$js4.10961@attbi_s51...
> "Paul Jones" <jones...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> news:2i6o8gF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > Louis wrote:
> >
> > > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
> >
> > No coherently-framed, logically-impeccable, evidence-based argument for
> > the evolution of the species can prove that the world was not created.
> >
> > Similarly, no amount of evidence of god-creator (even the appearance of
> > the angel Gabriel complete with cherubs and hallelujah choruses) can
> > prove the existence of a god nor the fact of a creation event.
> >
this statement. I think it would be easy to have enough evidence of a
god-creator to prove his/her/it's existance for the sake of most people.
The reason why the appearance of the angel Gabriel complete with cherubs
and hallelujah choruses would not convince everyone is that God has been
hiding too long. If God lived down the street and said hello to people on a
regular basis, no one would doubt him.
Paul Jones
> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> Since the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt," I have to disagree with
> this statement. I think it would be easy to have enough evidence of a
> god-creator to prove his/her/it's existance for the sake of most people.
>
> The reason why the appearance of the angel Gabriel complete with cherubs
> and hallelujah choruses would not convince everyone is that God has been
> hiding too long. If God lived down the street and said hello to people on a
> regular basis, no one would doubt him.
Hah, yes, very good!
But I would be looking behind the screen to try and work out how it was
done. Remember, everybody was happy with Newton's laws for a long time.
Now everyone accepts that they are only approximations.
Take care,
Paul
T Pagano
(Louis) wrote:
>To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
>biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
>title,
>
>What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
>reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
>developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
>described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
>synthesis of evolutionary biology?
Pagano replies:
This question of Louis's presposes a false understanding of science.
That is, Louis seems to be under the mistaken notion that scientists
are in the business of gathering evidence and once some level of
corroborative evidence has been amassed the theory is proved. But
this ain't so.
Since every false theory in the history of science has true
consequences and has garnered solid, reliable evidence but was
nonetheless falsified how would we know when we had enough "solid,
reliable" evidence? Louis doesn't say. Newton's theory was one of
the most corroborated theories of all time yet it was nonetheless
falsified and superceded by Einstein's. Einstein's theory was not a
trivial deduction from Newton's but a new novel theory.
As a result how much corroborative, solid, reliable evidence would
guarrantee the truth of neoDarwinism? I know Louis doesn't know the
answer to that question since smarter men than he and I throughout
history have been unable to answer.
>This question encompasses all of "microevolution" and
>"macroevolution", and assumes an "original" replicating system which
>has then subsequently evolved as described in the modern synthesis. It
>is expressedly NOT the contention of the question to deal with
>abiogenesis/very early protocells etc, these will be dealt with later.
>Oh and please don't muck around with word games, it is blatantly
>obvious what I am asking, let's make this short and painless.
Pagano replies:
Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
Opponent yet he sees nothing wrong with wishing abiogenesis into
existence. It is one thing to substitute a "black box" in place of
unknowns which are untestable and then to conjoin the black box to the
rest of the theory which is testable. Unfortunately for Louis
abiogensis has been all too testable. Our best science and our
background knowledge stand against every single possibility presented.
This is a very strong indication that abiogenesis DID NOT occur and
without this starting point it is irrelevent whether or not
microevolution or macroevolution are possible.
Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
Opponent yet again he sees nothing wrong with wishing into existence
the cell machinery for replication, transcription and protein
manufacture which is one of the most complicated machines on the face
of the earth. Again the modern secular models don't have a clue how
to begin in the absense of this highly complicated machine.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
WHAT WOULD BE A STRONG BEGINNING
About the best I can do is point out a few of the serious problems
that might suggest observations that would be helpful:
1. The abject failure of abiogenesis.
2. The failure to find any evidence of the majory transitions
explained by the neoDarwinian evolutionary framework (i.e. the
transition from prebiotic self-replicating molecule to cell)
3. The failure ot adequately explain the Cambrian Explosion.
4. The failure to find a single unambigous transitional fossil form
in a voluminous fossil record that is considered an adequate sampling
of biological history by a growing number of paleontologists. By
Transitional form it is meant a fossil structure which is evidence of
a nascent structure. That is, a structure which is evidence of a
novel, emerging structure not found previously in the fossil record.
5. The failure to explain the two undeniable characteristics of the
fossil record which contradict the neoDarwinian assertion that
biological history was one of ubiquitous change: STASIS AND SUDDEN
APPEARANCE.
6. Not only is STASIS the characteristic of the fossil record but the
characteristic of the living world as well. There is no evidence
whatsoever of biological transformational change. That is, there is
no change outside of what already exists within the population.
7. While geneticists can show that random mutations occur they only
occur with greatest frequence in only certain loci not all loci. They
know that all of the genetic mechanisms are highly precise and
conservative not revolutionary. There has never been found any
genetic mechanisms for progressively integrating new information into
the genome to generate novelty and explain diversity.
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>Louis
>
>P.S. The reason I ask this question is that whenever I read this group
>I find that the standard flow runs somthing like this:
>
>Evolution opponent (EO): Such and such an argument proves bibical
>creation/ID/pixies did it.
>
>Evolution proponent (EP): Such and such an argument has been refuted
>many times and is demonstrably wrong, see ref X
>
>EO: Ah, but AIG/ICR/Hovind/Gastrich/L Ron Hubbard/pixies said this:
>regurgitation of above argument in different form or total change of
>topic.
>
>EP: That's the same argument, and has been refuted here, see ref Y.
>Or, that's a total change of topic, and even if it were relevant
>(which it ain't) here is a refutation of that falsehood/fallacy, see
>ref Z.
>
>EO: Repetition of above argument or claim of censorship/percsecution
>or avoidance of issue.
>
>EP: You're a fucking idiot
>
>EO: Aha, that's not a good argument/moderator he's being mean/no
>you're a fucking idiot etc
>
>
>My question is aimed at avoiding this standard idiocy (on who's part I
>don't say!) by asking what you would like to see. What would seal the
>deal for you. Doubtless this has been tried before, and doubtless it
>hasn't worked, but I am feeling hopeful tonight so play along boys eh?
Pagano replies:
Again, this demonstrates an ignorance of science. Except in the most
trivial of theories no single piece of evidence will ever tell us that
a theory is true or even probably true, but....
If we were able to directly observe transformational change in the
living world; that is if we were to observe the emergence of some new
novel structure or system within some population that was not known
before then this would be a good start...
Regards,
T Pagano
Zachriel
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:knusb0t8j5aa7lnjj...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:12:35 +0000 (UTC), thethi...@hotmail.com
> (Louis) wrote:
>
> >To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> >biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> >title,
> >
> >What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> >reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> >developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> >described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> >synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> Pagano replies:
> This question of Louis's presposes a false understanding of science.
In other words, you will simply avoid the question by redefining science,
and no quantity or quality of evidence will convince you.
> That is, Louis seems to be under the mistaken notion that scientists
> are in the business of gathering evidence
Then Louis would be correct on this point.
> and once some level of
> corroborative evidence has been amassed the theory is proved. But
> this ain't so.
Science doesn't deal in any notion of absolute truth. Science works by an
inductive process called the scientific method: hypothesis, prediction,
observation, validation, repeat. If an assertion is to be called
"scientific," it must--by definition--be validated by the scientific method.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
> Since every false theory in the history of science has true
> consequences and has garnered solid, reliable evidence but was
> nonetheless falsified how would we know when we had enough "solid,
> reliable" evidence? Louis doesn't say.
And I note that neither do you, even though that is the thrust of the thread
directed at you. It's clear that no quantity or quality of evidence would
convince you.
Newton's theory was one of
> the most corroborated theories of all time yet it was nonetheless
> falsified
Newton's Theories was not absolutely falsified, but its domain was limited
in terms of mass, acceleration, velocity and scale. Newton's Theories are
still being taught both in pure and applied physics.
> and superceded by Einstein's. Einstein's theory was not a
> trivial deduction from Newton's but a new novel theory.
>
> As a result how much corroborative, solid, reliable evidence would
> guarrantee the truth of neoDarwinism?
There is no scientific theory that can "guarrantee [sic] the truth".
Scientific theories are always provisional. However, scientists have plenty
of "corroborative, solid, reliable evidence" in support of the Theory of
Evolution. Importantly, the Theory of Evolution makes valid predictions in
many different fields of science from biochemistry to genetics to the
placement of fossils in rocks.
> I know Louis doesn't know the
> answer to that question since smarter men than he and I throughout
> history have been unable to answer.
You're wrong. That question has been answered. There is no scientific theory
that can "guarrantee [sic] the truth". In any case, it's apparent that no
quantity or quality of evidence would convince you.
> >This question encompasses all of "microevolution" and
> >"macroevolution", and assumes an "original" replicating system which
> >has then subsequently evolved as described in the modern synthesis. It
> >is expressedly NOT the contention of the question to deal with
> >abiogenesis/very early protocells etc, these will be dealt with later.
> >Oh and please don't muck around with word games, it is blatantly
> >obvious what I am asking, let's make this short and painless.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
> Opponent yet he sees nothing wrong with wishing abiogenesis into
> existence. It is one thing to substitute a "black box" in place of
> unknowns which are untestable and then to conjoin the black box to the
> rest of the theory which is testable. Unfortunately for Louis
> abiogensis has been all too testable. Our best science and our
> background knowledge stand against every single possibility presented.
> This is a very strong indication that abiogenesis DID NOT occur and
> without this starting point it is irrelevent whether or not
> microevolution or macroevolution are possible.
This is also false and a strawman argument. However, you have already
indicated that the actual evidence is irrelevant.
> Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
> Opponent yet again he sees nothing wrong with wishing into existence
> the cell machinery for replication, transcription and protein
> manufacture which is one of the most complicated machines on the face
> of the earth. Again the modern secular models don't have a clue how
> to begin in the absense of this highly complicated machine.
The subject of abiogenesis is not relevant to the validity of the Theory of
Evolution. Whether life started as a natural property of carbon and water,
was a hugely improbable accident, was seeded by aliens or a passing comet,
or was Specially Created by God, the evidence clearly indicates that life
has evolved and diversified since that time.
But you have already indicated that no amount of evidence would convince
you.
>
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
>
>
>
> WHAT WOULD BE A STRONG BEGINNING
> About the best I can do is point out a few of the serious problems
> that might suggest observations that would be helpful:
>
> 1. The abject failure of abiogenesis.
Irrelevant, but then you have already indicated that the actual evidence is
irrelevant.
> 2. The failure to find any evidence of the majory transitions
> explained by the neoDarwinian evolutionary framework (i.e. the
> transition from prebiotic self-replicating molecule to cell)
Irrelevant, but then you have already indicated that the actual evidence is
irrelevant.
> 3. The failure ot adequately explain the Cambrian Explosion.
The Cambrian Explosion refers to a period of rapid evolution and
diversification, which makes your comment rather ironic. But you have
already indicated that the actual evidence is irrelevant.
> 4. The failure to find a single unambigous transitional fossil form
> in a voluminous fossil record that is considered an adequate sampling
> of biological history by a growing number of paleontologists. By
> Transitional form it is meant a fossil structure which is evidence of
> a nascent structure. That is, a structure which is evidence of a
> novel, emerging structure not found previously in the fossil record.
This is simply false, as anyone can see by examining a fossil of
Archaeopteryx or Australopithecus afarensis. In any case, you have already
indicated that the actual evidence is irrelevant.
> 5. The failure to explain the two undeniable characteristics of the
> fossil record which contradict the neoDarwinian assertion that
> biological history was one of ubiquitous change: STASIS AND SUDDEN
> APPEARANCE.
Even a cursory look at the fossil record indicates that your statement is a
mischaracterization. Why do you bother, though? You have already indicated
that the actual evidence is irrelevant.
> 6. Not only is STASIS the characteristic of the fossil record but the
> characteristic of the living world as well. There is no evidence
> whatsoever of biological transformational change. That is, there is
> no change outside of what already exists within the population.
Evolution is directly observed to occur in living populations. However, you
have already indicated that the actual evidence is irrelevant.
> 7. While geneticists can show that random mutations occur they only
> occur with greatest frequence in only certain loci not all loci. They
> know that all of the genetic mechanisms are highly precise and
> conservative not revolutionary. There has never been found any
> genetic mechanisms for progressively integrating new information into
> the genome to generate novelty and explain diversity.
<snip>
None of your points 1-7 are valid unless you are willing to meaningfully
address the scientific evidence. You have already indicated that the actual
evidence is irrelevant, and that no amount of evidence--no matter how
"corroborative, solid, reliable" it might be--will convince you.
Your assertions are plainly non-scientific.
Chris Thompson
news:761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com:
> To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> title,
>
Why on earth are you including Dave Horn with that bunch?
IIRC Dave Horn wrote at least one FAQ for the TO archive.
He is not a creationist by any means.
Chris
--
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
dave e
> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Mdrvc.37518$js4.10961@attbi_s51...
> > "Paul Jones" <jones...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> > news:2i6o8gF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Since the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt," I have to disagree with
> this statement. I think it would be easy to have enough evidence of a
> god-creator to prove his/her/it's existance for the sake of most people.
>
> The reason why the appearance of the angel Gabriel complete with cherubs
> and hallelujah choruses would not convince everyone is that God has been
> hiding too long. If God lived down the street and said hello to people on a
> regular basis, no one would doubt him.
The reason there has not been a recent appearance of Gabriel, or the
cherub choir, is that the particular God associated with those
particular phenomenon simply does not exist.
If you wish to discuss God in metaphorical terms, or a God which is
consistent with empirical evidence, I'm game. Personally I quit using
the name "God" in a metaphorical sense back when I realized that I was
just misleading most other people I talked to about my true beliefs.
Dave.
Chris Thompson
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:12:35 +0000 (UTC), thethi...@hotmail.com
> (Louis) wrote:
>
>>To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
>>biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
>>title,
>>
>>What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
>>reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
>>developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
>>described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
>>synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> Pagano replies:
> This question of Louis's presposes a false understanding of science.
No it does not. I am sure Steven J. or John Wilkins will be able to put
this more eloquently, but...you are wrong, again.
> That is, Louis seems to be under the mistaken notion that scientists
> are in the business of gathering evidence and once some level of
> corroborative evidence has been amassed the theory is proved. But
> this ain't so.
This is a classic strawman Tony. No scientist claims a theory is
proven. It is _supported_ or _disproven_. The phrase in the OP
("...beyond reasonable doubt") **clearly** leaves open the possibility
that against the evidence, a competing idea might win through. The OP
also requested that respondent not mince words- a request you have
ignored.
>
> Since every false theory in the history of science has true
> consequences and has garnered solid, reliable evidence but was
Excellent. Please list the evidence for a flat earth. Phlogiston? The
theory that malaria is transmitted through certain soil types (that was
Linnaeus' dissertation, btw). Feel free to add to this list with any
other disproven theories....but address these first, if you please.
> nonetheless falsified how would we know when we had enough "solid,
> reliable" evidence? Louis doesn't say. Newton's theory was one of
> the most corroborated theories of all time yet it was nonetheless
> falsified and superceded by Einstein's. Einstein's theory was not a
> trivial deduction from Newton's but a new novel theory.
So, F=ma no longer holds?
Did you mean that a body at rest might start moving around- without some
energy being spent somewhere?
Einstein did NOT disprove Newton's theories. He filled in a bunch of
missing gaps that had puzzled physicists for a couple centuries.
>
> As a result how much corroborative, solid, reliable evidence would
> guarrantee the truth of neoDarwinism? I know Louis doesn't know the
> answer to that question since smarter men than he and I throughout
> history have been unable to answer.
We ALL know the answer to that- except you, apparently.
It would take an infinite amount of evidence to guarantee the TROOF (tm)
of any idea (what is neoDarwinism? And why the funky neoCapitilazation?)
This is accepted by everyone except you, Tony- you wouldn't be building
another strawman here, would you?
Address the question, please. It is NOT "How much evidence do you need
to PROVE [evolution]?" It is 'What would it take to get you to accept
evolution?"
But you know this, and you are just backpedaling (towing your goalposts)
as quick as you can.
>>This question encompasses all of "microevolution" and
>>"macroevolution", and assumes an "original" replicating system which
>>has then subsequently evolved as described in the modern synthesis. It
>>is expressedly NOT the contention of the question to deal with
>>abiogenesis/very early protocells etc, these will be dealt with later.
>>Oh and please don't muck around with word games, it is blatantly
>>obvious what I am asking, let's make this short and painless.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
> Opponent yet he sees nothing wrong with wishing abiogenesis into
> existence. It is one thing to substitute a "black box" in place of
> unknowns which are untestable and then to conjoin the black box to the
> rest of the theory which is testable. Unfortunately for Louis
> abiogensis has been all too testable. Our best science and our
> background knowledge stand against every single possibility presented.
> This is a very strong indication that abiogenesis DID NOT occur and
> without this starting point it is irrelevent whether or not
> microevolution or macroevolution are possible.
In the Bible, God made Adam out of dust. That is abiogenesis. By not
accepting abiogenesis, you reject the bible.
And you know full well that evolution requires genes. Genese mean
living things. Deal with it, don't evade. (DOH! Sorry, silly me).
>
> Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
> Opponent yet again he sees nothing wrong with wishing into existence
> the cell machinery for replication, transcription and protein
> manufacture which is one of the most complicated machines on the face
> of the earth. Again the modern secular models don't have a clue how
> to begin in the absense of this highly complicated machine.
Baseless assertions. Take a moment and pick up any modern Biology
textbook. Campbell et al will do nicely.
>
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
>
>
>
> WHAT WOULD BE A STRONG BEGINNING
> About the best I can do is point out a few of the serious problems
> that might suggest observations that would be helpful:
>
> 1. The abject failure of abiogenesis.
So God didn't create life from nonlife?
> 2. The failure to find any evidence of the majory transitions
> explained by the neoDarwinian evolutionary framework (i.e. the
> transition from prebiotic self-replicating molecule to cell)
Bushwah. Look at the Elsberry Challenge (which you failed, miserably)
> 3. The failure ot adequately explain the Cambrian Explosion.
Please be more specific? What's to explain?
> 4. The failure to find a single unambigous transitional fossil form
> in a voluminous fossil record that is considered an adequate sampling
> of biological history by a growing number of paleontologists. By
> Transitional form it is meant a fossil structure which is evidence of
> a nascent structure. That is, a structure which is evidence of a
> novel, emerging structure not found previously in the fossil record.
> 5. The failure to explain the two undeniable characteristics of the
> fossil record which contradict the neoDarwinian assertion that
> biological history was one of ubiquitous change: STASIS AND SUDDEN
> APPEARANCE.
Bushwah. Look at the Elsberry Challenge (which you failed, miserably)
> 6. Not only is STASIS the characteristic of the fossil record but the
> characteristic of the living world as well. There is no evidence
> whatsoever of biological transformational change. That is, there is
> no change outside of what already exists within the population.
Worthy of a Chwz What
> 7. While geneticists can show that random mutations occur they only
> occur with greatest frequence in only certain loci not all loci. They
> know that all of the genetic mechanisms are highly precise and
> conservative not revolutionary. There has never been found any
> genetic mechanisms for progressively integrating new information into
> the genome to generate novelty and explain diversity.
Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but "horseshit".
Two words for you: gene duplication
And what about a brand new species, Tony? Does that count? A species
unable to breed with its predecessor?
Patrick James
(in article <28WdnZDB-9i...@adelphia.com>):
>> Pagano replies:
>> This question of Louis's presposes a false understanding of science.
>
> In other words, you will simply avoid the question by redefining science,
> and no quantity or quality of evidence will convince you.
Got it in one.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
John Vreeland
Ain't gonna happen. For some reason the alternativists you mentioned
seem incapable of incorporating any evidence which refutes their
pre-conceived notions of how the world works. I suspect a mild
pathology. The debates are not useless, however, as lurkers are
always free to make up their own minds.
Jack V
David Jensen
<c9lkva$12ae$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>:
>
>"Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:Mdrvc.37518$js4.10961@attbi_s51...
>> "Paul Jones" <jones...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
>> news:2i6o8gF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> > Louis wrote:
>> >
>> > > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
>> > > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
>> > > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
>> > > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
>> > > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>> >
>> > No coherently-framed, logically-impeccable, evidence-based argument for
>> > the evolution of the species can prove that the world was not created.
>> >
>> > Similarly, no amount of evidence of god-creator (even the appearance of
>> > the angel Gabriel complete with cherubs and hallelujah choruses) can
>> > prove the existence of a god nor the fact of a creation event.
>> >
>Since the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt," I have to disagree with
>this statement. I think it would be easy to have enough evidence of a
>god-creator to prove his/her/it's existance for the sake of most people.
There is no evidence whatsoever. How can that be sufficient?
>The reason why the appearance of the angel Gabriel complete with cherubs
>and hallelujah choruses would not convince everyone is that God has been
>hiding too long. If God lived down the street and said hello to people on a
>regular basis, no one would doubt him.
God: I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help me me.
Jerry: If You're God, how can You permit all the suffering that goes on
in the world?
God: I don't permit the suffering - you do.
Proof that God, er, George Burns could almost make John Denver look like
an actor.
AC
T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>
> Pagano replies:
> This question of Louis's presposes a false understanding of science.
Could you supply your definition of science, including the methodology you
feel would be necessary for it to function?
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Steven J.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:knusb0t8j5aa7lnjj...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:12:35 +0000 (UTC), thethi...@hotmail.com
> (Louis) wrote:
>
> >To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> >biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> >title,
> >
> >What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> >reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> >developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> >described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> >synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> Pagano replies:
> This question of Louis's presposes a false understanding of science.
> That is, Louis seems to be under the mistaken notion that scientists
> are in the business of gathering evidence and once some level of
> corroborative evidence has been amassed the theory is proved. But
> this ain't so.
>
reasonable doubt" (more or less equivalent to "so strongly supported by
evidence that it would be perverse to grant it provisional assent") and
"absolute proof." But let us phrase the question differently: what would be
necessary to convince any of these people, or you, that the modern
evolutionary synthesis was [a] a satisfactory explanation of, and [b] the
best explanation to date of, the data of biology?
>
> Since every false theory in the history of science has true
> consequences and has garnered solid, reliable evidence but was
> nonetheless falsified how would we know when we had enough "solid,
> reliable" evidence? Louis doesn't say. Newton's theory was one of
> the most corroborated theories of all time yet it was nonetheless
> falsified and superceded by Einstein's. Einstein's theory was not a
> trivial deduction from Newton's but a new novel theory.
>
orbits about the Earth, or remove Newton's theories from their status as the
best way of describing the movements of most bodies in the solar system
under most conditions. Newton's theories survived as approximations of a
more general theory provided by Einstein. There are few evolutionists who
doubt that this will happen to the modern synthesis, but this is
incomprehensibly unlikely to eliminate either an old Earth, or common
descent, or natural selection as a major mechanism in common descent, from
explanations of biology.
Others have already asked (not that you have ever answered) what evidence
that did not exist when the theory was produced to explain it was ever
adduced for phlogiston theory, or the "no comma code" theory of the nature
of DNA (called by Steven Jones the "best wrong idea in the history of
science")? What evidence was ever adduced for flood geology (note: "there
are facts that can't be explained by other theories" is not evidence for
some rival theory that can't explain them either)?
>
> As a result how much corroborative, solid, reliable evidence would
> guarrantee the truth of neoDarwinism? I know Louis doesn't know the
> answer to that question since smarter men than he and I throughout
> history have been unable to answer.
>
No possible amount of evidence would "guarantee the truth" of evolutionary
theory. That is why Louis asked what evidence would overcome *reasonable*
doubts that the theory was correct. You presumably accept certain
scientific explanations of certain data as correct; you may note in passing
that your acceptance is provisional and subject to correction, but for the
time being you regard these particular explanations as "facts of science."
What evidence would make you accept evolutionary theory as as sound a
description of reality as, say, relativity or quantum physics?
>
> >This question encompasses all of "microevolution" and
> >"macroevolution", and assumes an "original" replicating system which
> >has then subsequently evolved as described in the modern synthesis. It
> >is expressedly NOT the contention of the question to deal with
> >abiogenesis/very early protocells etc, these will be dealt with later.
> >Oh and please don't muck around with word games, it is blatantly
> >obvious what I am asking, let's make this short and painless.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
> Opponent yet he sees nothing wrong with wishing abiogenesis into
> existence. It is one thing to substitute a "black box" in place of
> unknowns which are untestable and then to conjoin the black box to the
> rest of the theory which is testable. Unfortunately for Louis
> abiogensis has been all too testable. Our best science and our
> background knowledge stand against every single possibility presented.
> This is a very strong indication that abiogenesis DID NOT occur and
> without this starting point it is irrelevent whether or not
> microevolution or macroevolution are possible.
>
Uh, Tony, the rather strong evidence that life exists suggests irresistably
that abiogenesis *did* occur. We don't know the mechanism, but even if that
mechanism were "supernatural," it would not alter the applicability of
evolutionary theory to life once it existed. The "creation model" asserts
abiogenesis (miraculous creation of original "kinds" from the dust of the
earth) and subsequent evolution within "kinds." The modern synthesis
assumes abiogenesis (somehow), with all known life, from bacteria to blue
whales, constituting a single "kind" produced by evolution within that
"kind."
By the bye, "every single possibility tested" is surely a rather tiny subset
of "every single possibility that exists."
>
> Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
> Opponent yet again he sees nothing wrong with wishing into existence
> the cell machinery for replication, transcription and protein
> manufacture which is one of the most complicated machines on the face
> of the earth. Again the modern secular models don't have a clue how
> to begin in the absense of this highly complicated machine.
>
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
>
See above response.
>
> WHAT WOULD BE A STRONG BEGINNING
> About the best I can do is point out a few of the serious problems
> that might suggest observations that would be helpful:
>
> 1. The abject failure of abiogenesis.
> 2. The failure to find any evidence of the majory transitions
> explained by the neoDarwinian evolutionary framework (i.e. the
> transition from prebiotic self-replicating molecule to cell)
>
These are the same thing.
>
> 3. The failure ot adequately explain the Cambrian Explosion.
>
I suspect that your definition of "adequately" would be something along the
lines of "proof not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond unreasonable
doubt." That may, by the nature of things, be a long time coming.
>
> 4. The failure to find a single unambigous transitional fossil form
> in a voluminous fossil record that is considered an adequate sampling
> of biological history by a growing number of paleontologists. By
> Transitional form it is meant a fossil structure which is evidence of
> a nascent structure. That is, a structure which is evidence of a
> novel, emerging structure not found previously in the fossil record.
>
Many fossils with such features have been found, from the nascent wing (a
theropod forelimb with feathers) of _Archaeopteryx_ (or, if that is not
nascent enough, perhaps _Sinosauropteryx_ will serve) to the nascent _rete
mirabile_ in early whales. But of course you will redefine "nascent" ad hoc
until you come up with a definition that no possible set of fossils could
ever meet; you have done so before.
>
> 5. The failure to explain the two undeniable characteristics of the
> fossil record which contradict the neoDarwinian assertion that
> biological history was one of ubiquitous change: STASIS AND SUDDEN
> APPEARANCE.
>
But you do not understand stasis. You define "stasis" as "no novelties" --
no change that produces something that wasn't there before. You can look at
fossils showing gradual change from one species to another -- the very thing
Gould defined "stasis" as not being -- and note that because the final
result is noticeably similar to the starting point, that the entire sequence
displays "stasis." By that standard, of course, the most perfect fossil
record imaginable would be an unbroken display of "stasis," with every
"nascent" structure being obviously a minor modification of some already
existing feature.
Note that "sudden appearance," to paleontologists, generally implies that a
new species (within a "kind") has suddenly replaced an older, very similar
species, with no intermediate steps between them. That is, precisely the
sort of evolution that the "creation model" accepts is very rare in the
fossil record -- implying that a creationist must be able to accept
evolution for which there is little or no fossil evidence.
>
> 6. Not only is STASIS the characteristic of the fossil record but the
> characteristic of the living world as well. There is no evidence
> whatsoever of biological transformational change. That is, there is
> no change outside of what already exists within the population.
>
When did wild poodles roam the earth, Tony?
>
> 7. While geneticists can show that random mutations occur they only
> occur with greatest frequence in only certain loci not all loci. They
> know that all of the genetic mechanisms are highly precise and
> conservative not revolutionary. There has never been found any
> genetic mechanisms for progressively integrating new information into
> the genome to generate novelty and explain diversity.
>
This is simply false.
If evolutionary theory is correct, any such "novelty" would start as a minor
modification (or perhaps duplication or deletion) of some already existing
feature.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
-- Steven J.
Wakboth
> thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in
> news:761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com:
>
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
> >
>
> Why on earth are you including Dave Horn with that bunch?
>
> IIRC Dave Horn wrote at least one FAQ for the TO archive.
>
> He is not a creationist by any means.
>
> Chris
I think he's mixing David Ford and David Horn. It's happened to myself, too.
-- Wakboth
Cubist
> news:761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com:
>
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
>
> Why on earth are you including Dave Horn with that bunch?
> IIRC Dave Horn wrote at least one FAQ for the TO archive.
> He is not a creationist by any means.
J McCoy
> biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> title,
>
> What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> synthesis of evolutionary biology?
There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
world, we would expect the following:
1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
I say this because it has always seemed odd to me, even while I
believed in evolution once upon a time, that there could be large
animals in the past, and small ones now. That doesn't fit the pattern
of evolution, the idea that everything started out less complex yet
evolved in larger more complex animals. Everything should have
started out small and became big.
2. If all the polystrate fossils could disappear all of a sudden I
could believe that strata could be dated by the foot. Polystrate
trees put everything up into the air as far as I'm concerned, and
proves that they were buried far sooner than was previously thought.
3. If the so-called stacked petrified tree forest had all their bark
and roots, maybe I could believe it. Not any more, these so-called
great forests are now known to have been water deposited.
4. More transitions. If Australopithecus is all that current
evolutionists can offer for the so-called man to ape transition, then
the state of evolution is in very sad shape. Which it is.
Anyway, I could add more, but I think it's really obvious that
evolution is now dead.
JM
Louis
Mr Pagano,
Thanks for the almost total lack of understanding. I was not asking
what about the evidenciary nature of science, or what would confirm
any scientific theory as absolutely true, as I am totally aware of the
nature of science and the limits of observation. Your attempted
evasion of the question is noted.
The question I asked is really very simple, what would YOU personally
accept as evidence for the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology.
Presumably, although I am sure you will correct me, you accept all the
evidence for (to use an example of your own) the current understanding
of the theory of gravitation. Therefore you obviously trust the data
and the evidence currently available that supports that theory. I am
asking what data would be required for YOU to trust the modern
synthesis of evolutionary biology. I am expressedly not asking about
the process of science in general, Popperian falsification, Baconian
induction, Kuhnian paradign shifts or even Feyerabend's bloody
irritating postmoderist relativism. This is a very simple question
directed at you (and others) personally to allow me to gain a better
insight into your objections. Nothing more, nothing less. Please
participate in an adult manner.
>
>
> >This question encompasses all of "microevolution" and
> >"macroevolution", and assumes an "original" replicating system which
> >has then subsequently evolved as described in the modern synthesis. It
> >is expressedly NOT the contention of the question to deal with
> >abiogenesis/very early protocells etc, these will be dealt with later.
> >Oh and please don't muck around with word games, it is blatantly
> >obvious what I am asking, let's make this short and painless.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
> Opponent yet he sees nothing wrong with wishing abiogenesis into
> existence. It is one thing to substitute a "black box" in place of
> unknowns which are untestable and then to conjoin the black box to the
> rest of the theory which is testable. Unfortunately for Louis
> abiogensis has been all too testable. Our best science and our
> background knowledge stand against every single possibility presented.
> This is a very strong indication that abiogenesis DID NOT occur and
> without this starting point it is irrelevent whether or not
> microevolution or macroevolution are possible.
Did I not expressedly say that abiogenesis and early protocells etc
were not within the remit of the question. For the purposes of the
question you can assume that god created them ex nihilo, they evolved
chemically, they were put there by aliens, or the pixies did it. It is
irrelevant how the first replicator arose for the purposes of this
question.
Also the reason I put the mildly facecious "pixies did it" into the
mouth of the evolutionary opponent is because of a couple of factors.
In something like 15 years of arguing about evolutionary biology with
a wide variety of opponents, from scientists who prefer ID to
postmodernist artists to bishops to lay people, I have not yet come
across one satisfactory, evidence based scientific argument that did
not simply boil down to one of two things: a precommitment to oppose
evolution on a political or religious basis, or a clear
misunderstanding of the data and science. The second factor is that
most of these arguments do actually boil down to the intellectual
equivalent of the evolutionary opponent invoking some unprovable,
unobserved supernatural phenomenon, i.e. "the pixies did it". The P.S.
part of my post was perhaps unadvised and offensive, but it was also a
reasonably accurate summary of a LOT of crappy arguments I (and
others) get thrown at us.
who simply know nothing about it
>
> Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
> Opponent yet again he sees nothing wrong with wishing into existence
> the cell machinery for replication, transcription and protein
> manufacture which is one of the most complicated machines on the face
> of the earth. Again the modern secular models don't have a clue how
> to begin in the absense of this highly complicated machine.
>
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
>
>
>
> WHAT WOULD BE A STRONG BEGINNING
> About the best I can do is point out a few of the serious problems
> that might suggest observations that would be helpful:
>
> 1. The abject failure of abiogenesis.
Irrelevant to the question, see above.
> 2. The failure to find any evidence of the majory transitions
> explained by the neoDarwinian evolutionary framework (i.e. the
> transition from prebiotic self-replicating molecule to cell)
The origins of the first replicator and protocells were expressedly
outside the remit of the question, can't you read? This is also simply
not true in the case of fossils at least, look at the available data.
Presumably this is a piece of evidence that WOULD convince you? I.e.
if such transitions were shown to exist that would aid your acceptance
of the modern synthesis somewhat.
> 3. The failure ot adequately explain the Cambrian Explosion.
The word adequately is an interesting one. As far as I am aware there
is a reasonable set of explanations available for the Cambrian
explosion, but none of them are 100% certain. I personally accept the
explanations as reasonable but not 100% certain due to the evidence
available.
> 4. The failure to find a single unambigous transitional fossil form
> in a voluminous fossil record that is considered an adequate sampling
> of biological history by a growing number of paleontologists. By
> Transitional form it is meant a fossil structure which is evidence of
> a nascent structure. That is, a structure which is evidence of a
> novel, emerging structure not found previously in the fossil record.
Simply false. Many unambiguous transitionary fossils have been found,
whether you personally find the ambiguous or not is irrelevant.
Perhaps you would like to detail precisely what characteristics you
think a proper, unambiguous transitionary fossil should have.
> 5. The failure to explain the two undeniable characteristics of the
> fossil record which contradict the neoDarwinian assertion that
> biological history was one of ubiquitous change: STASIS AND SUDDEN
> APPEARANCE.
I think you will find that stasis and sudden appearence are both well
explained. Ubiquitous change is indeed a facet of evolutionary
biology, but here again you show your lack of understanding of
evolutionary biology and the nice words you want to use. Ubiquitous
change does not imply a constant rate of change, nor does it imply a
certain number of fossilisation events. Try again!
> 6. Not only is STASIS the characteristic of the fossil record but the
> characteristic of the living world as well. There is no evidence
> whatsoever of biological transformational change. That is, there is
> no change outside of what already exists within the population.
ARGH! This is simply ludicrous! No change outside what already exists
in the population???? Do you simply not read the biological
literature? No evidence of transitional change???? I am beginning to
get the impression you haven't go the first clue about what you are
talking about. Stasis is very easy to explain in one line: no
evolutionary pressure to change=no change! Do I really need to
elaborate on this for you?
> 7. While geneticists can show that random mutations occur they only
> occur with greatest frequence in only certain loci not all loci. They
> know that all of the genetic mechanisms are highly precise and
> conservative not revolutionary. There has never been found any
> genetic mechanisms for progressively integrating new information into
> the genome to generate novelty and explain diversity.
Ah the information challenge! May I refer you to Professor Richard
Dawkins on this one, he explains it better than I can. Read "A Devil's
Chaplain", it is an illuminating tome and the information explanation
within is easily accessible to the non technically minded person. BTW
again you are wrong here, increase/decrease in genomic information is
regularly observed, simple molecular biology proves you wrong, as any
sixth form school student of biology should know: additions and
deletions from the genes (of bases, codons, whole genes, parts of
genes, chromasomes etc etc) occur with relative ease, the perfection
of the "copying machinery" of the cell you claim simply isn't true,
it's very good, but it isn't perfect.
How about you do what is asked and give what you personally consider
to be suitable positive evidences that would convince you personally.
Get it yet?
I knew I was opening a potential can of worm even talking to you Mr
Pagano, your simple lack of understanding of the plain written word is
astonishing. I fully understand the processes and nature of science, I
really have no need to justify myself beyond that statement, mainly
due to its irrelevance to my question. The question is simply this:
presumably there are scientific theories you accept as being as close
to the truth as it is possible to be (we can after all never be 100%
certain), I would also assume that you accept these scientific
theories on their evidenciary merit. I am asking what evidence YOU
PERSONALLY would accept as sufficient for you to accept the modern
synthesis of evolutionary biology. I also expressly allowed that the
origins of the original replicating system (which lies outside the
remit of evolutionary biology anyway) to be ambiguous to avoid any
complications on your part with abiogenesis.
Paul Jones
> thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
>>developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
>>described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
>>synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
> me to even consider it.
I suspect your mind is already made up and no amount of "evidence" will
convince you. The examples that you cite are facile. Even, in the
unlikely event, that you could be convinced that that these were not
really objections, you would still reject neodarwinism despite the fact
that it's the only show in town.
I suspect that the truth is that you can't face the idea that you will
die and never come back anywhere and prefer the coward's comfort blanket
of a creation myth and an all-loving god. Free yourself from your
temporal lobes and stare into the void. It's scary but it's enlightening
in ways that you have never dreamed.
> But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> world, we would expect the following:
>
> 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
> I say this because it has always seemed odd to me, even while I
> believed in evolution once upon a time, that there could be large
> animals in the past, and small ones now. That doesn't fit the pattern
> of evolution, the idea that everything started out less complex yet
> evolved in larger more complex animals. Everything should have
> started out small and became big.
It's a complete fallacy that natural selection pushes ever forward
towards more and more complex life forms. The most successful organisms
on the planet 2 billion years ago were bacteria. They are still the most
successful. You may care to read Stephen Jay Gould on the subject.
> 2. If all the polystrate fossils could disappear all of a sudden I
> could believe that strata could be dated by the foot. Polystrate
> trees put everything up into the air as far as I'm concerned, and
> proves that they were buried far sooner than was previously thought.
I think that the "as far as I'm concerned" is the keyword here. The
so-called problem of polystrate fossils is not a problem at all:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
> 3. If the so-called stacked petrified tree forest had all their bark
> and roots, maybe I could believe it. Not any more, these so-called
> great forests are now known to have been water deposited.
Who have you been reading on the subject? JK Rowling?
> 4. More transitions. If Australopithecus is all that current
> evolutionists can offer for the so-called man to ape transition, then
> the state of evolution is in very sad shape. Which it is.
Er ... Perhaps one or more of Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus
anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus,
Australopithecus garhi, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster,
Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis. Wait a few years and they'll have
found some more.
Take care,
Paul
Louis
> news:761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com:
>
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
> >
>
> Why on earth are you including Dave Horn with that bunch?
>
> IIRC Dave Horn wrote at least one FAQ for the TO archive.
>
> He is not a creationist by any means.
>
> Chris
Argh! My bad, my bad! I was thinking about something else and wrote
the wrong name!
Apologies to David Horn, sorry for accidentally libelling you! I plead
a long day in lab, solvents addling brain, and marking undergrad exam
papers as my excuse. I am fairly sure I meant David Ford, although
bugger know what I'll have wrong there! Sorry.
Yours in abject apology and complete idiocy.
Louis
Louis
In no way am I trying to prove that the world was or was not created
by god or any other intelligent agent. While I understand your point
that the gentlemen mentionned (with one notable error on my part) will
only flow down that particular channel, I am really making a very
simple point. These gentlemen presumably have no problems with certain
other areas of science, equally secular and naturalistic, on an
evidenciary basis.
I am merely asking them what evidence they require to put evolution in
the same bracket as these uncontroversial theories for them
personally. The greater picture of science and scientists I understand
only too well, this question is not directed at some rhetorical or
philosophical argument, but at what data these gents require to come
into step as it were. All I need from them is a simple list, A through
to whatever, of things they think would, in their mind only, confirm
that the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology is the most accurate
theory we have that explains the observed trends in the natural world.
That's it.
Louis
H,R.Gruemm
> (Louis) wrote:
>
> >To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> >biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> >title,
> >
> >What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> >reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> >developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> >described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> >synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> Pagano replies:
> This question of Louis's presposes a false understanding of science.
> That is, Louis seems to be under the mistaken notion that scientists
> are in the business of gathering evidence and once some level of
> corroborative evidence has been amassed the theory is proved. But
> this ain't so.
>
> Since every false theory in the history of science has true
> consequences and has garnered solid, reliable evidence but was
> nonetheless falsified how would we know when we had enough "solid,
> reliable" evidence? Louis doesn't say. Newton's theory was one of
> the most corroborated theories of all time yet it was nonetheless
> falsified and superceded by Einstein's.
Newton's theory was not falsified. 1/r is still an excellent
approximation to the gravitational potential.
Similarly, the discovery of atoms did not falsify the Navier-Stokes
equations of hydrodynamics, although they model a liquid by a
continuum.
Einstein's theory was not a
> trivial deduction from Newton's but a new novel theory.
No, but Newton's theory is an not-too-sophisticated limit case of
Einstein's theory.
> As a result how much corroborative, solid, reliable evidence would
> guarrantee the truth of neoDarwinism? I know Louis doesn't know the
> answer to that question since smarter men than he and I throughout
> history have been unable to answer.
Pagano still ignores that science doesn't prove mathematically, but
demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt. His rights to harbor
unreasonable doubts remain in full force, of course.
>
>
> >This question encompasses all of "microevolution" and
> >"macroevolution", and assumes an "original" replicating system which
> >has then subsequently evolved as described in the modern synthesis. It
> >is expressedly NOT the contention of the question to deal with
> >abiogenesis/very early protocells etc, these will be dealt with later.
> >Oh and please don't muck around with word games, it is blatantly
> >obvious what I am asking, let's make this short and painless.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Louis puts the "pixies did it" into the mouth of the Evolutionary
> Opponent yet he sees nothing wrong with wishing abiogenesis into
> existence. It is one thing to substitute a "black box" in place of
> unknowns which are untestable and then to conjoin the black box to the
> rest of the theory which is testable. Unfortunately for Louis
> abiogensis has been all too testable. Our best science and our
> background knowledge stand against every single possibility presented.
I don't know where Pagano got this interesting tidbit. I only know
that the overwhelming majority of scientists violently disagrees with
him.
> This is a very strong indication that abiogenesis DID NOT occur and
> without this starting point it is irrelevent whether or not
> microevolution or macroevolution are possible.
Quite ridiculous. Evolution is as independent from abiogenesis as
chemistry is from cosmogony, and celestial mechanics is from
planetogenesis.
<snip rest>
HRG.
Mujin
(Louis) wrote:
>Chris Thompson <rockw...@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94FCE45D4F6Aro...@199.184.165.239>...
>> thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in
>> news:761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
>> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
>> > title,
>> >
>>
>> Why on earth are you including Dave Horn with that bunch?
>>
>> IIRC Dave Horn wrote at least one FAQ for the TO archive.
>>
>> He is not a creationist by any means.
>>
>> Chris
>
>Argh! My bad, my bad! I was thinking about something else and wrote
>the wrong name!
>
>Apologies to David Horn, sorry for accidentally libelling you! I plead
>a long day in lab, solvents addling brain, and marking undergrad exam
>papers as my excuse.
I think that last is adequate for any number of errors.
>I am fairly sure I meant David Ford, although
>bugger know what I'll have wrong there! Sorry.
>
>Yours in abject apology and complete idiocy.
>
>Louis
--
K
'The Computer made me do it.'
Lieutenant Kizhe Katson
> thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
> >
> > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
> me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> world, we would expect the following:
>
> 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
> I say this because it has always seemed odd to me, even while I
> believed in evolution once upon a time, that there could be large
> animals in the past, and small ones now. That doesn't fit the pattern
> of evolution, the idea that everything started out less complex yet
> evolved in larger more complex animals. Everything should have
> started out small and became big.
So: your reason for not accepting evolution is that you have a slew of
bizarre misconceptions about what it is, and how it works, and hence
what the evidence should look like?
> 2. If all the polystrate fossils could disappear all of a sudden I
> could believe that strata could be dated by the foot. Polystrate
> trees put everything up into the air as far as I'm concerned, and
> proves that they were buried far sooner than was previously thought.
Proves nothing of the sort. See next comment.
> 3. If the so-called stacked petrified tree forest had all their bark
> and roots, maybe I could believe it. Not any more, these so-called
> great forests are now known to have been water deposited.
Standard Creationist lies. See Andrew MacRae's excellent FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
> 4. More transitions. If Australopithecus is all that current
> evolutionists can offer for the so-called man to ape transition, then
> the state of evolution is in very sad shape. Which it is.
Yep, Australopth is all we got. Oh, and _Homo erectus_ and
_Ardepithecus_ and (widening the field into non-hominid evolution)
Archeopteryx and therapsids and, oh hell just look here:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=transitional&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
> Anyway, I could add more, but I think it's really obvious that
> evolution is now dead.
What's really obvious is you don't have the first clue what you're
talking about. And given your long tenure around these parts, it's
equally obvious you're incapable or unwilling to learn anything that
upsets your prejudices. John Vreeland's suggestion of "pathology"
seems apropos.
I think that puts us a couple of rounds along in Louis' dialog.
I hope McCoy's answer was helpful in your researches.
-- Kizhé
Wakboth
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
> >
> > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
> me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> world, we would expect the following:
>
> 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
> I say this because it has always seemed odd to me, even while I
> believed in evolution once upon a time, that there could be large
> animals in the past, and small ones now. That doesn't fit the pattern
> of evolution, the idea that everything started out less complex yet
> evolved in larger more complex animals. Everything should have
> started out small and became big.
Larger != more complex. That said, there is no absolute necessity for
evolution to produce more complex forms (however you define
complexity). Evolution produces stuff that's just good enough, and if
the environment changes so that you get by with fewere "moving parts",
such simplicity is favored in selection.
> 2. If all the polystrate fossils could disappear all of a sudden I
> could believe that strata could be dated by the foot. Polystrate
> trees put everything up into the air as far as I'm concerned, and
> proves that they were buried far sooner than was previously thought.
What, exactly, is your problem with polystrate fossils? And how do
they prove that they were buried sooner than was previously thought?
See here for some good info:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
> 3. If the so-called stacked petrified tree forest had all their bark
> and roots, maybe I could believe it. Not any more, these so-called
> great forests are now known to have been water deposited.
Huh? Care to offer cites here?
> 4. More transitions. If Australopithecus is all that current
> evolutionists can offer for the so-called man to ape transition, then
> the state of evolution is in very sad shape. Which it is.
There's plenty of transitional fossiles, even in humanity's lineage.
See here, for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> Anyway, I could add more, but I think it's really obvious that
> evolution is now dead.
>
> JM
In your dreams, perhaps. In the real world, evolution is acknowledged
as an attested fact by everyone with even an adequate science
education; including the vast majority of Christians worldwide.
-- Wakboth
Homer Noodleman
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
> >
> > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
> me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> world, we would expect the following:
>
> 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
> I say this because it has always seemed odd to me, even while I
> believed in evolution once upon a time, that there could be large
> animals in the past, and small ones now. That doesn't fit the pattern
> of evolution, the idea that everything started out less complex yet
> evolved in larger more complex animals. Everything should have
> started out small and became big.
Wrong. A conflation of size with complexity. And a fundemental
misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory. Are you saying redwood trees
are more complex than humans just because the former are bigger?
I guess size does matter, at least to some.
> 2. If all the polystrate fossils could disappear all of a sudden I
> could believe that strata could be dated by the foot. Polystrate
> trees put everything up into the air as far as I'm concerned, and
> proves that they were buried far sooner than was previously thought.
Wrong. All they prove is that you don't understand how strata are laid
down and how fossils can be thrust into strata other than the one of
origin.
>
> 3. If the so-called stacked petrified tree forest had all their bark
> and roots, maybe I could believe it. Not any more, these so-called
> great forests are now known to have been water deposited.
Huh?
> 4. More transitions. If Australopithecus is all that current
> evolutionists can offer for the so-called man to ape transition, then
> the state of evolution is in very sad shape. Which it is.
Doesn't matter how many transitional fossils are found, your ilk will
always say there aren't enough.
> Anyway, I could add more, but I think it's really obvious that
> evolution is now dead.
What's obvious is that your attempt to declare Evolution dead will
fail as did all others who came before you, especially as you do
nothing but trot out the same tired, irrelevent, discredited
"evidence" to back up your assertions that some of them did.
David Wise
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
> >
> > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
> me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> world, we would expect the following:
>
> 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
> I say this because it has always seemed odd to me, even while I
> believed in evolution once upon a time, that there could be large
> animals in the past, and small ones now. That doesn't fit the pattern
> of evolution, the idea that everything started out less complex yet
> evolved in larger more complex animals. Everything should have
> started out small and became big.
>
> 2. If all the polystrate fossils could disappear all of a sudden I
> could believe that strata could be dated by the foot. Polystrate
> trees put everything up into the air as far as I'm concerned, and
> proves that they were buried far sooner than was previously thought.
>
Would you mind terribly providing some references to such polystrate
fossils? I mean where creationist sources actually cite the
scientific literature on such fossils. I most certainly do not mean
bald assertions lacking any citation, nor assertions that merely cite
other creationist sources, nor merely citing a picture in National
Geographic. I mean one that cites a non-creationist source that has
examined an actual polystrate fossil.
For the past 15 years, I have been trying to find such a reference and
have requested it of many creationists, none of whom have ever been
able to produce even one such reference. Well, not exactly. There
was one back around 1990 who produced a reference to a Broadhurst
article cited by Steve Austin, but that article contradicted what the
creationist had said about Austin's claim and so that creationist
immediately changed the subject and refused to talk about polystrate
fossils anymore.
So please provide us with such a reference to an actual study of an
actual polystrate fossil.
And the Lompoc whale doesn't count.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html
Augray
<not....@address.net> wrote in
<knusb0t8j5aa7lnjj...@4ax.com>:
[snip]
> WHAT WOULD BE A STRONG BEGINNING
> About the best I can do is point out a few of the serious problems
> that might suggest observations that would be helpful:
>
> 1. The abject failure of abiogenesis.
> 2. The failure to find any evidence of the majory transitions
> explained by the neoDarwinian evolutionary framework (i.e. the
> transition from prebiotic self-replicating molecule to cell)
> 3. The failure ot adequately explain the Cambrian Explosion.
> 4. The failure to find a single unambigous transitional fossil form
> in a voluminous fossil record that is considered an adequate sampling
> of biological history by a growing number of paleontologists. By
> Transitional form it is meant a fossil structure which is evidence of
> a nascent structure. That is, a structure which is evidence of a
> novel, emerging structure not found previously in the fossil record.
As I pointed out over two years ago in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f1129f9.0201081614.5885f23c%40posting.google.com
the wings of Archaeopteryx are indeed "nascent". Hence, there is indeed
evidence of a novel, emerging structure in the fossil record.
> 5. The failure to explain the two undeniable characteristics of the
> fossil record which contradict the neoDarwinian assertion that
> biological history was one of ubiquitous change: STASIS AND SUDDEN
> APPEARANCE.
> 6. Not only is STASIS the characteristic of the fossil record but the
> characteristic of the living world as well. There is no evidence
> whatsoever of biological transformational change. That is, there is
> no change outside of what already exists within the population.
> 7. While geneticists can show that random mutations occur they only
> occur with greatest frequence in only certain loci not all loci. They
> know that all of the genetic mechanisms are highly precise and
> conservative not revolutionary. There has never been found any
> genetic mechanisms for progressively integrating new information into
> the genome to generate novelty and explain diversity.
[snip]
harvest dancer
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
> >
> > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
> me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> world, we would expect the following:
>
> 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
> I say this because it has always seemed odd to me, even while I
> believed in evolution once upon a time, that there could be large
> animals in the past, and small ones now. That doesn't fit the pattern
> of evolution, the idea that everything started out less complex yet
> evolved in larger more complex animals. Everything should have
> started out small and became big.
Size is not the same as complexity. Which is more complex, a very
large boulder or a very small Swiss watch?
Jason Harvestdancer
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com...
> thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in message
news:<761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
> >
> > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
> me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> world, we would expect the following:
>
> 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
> I say this because it has always seemed odd to me, even while I
> believed in evolution once upon a time, that there could be large
> animals in the past, and small ones now.
There were small animals in the past too. And large animals live today.
The largest animal that ever existed is alive today, ie the Blue Whale.
Many of the dinosaurs were no larger than modern cattle.
> That doesn't fit the pattern
> of evolution, the idea that everything started out less complex yet
> evolved in larger more complex animals. Everything should have
> started out small and became big.
Everything did start out as single celled organisms. Megafauna such as
dinosaurs didn't come along for over 3 billion years. Also, you apparently
have no idea what the "pattern of evolution" should be. As others have
pointed out, large does not mean more complex.
>
> 2. If all the polystrate fossils could disappear all of a sudden I
> could believe that strata could be dated by the foot.
Where did you get the idea that "strata could be dated by the foot"?
Geological strata are known to vary in depth, in different places. There
are very few 'polystrate' fossils, and those that do exist are clearly the
result of localized flooding, or volcanic eruptions. Geologists can tell
what layers were laid down rapidly, and which were the result of slow
accretion.
> Polystrate
> trees put everything up into the air as far as I'm concerned, and
> proves that they were buried far sooner than was previously thought.
What makes you think that geologists don't know about rapid burial of trees?
Please give your examples of "polystrate" trees, and why you think that any
competent geologist would think they were not buried rapidly?
>
> 3. If the so-called stacked petrified tree forest had all their bark
> and roots, maybe I could believe it.
This makes no sense. Why would petrified trees still have their bark? Why
would uprooted and transported trees still have their roots?
> Not any more, these so-called
> great forests are now known to have been water deposited.
Citation please. Also, why can't localized floods deposit trees?
>
> 4. More transitions. If Australopithecus is all that current
> evolutionists can offer for the so-called man to ape transition, then
> the state of evolution is in very sad shape. Which it is.
The genus Australopithecus includes several known species, including A.
afarensis, A.africanus, A. boisei, A. robustus. We also have examples of
several other species of fossil hominds, such as Homo neanderthalensis, H.
erectus, H. rudolphensis, H. habilis. There are some newly discovered
species of homindis such as Aridipithecus amadensis, Orroin tugenensis
Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
>
> Anyway, I could add more, but I think it's really obvious that
> evolution is now dead.
It's obvious that McCoy doesn't know what he's talking about.
DJT
Prof Weird
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
> >
> > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
> me to even consider it.
More like 'against the STRAWMAN/CARTOON version of evolution' than
against the real version.
> But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> world, we would expect the following:
>
> 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
> I say this because it has always seemed odd to me, even while I
> believed in evolution once upon a time, that there could be large
> animals in the past, and small ones now.
Evolution has no direction, so becoming smaller is just as much
evolution as getting larger. And, if selection favors becoming
simpler (as it does for parasites), then we would see a loss of
'complexity'.
> That doesn't fit the pattern
> of evolution, the idea that everything started out less complex yet
> evolved in larger more complex animals. Everything should have
> started out small and became big.
Everything started out as bacteria and single celled eukaryotes - they
are NOT small creatures to you ?!?!
Larger does NOT necesarily mean more complex or more evolved.
And, again, evolution has no preset direction, so there is no reason
to expect living things to keep getting bigger.
> 2. If all the polystrate fossils could disappear all of a sudden I
> could believe that strata could be dated by the foot. Polystrate
> trees put everything up into the air as far as I'm concerned, and
> proves that they were buried far sooner than was previously thought.
Polystrate fossils were NOT a problem for geologists to explain 200
years ago, WHY would they be a problem now ? They CAN tell the
difference between slow deposition and rapid deposition - and no one
except the strawmen evolutionists that reside in creationists'
imaginations claims that ALL deposition MUST be at a steady and
perfectly uniform rate.
NO ONE dates strata by feet, since we KNOW that deposition rates can
vary considerably. The trees that became polystrate fossils lived in
low-lying swamps, and could easily have a lot of sediment dumped on
them by a local flood. So no need to invoke a world wide one to
explain them.
>
> 3. If the so-called stacked petrified tree forest had all their bark
> and roots, maybe I could believe it. Not any more, these so-called
> great forests are now known to have been water deposited.
And that is a problem for evolution or an old earth WHY ?
That local catastrophic floods can occur in the present is quite well
known; they could not have happened in the past WHY ?
> 4. More transitions. If Australopithecus is all that current
> evolutionists can offer for the so-called man to ape transition, then
> the state of evolution is in very sad shape. Which it is.
Only if one were silly enough to EXPECT to find the remains of every
single creature that ever lived.
We have MUCH more than just Australopithecus fossils - they show the
transition quite well.
Data from molecular biology also supports the relatedness of humans
and chimps; in fact, chimps are so close to us that some have
suggested expanding the genus Homo to include chimps :
"Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA
identity between humans and chimpanzees : Enlarging the Genus Homo",
Wildman DE, Uddin M, Liu G, Grossman LI, Goodman M, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 100(12):7181-88, 10 June 2003
'this functional DNA evidence supports two previously offered
taxonomic proposals : family Hominidae should include all extant apes;
and genus Homo should include three extant species and two sub-genera,
Homo (Homo) sapiens (humankind), Homo (Pan) troglodytes (common
chimpanzee), and Homo (Pan) paniscus (bonobo chimpanzee)'
Now why, EXACTLY, would they even suggest doing something like that
UNLESS they had something resembling evidence to back it up ?
>
> Anyway, I could add more, but I think it's really obvious that
> evolution is now dead.
Yes - the CARTOON VERSION is quite dead; the REAL version is not.
>
> JM
Mitch Alsup
> me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> world, we would expect the following:
>
> 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
So you are saying that the 5 million pounds of dinosaur bones
constitute no evidence whatsoever! This is crazy.
And then you imply that there are no fossils of ancient whales nor
horses. This is worse than crazy.
This raises the question as to what you consider evidence at all?
Ann Broomhead
> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > title,
> >
> > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
> me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> world, we would expect the following:
>
>
> 2. If all the polystrate fossils could disappear all of a sudden I
> could believe that strata could be dated by the foot.
You believe incorrectly. Strata are not laid down at the rate of
so-many-millimeters per time-period. For example, you will get thick
strata at the mouth of the Mississippi River, and razor thin ones on
the Canadian Shield. Please correct this foolish misconception as
soon as possible.
Now, please answer the question: What would you accept as solid,
reliable evidence for the current set of theories known as the modern
synthesis of evolutionary biology?
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
AC
Ann Broomhead <broo...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> Now, please answer the question: What would you accept as solid,
> reliable evidence for the current set of theories known as the modern
> synthesis of evolutionary biology?
In McNameless's case, there is no evidence that he would accept. It's that
simple. Even if you could catch up with his goalposts, and provide every
fossil from the first protocells right up to H. sapiens, he would reject it.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Andrew Arensburger
> The reason why the appearance of the angel Gabriel complete with cherubs
> and hallelujah choruses would not convince everyone is that God has been
> hiding too long. If God lived down the street and said hello to people on a
> regular basis, no one would doubt him.
Once more, Pterry nails it:
"Most witches don't believe in gods. They know that the gods
exist, of course. They even deal with them occassionally. But
they don't believe in them. They know them too well. It would
be like believing in the postman."
-- Terry Pratchett, "Witches Abroad"
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
All answers questioned here.
Phil Roberts
curtain and staggered drunkenly up to the mic. In a cracked and
slurred voice he muttered:
> In McNameless's case, there is no evidence that he would accept.
> It's that simple. Even if you could catch up with his
> goalposts, and provide every fossil from the first protocells
> right up to H. sapiens, he would reject it.
>
Actually I think his brain would probably implode from the pressure
of reality trying to force its way in. Not necessarily a bad thing.
--
Phil Roberts | Without me its just aweso. | http://www.flatnet.net/
"Whatever you do don't read the bible for a moral code. It advocates
predjudice, cruelty, superstition, and murder. Read it because we
need more atheists, and nothing will get you there faster than
reading the damn bible."
Frank J
> Louis wrote:
>
> > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
> the evolution of the species can prove that the world was not created.
>
> Similarly, no amount of evidence of god-creator (even the appearance of
> the angel Gabriel complete with cherubs and hallelujah choruses) can
> prove the existence of a god nor the fact of a creation event.
>
> No amount of empirical evidence can swing the argument decisively one
> way or the other.
>
> One theory is scientifically useful, the other is not. That's as good as
> you are going to get.
The other (actually many mutually contradictory *others*) are not "not
useful theories" but simply "not theories." When they do make claims,
those claims are easily falsified. But the more skilled promoters of
the "others" are learning not to make testable claims anyway, or at
least to choose the definitions of terms that are so slippery, that
it's impossible to know what they are claiming, if anything.
>
> Take care,
> Paul
Bigdakine
>Hornetc accept?
>From: Paul Jones jones...@btconnect.com
>Date: 6/2/2004 3:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <2i6o8gF...@uni-berlin.de>
>
>Louis wrote:
>
>> What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
>> reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
>> developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
>> described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
>> synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>
>No coherently-framed, logically-impeccable, evidence-based argument for
>the evolution of the species can prove that the world was not created.
>
Exactly. WHich is why it is not a scientific hypothesis.
STuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
John Wilkins
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:17:06 +0000 (UTC), thethi...@hotmail.com
> (Louis) wrote:
>
> >Chris Thompson <rockw...@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote:
> >> thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in
> >> news:761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com:
> >>
> >> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> >> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> >> > title,
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why on earth are you including Dave Horn with that bunch?
> >>
> >> IIRC Dave Horn wrote at least one FAQ for the TO archive.
> >>
> >> He is not a creationist by any means.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >
> >Argh! My bad, my bad! I was thinking about something else and wrote
> >the wrong name!
> >
> >Apologies to David Horn, sorry for accidentally libelling you! I plead
> >a long day in lab, solvents addling brain, and marking undergrad exam
> >papers as my excuse.
>
> I think that last is adequate for any number of errors.
I think it is a *source* of any number of errors. They get posted as
"undergaduate howlers" occasionally...
>
> >I am fairly sure I meant David Ford, although
> >bugger know what I'll have wrong there! Sorry.
> >
> >Yours in abject apology and complete idiocy.
> >
> >Louis
>
> --
> K
>
> 'The Computer made me do it.'
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au
a little emptier, a little spent
as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
Mujin
Wilkins) wrote:
>Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:17:06 +0000 (UTC), thethi...@hotmail.com
>> (Louis) wrote:
>>
>> >Chris Thompson <rockw...@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote:
>> >> thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in
>> >> news:761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com:
>> >>
>> >> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
>> >> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
>> >> > title,
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Why on earth are you including Dave Horn with that bunch?
>> >>
>> >> IIRC Dave Horn wrote at least one FAQ for the TO archive.
>> >>
>> >> He is not a creationist by any means.
>> >>
>> >> Chris
>> >
>> >Argh! My bad, my bad! I was thinking about something else and wrote
>> >the wrong name!
>> >
>> >Apologies to David Horn, sorry for accidentally libelling you! I plead
>> >a long day in lab, solvents addling brain, and marking undergrad exam
>> >papers as my excuse.
>>
>> I think that last is adequate for any number of errors.
>
>I think it is a *source* of any number of errors. They get posted as
>"undergaduate howlers" occasionally...
No, no, no, they may be a repository of errors but they can't be a
source per se; as anyone who has marked undergrad exams or essays
knows, the errors exhibited are conserved from year to year <sigh>
--
K
If we judge of love by its usual effects, it resembles hatred more than friendship
Francios Duc de La Rochefoucauld
TomS
<20040603184530...@mb-m18.aol.com>, Bigdakine stated..."
>
>>Subject: Re: What evidence would McCoy/MurphyInOhio/Glenn/Pagano/David
>>Hornetc accept?
>>From: Paul Jones jones...@btconnect.com
>>Date: 6/2/2004 3:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <2i6o8gF...@uni-berlin.de>
>>
>>Louis wrote:
>>
>>> What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
>>> reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
>>> developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
>>> described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
>>> synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>>
>>No coherently-framed, logically-impeccable, evidence-based argument for
>>the evolution of the species can prove that the world was not created.
>>
>
>Exactly. WHich is why it is not a scientific hypothesis.
Which is why so many people who accept the evidence and
reasoning for evolutionary biology and who also have faith in
their Creator. As well as, of course, why many do not.
(Speaking from the human point of view, that is; not with
reference to the divine grace of faith.)
But I would go a little further as to why it is not a
scientific hypothesis, which is that it is not a hypothesis.
Not a hypothesis of any kind, scientific or otherwise. Not a
hypothesis, not a theory.
And, in the hands of the so-called "creationists", it is
not even a coherent concept. To the best of my knowledge, no
creationist of the last 50 years or so has made explicit just
what they mean when they speak about creation -- for example,
what it would look like if we were present for a creation
event; or how we can tell the difference between something
that is created and something that is not; or, precisely, what
was created (was it a fertilized egg from a prior existing
female of a different "kind", or was it some manipulation of
DNA, or was it an entire, interacting, mature, eco-system).
---Tom S.
"if we were to believe (the spermists), then each man would be a son of beast;
which is even worse than being the son of a whore."
The Catalan Monravà ... first half of eighteenth century
(As quoted in Clara Pinto-Correia, "The Ovary of Eve", page 118)
J McCoy
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> > > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> > > title,
> > >
> > > What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
> > > reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
> > > developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
> > > described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
> > > synthesis of evolutionary biology?
> >
> > There is much evidence going against the theory of macro evolution for
> > me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> > world, we would expect the following:
> >
> > 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
> > I say this because it has always seemed odd to me, even while I
> > believed in evolution once upon a time, that there could be large
> > animals in the past, and small ones now. That doesn't fit the pattern
> > of evolution, the idea that everything started out less complex yet
> > evolved in larger more complex animals. Everything should have
> > started out small and became big.
>
> So: your reason for not accepting evolution is that you have a slew of
> bizarre misconceptions about what it is, and how it works, and hence
> what the evidence should look like?
I have no misconceptions whatsoever. The definition of macro
evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
existence today that equal the animals of the past.
JM
Steven J.
news:<47b867ea.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message
news:<3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> > So: your reason for not accepting evolution is that you have a slew of
> > bizarre misconceptions about what it is, and how it works, and hence
> > what the evidence should look like?
>
> I have no misconceptions whatsoever. The definition of macro
> evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
> to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> existence today that equal the animals of the past.
>
Even if you limit it to mean "change from one (undefined) 'kind' to
another," it doesn't invariably imply an increase in complexity. We
"evolved from the less complex" because at one time there *was* only the
less complex, not because there is any principle in evolution that states
that complexity must increase. Indeed, given that one of the arguments for
common descent is vestigial organs -- organs that have lost complexity and
function -- pretty obviously evolution must sometimes work from the more
complex to the less complex.
Quite apart from that, "large" and "complex" are not the same thing at all.
Dragonflies are smaller today than in the carboniferous, but that does not
mean that they are simpler either structurally or behaviorally, any more
than a tiny wristwatch is simpler than a wall clock. Dragonflies presumably
are smaller because they lost the "medium-large flying predator" niche to
pterosaurs and, later, birds.
Note that some modern whales, at least, seem as large as any dinosaur or
marine reptile (or extinct whale, for that matter) that ever lived. Quite a
few large mammals became extinct relatively recently; large size has
disadvantages to go along with its advantages (especially when it comes to
hunters with spears). Note that most animals in the past were also small;
the average dinosaur was not huge, and the lizards and snakes of that era
were no bigger, in general, than their descendants are today.
>
> JM
>
-- [snip]
>
> > -- Kizhé
>
-- Steven J.
Dave T.
> I have no misconceptions whatsoever. The definition of macro
> evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
> to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> existence today that equal the animals of the past.
Wow.
Mark VandeWettering
>> So: your reason for not accepting evolution is that you have a slew of
>> bizarre misconceptions about what it is, and how it works, and hence
>> what the evidence should look like?
>
> I have no misconceptions whatsoever. The definition of macro
> evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
> to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> existence today that equal the animals of the past.
If this were in anyway funny, it would make a good Chez Watt nomination.
And of course, McCoy's number is retired.
Mark
> JM
TomS
<10c18u7...@corp.supernews.com>, Steven J. stated..."
What I find interesting about this is that precisely this
difficulty pre-dates Darwin.
When dinosaurs were discovered, that there were large, complex
animals that went extinct, it was brought up that this was a
telling argument against the idea that there was a *progressive*
path to the world of life on earth. Up the "chain of being", so
to speak, was disproved by the existence of dinosaurs.
Of course, Darwin and his successors were quite aware of the
existence of dinosaurs. That's one reason why the idea of
progression was discarded by Darwin, and it was "descent with
modification" rather than "descent with bigger and better".
If there were anything to "creationism", even in the sense
of "somewhere, somehow, something is wrong with evolution", we
might expect to see it in arguments which were not addressed
in the 19th century (or earlier). But I've yet to find one
which is new to the 20th or 21st century.
---Tom S.
"if we were to believe (the spermists), then each man would be a son of beast;
which is even worse than being the son of a whore."
The Catalan Monravą ... first half of eighteenth century
Dave T.
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrncc1aot.1...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
Whoops. Too late.
Mark VandeWettering
I'm not sure whether the arbiter will accept this nomination, because
McCoy has an unfair advantage: literally everything that comes from his
keyboard is an absurd trainwreck of human... well... I guess you'd have
to call it "thought".
But you are of course free to nominate him.
Mark
Frank Reichenbacher
"Dave T." <dte...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c9q94t$49v$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
I personally am opposed to Chez Watt awards for morons like McDimwit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale
"Especially noteworthy is the Blue Whale, the largest animal that has ever
lived. It may be up to 30 meters long and weigh 180 tons."
Frank
Bigdakine
>etc accept?
>Date: 6/4/2004 11:56 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com>
Like the great Blue Whale, African Elephant and the RHino.
There are no animals in
>existence today that equal the animals of the past.
The Blue WHale is perhaps the largest animal to ever exist.
Once again McCoy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Stuart
Ferrous Patella
VandeWettering <wett...@comcast.net>:
[...]
>
> I'm not sure whether the arbiter will accept this nomination, because
> McCoy has an unfair advantage:
[...]
I still take nomintion for our first and greatest Chez Watter. Why not
McCoy. Plus CW is about watt was said, not who said it.
--
Ferrous Patella
"If the universe is so finely tuned, how come I can't sing worth a darn?"
-Cheezits
Hank
>
> lt_k...@yahoo.ca (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.04060...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> > So: your reason for not accepting evolution is that you have a slew of
> > bizarre misconceptions about what it is, and how it works, and hence
> > what the evidence should look like?
>
> I have no misconceptions whatsoever. The definition of macro
> evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
> to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> existence today that equal the animals of the past.
Say what?!?!? First, your definition of macro evolution is totally
wrong. Macro evolution is speciation. And nothing in evolution says
that species can only get larger.
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
Tom McDonald
Mark,
I think it's funny. The kind of funny that arises from the
juxtaposition of two statements that each preclude the truth of
the other.
And doesn't one have to retire from the playing field before
one's number is retired?
Finally, what was Mc...'s number anyway? 150? 160?
:-).
Tom McDonald
J McCoy
You say "wow" and flaunt in the face of the fact the evolution isn't
supported by the facts. What is your secondary modification of the
original theory that you use to explain huge animals in the past and
small animals now? And how does this face the II law of
Thermodynamics and creationist's "canopy" theory?
I guess if you can't argue a point you start the trumped up pseudo
awards.
JM
Noctiluca
> lt_k...@yahoo.ca (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message news:<47b867ea.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > > thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> >
> > So: your reason for not accepting evolution is that you have a slew of
> > bizarre misconceptions about what it is, and how it works, and hence
> > what the evidence should look like?
>
> I have no misconceptions whatsoever. The definition of macro
> evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
> to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> existence today that equal the animals of the past.
Good Lord McCoy, go to a library and look up dwarfism!
And try not to drool while your lips are moving, someone else may need
to read that book.
>
> JM
>
<snip>
J McCoy
Certainly there is no land mammal in existence today that equals the
size of past mammals.
A challenge for the thermodynamically challenged evolutionist.
JM
AC
Golly, John, there are huge animals now. The blue whale is the biggest
animal that has ever been.
And the canopy theory is just plain bullshit. The atmospheric pressure at
surface level would be unlivable by most organisms if there was a large
volume of water up there.
I also imagine that you are about to invoke some crap version of 2Lot. You
are the very microcosm of Creationist nonsense. Sometimes I wonder if
you're a troll, because it's hard to imagine anyone so thoroughly inept and
idiotic actually being able to feed himself, let alone type on a computer.
>
> I guess if you can't argue a point you start the trumped up pseudo
> awards.
I suggest you save this ditty for your acceptance speech.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Sporkmastar Fred
> evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
> to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> existence today that equal the animals of the past.
>
> JM
Just like there are no computers today equal to any of the barn-sized
computers of the past.
Oh, wait....
Dave T.
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com...
> "Dave T." <dte...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<c9q94t$49v$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I have no misconceptions whatsoever. The definition of macro
> > > evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
> > > to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> > > animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> > > current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> > > existence today that equal the animals of the past.
> >
> > Wow.
>
> You say "wow" and flaunt in the face of the fact the evolution isn't
> supported by the facts. What is your secondary modification of the
> original theory that you use to explain huge animals in the past and
> small animals now? And how does this face the II law of
> Thermodynamics and creationist's "canopy" theory?
I say "wow" because you said you "have no misconceptions" but then proceed
to regurgitate your completely confused idea of what evolution is. As
others have pointed out, the blue whale is the largest animal to have ever
lived, as far as we know. There is no "secondary modification" needed to
explain huge animals in the past. The second law and the canopy argument
have been discussed and refuted repeatedly in this forum but I am sure you
already knew that.
>
> I guess if you can't argue a point you start the trumped up pseudo
> awards.
Well, maybe you weren't the best choice for my first Chez Watt nomination
because this is rapidly losing its humor.
Hank
<snip>
> Certainly there is no land mammal in existence today that equals the
> size of past mammals.
So who gives a royal rip? That has no bearing on evolution. If you
disagree, explain why.
> A challenge for the thermodynamically challenged evolutionist.
Oh don't be a bugwit.
Mark VandeWettering
Perhaps it was the fact that your first sentence is so completely
contradicted by the rest of your paragraph.
Not the least of your misconceptions is that creationists "canopy" theory
is a theory. It is not. It's the deluded ramblings of people so ignorant
they could rightly be classified as insane.
> I guess if you can't argue a point you start the trumped up pseudo
> awards.
Don't worry McCoy, you won't win.
Mark
>
> JM
>
John Wilkins
In fact, this argument (that there is no observable progression in the
fossil record) was made by Cuvier against Lamarck's theory of evolution
in his Eloge (funeral oration) for Lamarck. It was *Lamarck's* theory of
evolution as a progression of less to more complex organisms, a temporal
version of the Great Chain of Being that Bonnet had described out of
Aristotelian principles of classification, that Cuvier laid to rest.
Darwin never required or expected such a progression, when, twenty years
after Cuvier's Eloge was published, he came up with his own notion of
branching evolution, and again when it was published as the _Origin_
twenty years after that.
So not only are creationists caviling against evolution on the basis of
150 year old science, even then falling into disfavor before Darwin,
they are attacking a 200 year old view of evolution, dismissed well
before Darwin began his work. This explains why, when they do quote
modern work, it is 50 years old. That is positively leading edge for
them.
Boikat
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com...
> "Dave T." <dte...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<c9q94t$49v$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I have no misconceptions whatsoever. The definition of macro
> > > evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
> > > to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> > > animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> > > current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> > > existence today that equal the animals of the past.
> >
> > Wow.
>
> You say "wow" and flaunt in the face of the fact the evolution isn't
> supported by the facts. What is your secondary modification of the
> original theory that you use to explain huge animals in the past and
> small animals now? And how does this face the II law of
> Thermodynamics and creationist's "canopy" theory?
Are you really this stupid? I really have to ask that question.
>
> I guess if you can't argue a point you start the trumped up pseudo
> awards.
If you had a valid point worth arguing about.. Why don't you try presenting
one for a change?
Boikat
Richard Forrest
Please explain, in your own words, why the fact that the largest
modern elephant is a bit smaller than the largest extinct mammal is a
thermodynamic problem.
I simply cannot see any connection. Perhaps you know something I
don't? If so, please enlighten me.
RF
Falco98
news:2i88enF...@uni-berlin.de...
<snip>
> I suspect that the truth is that you can't face the idea that you will
> die and never come back anywhere and prefer the coward's comfort blanket
> of a creation myth and an all-loving god. Free yourself from your
> temporal lobes and stare into the void. It's scary but it's enlightening
> in ways that you have never dreamed.
I don't even know why the argument has to come to that. There are plenty of
people who believen in an all-loving God, but who also happily accept that
the creation myth does not intend itself to replace or interfere with
scientific process. In fact, the two are rather mutually exclusive in that
light. One of the very definitions of God (or whichever god you take for
example) is being out of the scope of scientific observation or proof -- and
you should know by now that you can't prove something's not there just
because you don't see it.
And perhaps stubborn people [like many of my former high school classmates
who i debated with] would be more open to reason if they didn't
automatically assume an argument for Evolution is an argument for Atheism
(which is a fallacy i would hope that people on OUR side of the argument
would be intelligent enough not to proliferate).
stew dean
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I have no misconceptions whatsoever. The definition of macro
> > > evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
> > > to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> > > animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> > > current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> > > existence today that equal the animals of the past.
> >
> > Wow.
>
> You say "wow" and flaunt in the face of the fact the evolution isn't
> supported by the facts. What is your secondary modification of the
> original theory that you use to explain huge animals in the past and
> small animals now?
But the original theory doesnt say complexity equals size or that the
drive of evolution will lead to greater complexity!
Two facts that prove you wrong which are hardly secret. A mouse is
more complex than, say, a T-Rex. It's more intelligent for example.
Secondly the largest ever animal to live is the Blue Whale.
> And how does this face the II law of
> Thermodynamics...
Been here many times. Sun drives lifes which drives evolution. In more
detail life uses energy to organise energy (by eating) but the overall
result is an increase in entropy that is fed by the sun (most food
being directly or indirectly related to sun shine).
> and creationist's "canopy" theory?
Been demolished several times, it just doesnt work without blackening
out the world.
A global flood did not happen for many very obvious reasons. There is
no geographic evidence, you can't start a population with two of a
species (making Adam and Eve scientifically impossible at the same
time) and fresh water fish etc.
So no evidence vs muliple reasons why the flood wouldnt work means a
global flood as described by in the old testiment is impossible.
PLUS research into the original story has lead the most probably
source of Noah's flood was a local flood and that the story was
exagerated through the verbal tradition before being written down.
Read the original story again and replace the concept of 'world' with
the concept of a persons world and you'll see what I mean.
The Chez Watt was awarded as you are very unaware of both the theory
of evolution and also the current state of creationism. The 2lot
argument is very very dead for example.
Stew Dean
Floyd
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 01:14:30 +0000 (UTC), john...@wilkins.id.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:17:06 +0000 (UTC), thethi...@hotmail.com
> >> (Louis) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Chris Thompson <rockw...@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote:
> >> >> thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in
> >> >> news:761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com:
> >> >> > To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
> >> >> > biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
> >> >> > title,
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> IIRC Dave Horn wrote at least one FAQ for the TO archive.
> >> >>
> >> >> He is not a creationist by any means.
> >> >>
> >> >> Chris
> >> >
> >> >Argh! My bad, my bad! I was thinking about something else and wrote
> >> >the wrong name!
> >> >
> >> >Apologies to David Horn, sorry for accidentally libelling you! I plead
> >> >a long day in lab, solvents addling brain, and marking undergrad exam
> >> >papers as my excuse.
> >>
> >> I think that last is adequate for any number of errors.
> >
> >I think it is a *source* of any number of errors. They get posted as
> >"undergaduate howlers" occasionally...
>
> No, no, no, they may be a repository of errors but they can't be a
> source per se; as anyone who has marked undergrad exams or essays
> knows, the errors exhibited are conserved from year to year <sigh>
There is clearly a form of selection involved, and those statements
that seem best capable of muscling their ways into undergrad minds do
indeed replicate and persist from year to year. There are, however,
occasional hopeful monsters.
From various anthropology classes:
"...humans were so successful because we evolved disposable thumbs."
and
"...deconstruction is a fundamental eliminate of postmodernism..."
The later is a particularly accurate, if unintended description (I
suspect the student meant "element").
Mujin
Are these like disposable contacts do you think?
>and
>"...deconstruction is a fundamental eliminate of postmodernism..."
I hope you give that student some marks!
>
>The later is a particularly accurate, if unintended description (I
>suspect the student meant "element").
Hopeful monsters indeed. Although I never get through a set of
marking without a chuckle, it's also terribly depressing.
Fortunately, there is usually an occasional light in the darkness
which gives one hope. Sadly, it usually turns out to be someone
coming back to school years later just to take one course that
interested them...
--
K
In love, there is always one who kisses and one who offers the cheek.
French Proverb
Dean Chesterman
J McCoy wrote:
> But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> existence today that equal the animals of the past.
>
> JM
>
Except for the blue whale and most of the other whales, elephants and
mammoths and redwoods and a number of other organisms. If you have ever
really looked at an anatomical drawing of the biggest dinosaurs and
compared them to elephants, you would have seen that the body's are not
a lot different in size. The long necks and tails of some of the
dinosaurs make them look a lot larger than they really are. For example,
see the article on Dinosaur Biomechanics in the Scientific American Book
od Dinosaurs Page 64.
The average size of the animals on this planet of course has not changed
in many billions of years, bacteria sized is the average and the mean
and the mode.
Dean Chesterman
Falco98
news:e90782f7.0406...@posting.google.com...
> > me to even consider it. But if this were a perfect macro evolutionary
> > world, we would expect the following:
> >
> > 1. No evidence of dinosaurs or large fossilized mammals of any sort.
>
> constitute no evidence whatsoever! This is crazy.
Maybe you misunderstand.. I think he was saying something more like, the
dinosaur bones (etc) which have been found, lead him to NOT accept (for some
reason or other), the current theories comprising Evolution. Having
something to do with the fact that, since dinosaurs were big, current
animals should be bigger [forgetting that, both, dinosaurs generally went
extinct a few years ago, and that complexity != size, and evolution =>
{neither}].
Klaus Hellnick
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10c26th...@corp.supernews.com...
> J McCoy wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Certainly there is no land mammal in existence today that equals the
> > size of past mammals.
>
> directional. However, IIRC, the largest land mammals would have
> been the Emperor Mammoth, which maxed out at about 14 feet high
> at the shoulder. The African elephant maxes out at within a few
> inches of the mammoth. If not exactly equal, then not exactly
> different.
Have you ever heard of an Indricothere?
Klaus
>
> As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, you have a fixed
> idea about directionality in evolution, and you're wrong.
> Evolution does not progress from simple to complex (except for
> the very, very beginning); and it does not progress from the
> very small to the increasingly large. The theory of evolution
> does not predict this to happen.
>
> You won't pay any attention, though; so just go ahead and spin
> out your fantasies in public. It's always interesting to see
> what funny thing you'll say next.
>
> Tom McDonald
>
> <snip>
>
Klaus Hellnick
WRONG!!!! Modern horses, for example, are larger than prehistoric horses.
Modern humans are larger than prehistoric ones. Modern giraffes are larger
than prehistoric ones. Should I go on?
Klaus
Sporkmastar Fred
Hey now, what did The Pixies ever do to get lumped with these guys?
Sporkmastar Fred
Robert P. Wadlow is the tallest recorded man in history at 8'11". He
died in 1840. No one since then has equalled him in size. Should we
assume, then, that everyone is getting shorter?
David Jensen
<142e3b90.0406...@posting.google.com>:
>thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com>...
>> EO: Ah, but AIG/ICR/Hovind/Gastrich/L Ron Hubbard/pixies said this:
>
>Hey now, what did The Pixies ever do to get lumped with these guys?
Pictsies would like to have a go at the rest of the lot that are making
them look bad.
John Wilkins
> In talk.origins, loopss...@hotmail.com (Sporkmastar Fred) wrote in
> <142e3b90.0406...@posting.google.com>:
> >thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote:
> >> EO: Ah, but AIG/ICR/Hovind/Gastrich/L Ron Hubbard/pixies said this:
> >
> >Hey now, what did The Pixies ever do to get lumped with these guys?
>
> Pictsies would like to have a go at the rest of the lot that are making
> them look bad.
Oh wailie wailie, to be shoved in wi' lawyers! Crivens!
Daniel Harper
1940. From complications due to a toe injury, as I recall. Modern
antibiotics (developed just a few years later) would have easily saved his
life.
He was 22.
--
Finding a scientific theory of creation is a bit like parsing /dev/null.
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
TQ
"Daniel Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.07....@terralink.net...
He developed an infection in an ulcer on his ankle caused by the metal
braces he wore on his legs (IIRC)
Dancing Blasphemer
> "Steven J." <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message news:<10c18u7...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com...
> > > lt_k...@yahoo.ca (Lieutenant Kizhe Katson) wrote in message
> news:<47b867ea.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message
> news:<3f355ee.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> -- [snip]
> > >
> > > > So: your reason for not accepting evolution is that you have a slew of
> > > > bizarre misconceptions about what it is, and how it works, and hence
> > > > what the evidence should look like?
> > >
> > > I have no misconceptions whatsoever. The definition of macro
> > > evolution is that we evolved from the less complex. From single cell
> > > to multicelled. But if you look in the fossil record you see huge
> > > animals. Dragon flies, birds, lizards and the sort. But you look at
> > > current life forms, and thye are small. There are no animals in
> > > existence today that equal the animals of the past.
First you say that there are no animals today as large as past
animals.
<snip part of Steven J's reply for brevity>
Then Steven J. points out that modern whale are as large or larger
than any dinosaur:
> > Note that some modern whales, at least, seem as large as any dinosaur or
> > marine reptile (or extinct whale, for that matter) that ever lived. Quite a
> > few large mammals became extinct relatively recently; large size has
> > disadvantages to go along with its advantages (especially when it comes to
> > hunters with spears). Note that most animals in the past were also small;
> > the average dinosaur was not huge, and the lizards and snakes of that era
> > were no bigger, in general, than their descendants are today.
Then you change your argument, emphasis mine:
>
> Certainly there is no *land* mammal in existence today that equals the
> size of past mammals.
>
> A challenge for the thermodynamically challenged evolutionist.
Congratulations, you have just supported the Louis Flow (tm) stage 3:
"EO: Ah, but AIG/ICR/Hovind/Gastrich/L Ron Hubbard/pixies said this:
regurgitation of above argument in different form or total change of
topic."
I guess I could jump to the next stage of the Louis Flow (tm):
"EP: That's the same argument, and has been refuted here, see ref Y.
Or, that's a total change of topic, and even if it were relevant
(which it ain't) here is a refutation of that falsehood/fallacy, see
ref Z."
But I think I'll just jump two stages ahead and say:
"EP: You're a fucking idiot".
Dancing Blasphemer
T Pagano
(Louis) wrote:
>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in message news:<knusb0t8j5aa7lnjj...@4ax.com>...
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:12:35 +0000 (UTC), thethi...@hotmail.com
>> (Louis) wrote:
>>
>> >To all people who disagree with the modern synthesis of evolutionary
>> >biology in a significant manner, especially the gentlemen named in the
>> >title,
>> >
>> >What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
>> >reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
>> >developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
>> >described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
>> >synthesis of evolutionary biology?
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> This question of Louis's presposes a false understanding of science.
>> That is, Louis seems to be under the mistaken notion that scientists
>> are in the business of gathering evidence and once some level of
>> corroborative evidence has been amassed the theory is proved. But
>> this ain't so.
>>
>> Since every false theory in the history of science has true
>> consequences and has garnered solid, reliable evidence but was
>> nonetheless falsified how would we know when we had enough "solid,
>> reliable" evidence? Louis doesn't say. Newton's theory was one of
>> the most corroborated theories of all time yet it was nonetheless
>> falsified and superceded by Einstein's. Einstein's theory was not a
>> trivial deduction from Newton's but a new novel theory.
>>
>> As a result how much corroborative, solid, reliable evidence would
>> guarrantee the truth of neoDarwinism? I know Louis doesn't know the
>> answer to that question since smarter men than he and I throughout
>> history have been unable to answer.
>
>Mr Pagano,
>
>Thanks for the almost total lack of understanding. I was not asking
>what about the evidenciary nature of science, or what would confirm
>any scientific theory as absolutely true, as I am totally aware of the
>nature of science and the limits of observation. Your attempted
>evasion of the question is noted. >
>The question I asked is really very simple, what would YOU personally
>accept as evidence for the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology.
Pagano replies:
Let's refresh Louis's recollection with his own words:
[BEGIN LOUIS QUOTE]
"What would you accept as solid, reliable evidence proving beyond
reasonable doubt that the process by which all life on earth today
developed was that process (or set of processes) that is accurately
described by the current set of theories that constitute the modern
synthesis of evolutionary biology?"
[END QUOTE]
Since Louis was using phrases like "solid, reliable, evidence,"
"proving beyond a reasonable doubt," and "accurately describes," in
his request it didn't sound like he was interested in irrational,
emotional beliefs. Louis used the language of scientific, rational and
presumably critical reasoning. And when I addressed science, IN
GENERAL, concerning the impotence of the sort of observations he
solicited from us it should have been obvious that it applied to
specific sciences like neoDarwinism. Sheeesh....
Louis was using phrases which indicated he was interested in a
rational decision based upon "solid, reliable, evidence." As a result
my pointing out that any finite collection of corroborative
observations (whether "hoped for" or actual) doesn't allow us to
logically conclude that any theory in general or neoDarwinian
evolutionism in particular is true WAS PARTICULARLY RELEVENT.
Furthermore it should be noted that any collection of evidence
regardless of the "quality" doesn't even allow us to conclude that a
scientific theory in general or neoDarwinian evolutionism in
particular is probably true. Probabilities are sometimes used to
generate belief. This does not mean that one can not make a rational
decision. It is just that the process Louis asked us to employ (offer
some single observation or several) was not valid or particularly
rational for the purpose stated.
So if Louis isn't interested in a valid rational decision then one
could just as easily opine that I would "believe in" evolutionism if I
witnessed a pig fly. Perhaps that's the sort of invalid reasoning
Louis was interested in. So be it.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
Mitch Alsup
This just presupposes that he does not understand what evolution says as
a theory nor what the evidence shows as fact. Just as there are reasons
a line of animals or plants becomes larger in one epoch, there are
reasons that that some line of descendants become smaller in another.
The fact that he does not 'get' this is his problem not evolutions.
Augray
> thethi...@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote in message news:<761bf1a.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > EO: Ah, but AIG/ICR/Hovind/Gastrich/L Ron Hubbard/pixies said this:
>
> Hey now, what did The Pixies ever do to get lumped with these guys?
Where are their minds?