There are no anti-evolutionists
Iain
Probe anybody on why they claim to gainsay evolutionary theory, and
they'll eventually misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along
the line.
--Iain
Richard Clayton
That's because most creationist literature indoctrinates readers with a
ludicrous strawman version of evolution. Lots of them really *do* think
the theory of evolution suggests that fish will occasionally give birth
to zebras, that squirrels jumping from tree to tree may sprout wings and
fly away, and that a "transitional form" would be a monkey with a shark
head. (Cf. "crocoduck.")
I suspect this is mostly because the silly strawman version of biology
is easier to knock down, but also partly because some of the flock might
actually decide evolutionary theory makes sense if they learn the actual
details.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Kalkidas
"Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:255d61d5-8f13-4002...@o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Probe anybody on why they claim to gainsay evolutionary theory, and
> they'll eventually misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along
> the line.
If that were the case, then "real" or "not misstated" evolutionary theory
would be unfalsifiable.
Grandbank
> "Iain" <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
That doesn't follow at all from what he said. His statement reflects
reality as it is, not other possible realities where creationists were
capable of bringing informed criticism to the table.
KP.
Michael Young
Right. And even if we were to go along with your line of thought,
Kalkidas, there are many conceivable lines of evidence that could
falsify evolution. For example:
* a static fossil record;
* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from
several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs)
and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers
relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where
two whole organisms come together;
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
* observations of organisms being created.
Evolutionary theory is not invincible. But so far no one has found the
scientific sword to hack off its head.
Kalkidas
"Grandbank" <zetet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6490949-30dd-4281...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
What he said is that no one could "gainsay" evolutionary theory (i.e. say it
is false) if they properly defined it (i.e. did not misstate it). That
literally means that "properly stated" evolutionary theory cannot be
falsified.
Ray Martinez
You are too new here to understand what your fellow evolutionists are
really attempting to say. They are trying to say that evolution
rejection is caused by misunderstanding and nothing else. "To
understand requires acceptance; to reject is to misunderstand." I
admit freely that one could not derive this argument from the
preceding posts but this is what your fellow evolutionists are really
saying.
In response: Evolution is rejected because we do understand the
claims, theory and explanation of evidence. Those who accept evolution
do not understand the claims, theory and explanation of evidence.
The point: claiming that evolution rejection is caused by
misunderstanding is a bad tactic. One could simply say that acceptance
is caused by misunderstanding. "To understand requires rejection; to
accept is to misunderstand."
But in reality: evolution is rejected because there is no evidence.
The claims of evolution are not supported by the evidence.
Ray (species immutabilist)
Greg G.
DNA testing could have completely destroyed the theory of evolution if
it showed that each species had genomes that were nothing like the
genomes of similar species. Even now, every DNA test done is a
potential refuter of some part of the TOE.
aganunitsi
"chimpanzees never morphed into humans". Which is a misstatement of
what ToE actually claims (chimps and humans have a common ancestor).
Ernest Major
<4f2e2efd-71a3-4300...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>Ray (species immutabilist)
You still haven't offered any explanation for the existence of the
tetraploid cytotype of Primula kewensis. Or for the disparity of
domestic dogs, pigeons and Brassicas.
It is the refusal of yourself, and people like you, to address the
evidence that leads to claims that "there are no anti-evolutionists".
When you act like a crypto-evolutionist people are liable to infer that
you are on.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
writes
professed anti-evolutionists can't falsify properly stated evolutionary
theory. The conclusion that no one ever could falsify it does not
follow.
--
alias Ernest Major
Michael Young
> What he said is that no one could "gainsay" evolutionary theory (i.e. say it
> is false) if they properly defined it (i.e. did not misstate it). That
> literally means that "properly stated" evolutionary theory cannot be
> falsified.
Ah. Well, that's a yes and no, I suppose. Here we get mixed up in the
context of how the word evolution should be used. The fact that
organisms evolve is indisputable. We've evolved populations of fruit
flies over the span of just a few months in the lab, and we've
witnessed speciation occur in nature (Hawaiian finches for one
example). So if people properly defined evolution as it relates to the
fact of organisms evolving, then he is correct in his statement. If
he's saying that no one can argue with a finer detail of the theory of
evolution by not incorrectly stating it, I think he may be wrong
there.
On Jun 3, 3:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are too new here to understand what your fellow evolutionists are
> really attempting to say. They are trying to say that evolution
> rejection is caused by misunderstanding and nothing else.
If this rejection is the rejection of the fact that organisms do
evolve, and not rejection of HOW that evolution occurs, then I agree
with them. The scientific community hasn't had any debate over the
fact that populations of organisms evolve for a very, very long time,
because we know it happens. The exact mechanisms behind it are a bit
trickier.
> In response: Evolution is rejected because we do understand the
> claims, theory and explanation of evidence. Those who accept evolution
> do not understand the claims, theory and explanation of evidence.
That's backwards. I totally understand what you're saying, or
attempting to, with the above statement. But...well, I know I won't
convince you or persuade you, and I know this sounds perhaps too
jumping-to-the-point, but you're wrong.
> The point: claiming that evolution rejection is caused by
> misunderstanding is a bad tactic. One could simply say that acceptance
> is caused by misunderstanding. "To understand requires rejection; to
> accept is to misunderstand."
Something tells me you would never apply this to religion, which would
be quite hypocritical. Also, you cannot possibly deny that many things
are rejected on the basis of not fully understanding them or choosing
to ignore them altogether, evolution being just one of those things.
As I've stated, you need to be more specific by what you mean by
"evolution" to begin with, but I have a hunch it doesn't matter in
your case.
> But in reality: evolution is rejected because there is no evidence.
> The claims of evolution are not supported by the evidence.
These two statements are as incorrect as any incorrect statement could
be. If, somehow, you were able to proclaim this to biologists across
the planet, the scientific community the world over would laugh you
out of credibility. I don't mean any offense by this, I'm simply
telling you that's exactly how it would be. We have a method, our
method has worked for years and years, and if it was wrong and gave us
wrong information nothing we have today would work like it does.
> Ray (species immutabilist)
Mike Young (evolved human)
Grandbank
> "Grandbank" <zetetic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e6490949-30dd-4281...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 10:20 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "Iain" <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:255d61d5-8f13-4002...@o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Probe anybody on why they claim to gainsay evolutionary theory, and
> >> > they'll eventually misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along
> >> > the line.
>
> >> If that were the case, then "real" or "not misstated" evolutionary theory
> >> would be unfalsifiable.
>
> > That doesn't follow at all from what he said. His statement reflects
> > reality as it is, not other possible realities where creationists were
> > capable of bringing informed criticism to the table.
>
> is false) if they properly defined it (i.e. did not misstate it). That
> literally means that "properly stated" evolutionary theory cannot be
> falsified.
Read the post again. What do you think the words "probe", "why", and
"claim" mean? He is talking about what real creationists actually
think and say, not whether evolutionary theory is potentially
falsifiable or not.
Is poor reading comprehension at the root of *all creationist
thinking?
KP
Jack Dominey
Nope. Go look up what unfalsifiable means. It's not the same as
'accurate' or 'true'.
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Dana Tweedy
Of course, Ray is just making things up here.
> They are trying to say that evolution
> rejection is caused by misunderstanding and nothing else.
Actually rejection of evolution is primarily due to religious bias, and
ignorance.
> "To
> understand requires acceptance; to reject is to misunderstand."
Nope, just an ability to grasp how evidence is evaluated.
> I
> admit freely that one could not derive this argument from the
> preceding posts but this is what your fellow evolutionists are really
> saying.
Which is, of course, nonsense.
>
> In response: Evolution is rejected because we do understand the
> claims, theory and explanation of evidence.
Not to mention a rather large set of religious blinders. You don't
understand how science works, and you wish to replace science with your
own religious belief.
> Those who accept evolution
> do not understand the claims, theory and explanation of evidence.
False assertion. Acceptance of evolution is based on the evidence, and
knowledge of how science works.
>
> The point: claiming that evolution rejection is caused by
> misunderstanding is a bad tactic.
It's not a "tactic", it's the truth. You can't simply reverse the
argument to be valid.
> One could simply say that acceptance
> is caused by misunderstanding. "To understand requires rejection; to
> accept is to misunderstand."
That's not how science works.
>
> But in reality: evolution is rejected because there is no evidence.
On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence of evolution. That's
why you can't simply reverse the statements. The evidence does support
evolution, and does not support your beliefs.
> The claims of evolution are not supported by the evidence.
Again, a false assertion. This is why you run away from any discussion
of the evidence, because you know that the claims of evolution are
supported by the evidence.
Run away as much as you like, but the truth isn't going away.
DJT
Kalkidas
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3XuJeuaV...@meden.invalid...
Can you give an example of someone who is not a professed-anti-evolutionist,
and who does not misstate the theory, yet says the theory of evolution is
false?
Kalkidas
OK. If you want to play that game, I don't see the word "creationist"
anywhere in to post. Moreover, the verb "probe" has the direct object
"anybody", not "any creationist". Moreover, the subject line is "there are
no anti-evolutionists", not "there are no creationists".
So the post is clearly about anti-evolutionists, not creationists.
I think my reading comprehension is up to speed. I do recognize tricks like
"define something so generally that it can't be falsified" and "if someone
says it's false, switch definitions on them and then accuse them of not
using the right one" when I see them, because, in the real world, there are
anti-evolutionists who do state the theory correctly, and who do say it's
false.
Greg G.
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:3XuJeuaV...@meden.invalid...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <hu8uno$o9...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> > writes
>
> >>"Grandbank" <zetetic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:e6490949-30dd-4281...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Jun 3, 10:20 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>> "Iain" <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:255d61d5-8f13-4002...@o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> > Probe anybody on why they claim to gainsay evolutionary theory, and
> >>>> > they'll eventually misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along
> >>>> > the line.
>
> >>>> If that were the case, then "real" or "not misstated" evolutionary
> >>>> theory
> >>>> would be unfalsifiable.
>
> >>> That doesn't follow at all from what he said. �His statement reflects
> >>> reality as it is, not other possible realities where creationists were
> >>> capable of bringing informed criticism to the table.
>
> >>What he said is that no one could "gainsay" evolutionary theory (i.e. say
> >>it
> >>is false) if they properly defined it (i.e. did not misstate it). That
> >>literally means that "properly stated" evolutionary theory cannot be
> >>falsified.
>
> > I don't not agree with your interpretation of his words. He means that
> > professed anti-evolutionists can't falsify properly stated evolutionary
> > theory. The conclusion that no one ever could falsify it does not follow.
>
> Can you give an example of someone who is not a professed-anti-evolutionist,
> and who does not misstate the theory, yet says the theory of evolution is
> false?
What does that have to do with anything? The properly stated
evolutionary theory can be falsified by evidence (a fossil of a
Precambrian rabbit, for example).
Ernest Major
writes
does state the theory correctly.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
writes
evolution is falsifiable in the Popperian sense, even if professed
anti-evolutionists regularly misstate the theory and the observations.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bill
Ray, you're nuts, but once in a while agree with you. The argument
"You only reject evolution because you do not understand it" doesn't
work. As you rightly point out anyone can claim about any argument at
all that "If you really understood the argument you'd agree with me."
I agree with you that it is possible to fully understand an argument
and yet disagree with it.
Steven L.
> Probe anybody on why they claim to gainsay evolutionary theory, and
> they'll eventually misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along
> the line.
"Anybody"???
That's totally false.
Most of those I've encountered, reject the ToE because they don't accept
its philosophical implications.
What these folks object to is the notion that life on Earth today is
entirely the product of natural laws.
If the only problem were one of ignorance on the part of the intended
audience, all that would be required would be to teach the ToE better,
and publicize it better.
That approach has failed. You can teach it till the cows come home, but
someone who is utterly convinced that God created Man isn't going to buy
it.
From the polls I've seen, in the U.S., acceptance of the ToE has
remained relatively static. Half the public just won't accept it. In
fact, one-third responded that if there were a conflict between science
and God, they would stick with God.
That's after decades of science popularization, science in magazines and
on TV, even science fiction describing evolution on other planets, etc.
Jerry Coyne and Ken Miller don't agree on many things. But one thing
they do agree on is that this issue of science vs. God has to be faced
squarely. If the ToE is perceived as eliminating any role for God, then
don't expect a highly religious people like Americans to be too partial
to the ToE.
-- Steven L.
John Harshman
> Jerry Coyne and Ken Miller don't agree on many things. But one thing
> they do agree on is that this issue of science vs. God has to be faced
> squarely. If the ToE is perceived as eliminating any role for God, then
> don't expect a highly religious people like Americans to be too partial
> to the ToE.
And that's odd, if you think about it. Why should biology be the last
refuge of god? Why don't people demand a role for god in the motions of
the planets, or the formation of chemical bonds? And even in biology,
why is the non-intervention of god in metabolism, fertilization,
development, ecology, etc. perfectly acceptable, as long as he
personally designed every beetle species?
Now of course the fight over the motion of planets happened a long time
ago, so maybe it's just recency that counts here.
Richard Clayton
It's POSSIBLE to fully understand an argument and still disagree with
it, but that's not what we generally see from creationists in t.o: With
only a a few exceptions, most creationists show no sign of understanding
even the rudiments of biology.
Bill
wrote:
The mark of understanding an argument with which you disagree is the
ability to paraphrase it accurately. Most creationists here are
incapable of that, I agree. I also think that many of us sciencey
folks could accurately paraphrase the creationist arguments offered
here. It's always a good idea to try to present the most sympathetic
possible version of your opponent's argument.
Garamond Lethe
> In message <hu99qm$9p...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> writes
>
>
>
Kurt Wise would at least agree with the correct definition, but I
don't think that helps Kalkidas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Garamond Lethe
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:3XuJeuaV...@meden.invalid...
>
>
>
> > In message <hu8uno$o9...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> > writes
>
> >>"Grandbank" <zetetic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:e6490949-30dd-4281...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Jun 3, 10:20 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>> "Iain" <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:255d61d5-8f13-4002...@o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> > Probe anybody on why they claim to gainsay evolutionary theory, and
> >>>> > they'll eventually misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along
> >>>> > the line.
>
> >>>> If that were the case, then "real" or "not misstated" evolutionary
> >>>> theory
> >>>> would be unfalsifiable.
>
> >>> That doesn't follow at all from what he said. His statement reflects
> >>> reality as it is, not other possible realities where creationists were
> >>> capable of bringing informed criticism to the table.
>
> >>What he said is that no one could "gainsay" evolutionary theory (i.e. say
> >>it
> >>is false) if they properly defined it (i.e. did not misstate it). That
> >>literally means that "properly stated" evolutionary theory cannot be
> >>falsified.
>
> > I don't not agree with your interpretation of his words. He means that
> > professed anti-evolutionists can't falsify properly stated evolutionary
> > theory. The conclusion that no one ever could falsify it does not follow.
>
> Can you give an example of someone who is not a professed-anti-evolutionist,
> and who does not misstate the theory, yet says the theory of evolution is
> false?
R. A. Fisher? But then he turned around and replaced the old version
of evolution with a better version. Motoo Kimura did the same thing,
as did Tomoko Ohta. Et cetera.
Kalkidas
[snip]
>>I think my reading comprehension is up to speed. I do recognize tricks
>>like
>>"define something so generally that it can't be falsified" and "if someone
>>says it's false, switch definitions on them and then accuse them of not
>>using the right one" when I see them, because, in the real world, there
>>are
>>anti-evolutionists who do state the theory correctly, and who do say it's
>>false.
>>
> Interesting. Would you provide an example of an anti-evolutionist who does
> state the theory correctly.
Ahem, yours truly. Following is a correctly stated description of the theory
of evolution from the NAS. Note that I have no objection to the first
paragraph. It is the second one where the problems start.
From http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=2
"Organisms in nature typically produce more offspring than can survive and
reproduce given the constraints of food, space, and other resources in the
environment. These offspring often differ from one another in ways that are
heritable-that is, they can pass on the differences genetically to their own
offspring. If competing offspring have traits that are advantageous in a
given environment, they will survive and pass on those traits. As
differences continue to accumulate over generations, populations of
organisms diverge from their ancestors.
"This straightforward process, which is a natural consequence of
biologically reproducing organisms competing for limited resources, is
responsible for one of the most magnificent chronicles known to science.
Over billions of years, it has led the earliest organisms on earth to
diversify into all of the plants, animals, and microorganisms that exist
today. Though humans, fish, and bacteria would seem to be so different as to
defy comparison, they all share some of the characteristics of their common
ancestors"
bpuharic
>
>
>Ahem, yours truly. Following is a correctly stated description of the theory
>of evolution from the NAS. Note that I have no objection to the first
>paragraph. It is the second one where the problems start.
which is what happens when you let religion interfere with logic
>
>
William Morse
Evolutionary theory rests on two principles, excess reproduction and
heritable variation. Given those, evolution will occur. That insight by
Darwin is obvious in retrospect. (Lots of things are obvious in retrospect)
Given a reasonably stable environment, evolution will produce "design".
i.e. streamlining, vision, flight, etc. And the evidence is that -
apart from a few major extinction events - the environment is fairly
stable. So the only way to falsify evolution is by the argument that
the earth is young and the biota were placed full blown by a creator.
Unless you want to argue that excess reproduction and heritable
variation don't occur.
Garamond Lethe
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:stVvgYi6...@meden.invalid...
>
> > In message <hu99qm$9p...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> > writes
>
> [snip]
>
> >>I think my reading comprehension is up to speed. I do recognize tricks
> >>like
> >>"define something so generally that it can't be falsified" and "if someone
> >>says it's false, switch definitions on them and then accuse them of not
> >>using the right one" when I see them, because, in the real world, there
> >>are
> >>anti-evolutionists who do state the theory correctly, and who do say it's
> >>false.
>
> > Interesting. Would you provide an example of an anti-evolutionist who does
> > state the theory correctly.
>
> Ahem, yours truly. Following is a correctly stated description of the theory
> of evolution from the NAS. Note that I have no objection to the first
> paragraph. It is the second one where the problems start.
>
>
> "Organisms in nature typically produce more offspring than can survive and
> reproduce given the constraints of food, space, and other resources in the
> environment. These offspring often differ from one another in ways that are
> heritable-that is, they can pass on the differences genetically to their own
> offspring. If competing offspring have traits that are advantageous in a
> given environment, they will survive and pass on those traits. As
> differences continue to accumulate over generations, populations of
> organisms diverge from their ancestors.
>
> "This straightforward process, which is a natural consequence of
> biologically reproducing organisms competing for limited resources, is
> responsible for one of the most magnificent chronicles known to science.
> Over billions of years, it has led the earliest organisms on earth to
> diversify into all of the plants, animals, and microorganisms that exist
> today. Though humans, fish, and bacteria would seem to be so different as to
> defy comparison, they all share some of the characteristics of their common
> ancestors"
The second paragraph doesn't define evolution. I think you've
demonstrated Iain's point.
Dakota
The two paragraphs are not intended to be a definition of evolution but
an explanation of the theory and its results. Here's the paragraph that
precedes them:
From a scientific standpoint, there is one compelling answer to
questions about life's commonalities. Different kinds of organisms share
so many characteristics of structure and function because they are
related to one another. But how?
Garamond Lethe
Hey, look what I found!
"Evolution:
Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population
of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is
populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms."
http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Definitions.html
So, Kalkidas, now that you've been shown a reasonable defintion, do
you have any problem with it?
David Hare-Scott
>
> I think my reading comprehension is up to speed. I do recognize
> tricks like "define something so generally that it can't be
> falsified" and "if someone says it's false, switch definitions on
> them and then accuse them of not using the right one" when I see
> them, because, in the real world, there are anti-evolutionists who do
> state the theory correctly, and who do say it's false.
Who?
David
chris thompson
> Probe anybody on why they claim to gainsay evolutionary theory, and
> they'll eventually misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along
> the line.
>
I actually did a survey on this very question. I collected almost a
thousand responses from high school and community college students.
They were asked 3 questions (among others) in a specific order: most
believed frogs and toads were biologically related. Most believed dogs
and wolves were biologically related. But many denied that humans were
biologically related to chimpanzees.
Chris
Ernest Major
writes
>> Interesting. Would you provide an example of an anti-evolutionist who does
>> state the theory correctly.
>
>Ahem, yours truly.
Considering that I've had cause to complain about you presenting a
strawman version of the theory, I disagree. And there was your recent
claim that speciation had not been observed. (Admittedly that's
misstating the evidence, not the theory.)
>Following is a correctly stated description of the theory of evolution
>from the NAS. Note that I have no objection to the first paragraph. It
>is the second one where the problems start.
>
>From http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=2
--
Alias Ernest Major
Kalkidas
> In message <hu9n4p$og6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> writes
>>> Interesting. Would you provide an example of an anti-evolutionist who
>>> does
>>> state the theory correctly.
>>
>>Ahem, yours truly.
>
> Considering that I've had cause to complain about you presenting a
> strawman version of the theory, I disagree. And there was your recent
> claim that speciation had not been observed. (Admittedly that's misstating
> the evidence, not the theory.)
Actually, since "species" is not defined rigorously, as, say, "force" is in
physics, one can say either that speciation has or has not been observed
depending on what non-rigorous definition one chooses. With so many options,
the "evidence" loses value as evidence.
That, in fact, is the problem with calling evolution a "theory" at all. The
entities it purports to explain are often rather fuzzy.
One of my favorite strawmen is when Darwinists try to bait creationists by
saying "the debate is over, evolution is a fact", and when they are called
to task they fall back on one of the most general and therefore trivial and
undisputed definitions of evolution, such as "change in allele frequencies
in a population over time."
I am an anti-evolutionist, or more properly, an anti-Darwinist, and I do not
misstate the "theory".
aganunitsi
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:jtoswDCO...@meden.invalid...
>
> > In message <hu9n4p$og...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
The debate isn't whether or not ToE is perfect, it is whether or not
creationism is a better theory than ToE.
So you have a problem with the fuzzy logic required to comprehend
ToE... What is it about creationism that is less fuzzy? Do
creationists use a more rigorous definition of organisms (e.g.
"kinds")?
Michael Young
> Actually, since "species" is not defined rigorously, as, say, "force" is in
> physics, one can say either that speciation has or has not been observed
> depending on what non-rigorous definition one chooses. With so many options,
> the "evidence" loses value as evidence.
So many options? Name them.
> That, in fact, is the problem with calling evolution a "theory" at all. The
> entities it purports to explain are often rather fuzzy.
It's impossible NOT for a definition of "species" to be fuzzy,
because, as you would expect from an evolving population, you have
intermediate forms between "species" and intermediates for THOSE
intermediates. Eventually if you keep looking at a smaller and smaller
scope of these said intermediates you get to the point where the
intermediate organisms are really the same exact thing as their
parents/ancestors, but with one or two genes in difference.
It's the same exact thing as asking "how many different numbers are
there between 1 and 10?" if you restrict the definition to whole
integers, the answer is ten; if you define it by halves, then 20; so
on and so forth. The real question is, when should we, along the
evolutionary development lineage, say that a population of organisms
has become a species different than that of its ancestors?
However, this problem does NOT get in the way of evolution. You once
again demonstrate your attempt at using words without understanding
the science behind them to make an incorrect statement about science.
> One of my favorite strawmen is when Darwinists try to bait creationists by
> saying "the debate is over, evolution is a fact"
They aren't baiting anyone. The debate IS over. There is literally no
debate to be spoken of.
> ...most general and therefore trivial and
> undisputed definitions of evolution, such as "change in allele frequencies
> in a population over time."
Generality does not equate to triviality. For example, you left your
car keys on the table next to the red book pointed westward. That's
very specific, but horrendously trivial to everyone else.
Also, that definition is neither general nor trivial. It's specific,
and quite important for biology. Stop misusing words, it makes you
look like an idiot. That's also not the whole definition. While that
is an important part, the kicker is the fact that those changes in
allele frequencies affect the change in phenotypes, which affect
reproductive success. Evolution is, to simplify it, "the change in the
inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive
generations." Traits being physical changes, which are governed by the
inherited genotypes.
> I am an anti-evolutionist, or more properly, an anti-Darwinist, and I do not
> misstate the "theory".
Oh, really. You've done a wonderful job so far.
Ernest Major
writes
>
>"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jtoswDCO...@meden.invalid...
>> In message <hu9n4p$og6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
>> writes
>>>> Interesting. Would you provide an example of an anti-evolutionist who
>>>> does
>>>> state the theory correctly.
>>>
>>>Ahem, yours truly.
>>
>> Considering that I've had cause to complain about you presenting a
>> strawman version of the theory, I disagree. And there was your recent
>> claim that speciation had not been observed. (Admittedly that's misstating
>> the evidence, not the theory.)
>
>Actually, since "species" is not defined rigorously, as, say, "force" is in
>physics, one can say either that speciation has or has not been observed
>depending on what non-rigorous definition one chooses. With so many options,
>the "evidence" loses value as evidence.
You're misstating the evidence again. Some instances of speciation are,
as you imply, ambiguous. Others aren't.
>
>That, in fact, is the problem with calling evolution a "theory" at all. The
>entities it purports to explain are often rather fuzzy.
>
>One of my favorite strawmen is when Darwinists try to bait creationists by
>saying "the debate is over, evolution is a fact", and when they are called
>to task they fall back on one of the most general and therefore trivial and
>undisputed definitions of evolution, such as "change in allele frequencies
>in a population over time."
>
>I am an anti-evolutionist, or more properly, an anti-Darwinist, and I do not
>misstate the "theory".
>
Did you not claim that the theory states that the disparity and
diversity of contemporary life is solely the result of random mutation
and natural selection?
--
alias Ernest Major
Kalkidas
Ahem, did you not read this?
From http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=2
"Organisms in nature typically produce more offspring than can survive and
reproduce given the constraints of food, space, and other resources in the
environment. These offspring often differ from one another in ways that are
heritable-...."
Random mutation.....
"...that is, they can pass on the differences genetically to their own
offspring. If competing offspring have traits that are advantageous in a
given environment, they will survive and pass on those traits. "
Natural selection.....
"As
differences continue to accumulate over generations, populations of
organisms diverge from their ancestors."
"This straightforward process, which is a natural consequence of
biologically reproducing organisms competing for limited resources, is
responsible for one of the most magnificent chronicles known to science.
Over billions of years, it has led the earliest organisms on earth to
diversify into all of the plants, animals, and microorganisms that exist
today. "
The disparity and diversity of contemporary life......
johnbee
< "Michael Young" <young...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:241840bc-d0dc-4d2c...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
The fact that organisms evolve is indisputable. >
No it isn't.
Richard Clayton
Agreed. It's instructive to reverse sides on an argument, and try to
construct a sound argument for a position you don't actually support; it
helps one think about WHAT one thinks, and WHY one thinks it.
Ernest Major
One could argue whether the stuff you quoted misstates the theory - it's
oversimplified and imprecise for my taste, but it doesn't go so far as
to say that random mutation and natural selection as the only processes
involved. But that doesn't alter the fact that if (as I have told you
before) you claim that the theory states that the disparity and
diversity of contemporary life is solely the result of random mutation
and natural selection then you are misstating the theory.
--
alias Ernest Major
Kalkidas
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:xJ6dneHJ3tY...@giganews.com...
> Steven L. wrote:
>
>> Jerry Coyne and Ken Miller don't agree on many things. But one thing
>> they do agree on is that this issue of science vs. God has to be faced
>> squarely. If the ToE is perceived as eliminating any role for God, then
>> don't expect a highly religious people like Americans to be too partial
>> to the ToE.
>
> And that's odd, if you think about it. Why should biology be the last
> refuge of god? Why don't people demand a role for god in the motions of
> the planets, or the formation of chemical bonds? And even in biology, why
> is the non-intervention of god in metabolism, fertilization, development,
> ecology, etc. perfectly acceptable, as long as he personally designed
> every beetle species?
What do you mean by "non-intervention"? God is defined as the being on whom
everything else, without exception, depends for its existence. That includes
planets, chemical bonds, beetles, and even your own thoughts, words, and
actions. So what would it mean for God not to intervene?
> Now of course the fight over the motion of planets happened a long time
> ago, so maybe it's just recency that counts here.
>
As Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 15.13: "I enter into each planet, and
by My energy they stay in orbit...."
Kalkidas
Well, I can simply direct you to the statements of evolutionists
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml
Now, I am aware that there are some papers that propose non-random
mutations, in the sense that certain portions of the genome might be more
susceptible to mutation than others. But this is tentative speculation, and
if it is shown to be the case, it will require both evolutionists and
antievolutionists to revise their definitions.
Ernest Major
Perhaps you should read that statement, which explicitly mentions (in
the first paragraph) at least one contributing factor other than
mutation and natural selection ...
>
>Now, I am aware that there are some papers that propose non-random
>mutations, in the sense that certain portions of the genome might be more
>susceptible to mutation than others. But this is tentative speculation, and
>if it is shown to be the case, it will require both evolutionists and
>antievolutionists to revise their definitions.
>
... rather than misstate the theory further. Mutations are in many ways
non-random, and that some portions of the genome are more susceptible to
mutation than others is not tentative speculation, but a well known
observation. See "mutational hotspot". When mutations are described as
random what is meant is that they are not systematically biased in
favour of beneficial mutations, not that all mutations are equally
likely. (This point is made in the 2nd paragraph of the statement you
direct us to.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
Likewise, Bill.
> The argument
> "You only reject evolution because you do not understand it" doesn't
> work. As you rightly point out anyone can claim about any argument at
> all that "If you really understood the argument you'd agree with me."
> I agree with you that it is possible to fully understand an argument
> and yet disagree with it.
>
Glad to see that you agree. But many evolutionists here at T.O. use
the "misunderstanding tactic" on a regular basis. It is so easily
defeated and shows how incredibly stupid that the average Darwinist
actually is.
Ray
Kalkidas
What, you mean genetic drift? It's reducible to random mutation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
"Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the relative frequency in
which a gene variant (allele) occurs in a population due to random sampling
and chance"
>>Now, I am aware that there are some papers that propose non-random
>>mutations, in the sense that certain portions of the genome might be more
>>susceptible to mutation than others. But this is tentative speculation,
>>and
>>if it is shown to be the case, it will require both evolutionists and
>>antievolutionists to revise their definitions.
>>
>
> ... rather than misstate the theory further. Mutations are in many ways
> non-random, and that some portions of the genome are more susceptible to
> mutation than others is not tentative speculation, but a well known
> observation. See "mutational hotspot". When mutations are described as
> random what is meant is that they are not systematically biased in favour
> of beneficial mutations, not that all mutations are equally likely. (This
> point is made in the 2nd paragraph of the statement you direct us to.)
When did I ever say that "random mutation" means "equally likely"? Moreover,
since the overwhelming number of mutations are harmful, it is meaningless to
claim that mutations are not biased in favor of beneficial mutations. In
fact they are biased in favor of harmful ones.
What I mean by random is, for example, that one cannot predict when and
where a cosmic ray proton will strike a genome. One can perhaps assign some
set of probabilities to which mutations are likely to occur once the proton
has struck. But whether or not those mutations occur at all is dependent on
an unpredictable process.
I really don't understand why you keep insisting that I have misstated the
theory of evolution. I have not. Maybe it's because I'm on to something - a
sore point of Darwinism that no one wants to look at squarely? I guess I
should be flattered, then.
Ray Martinez
> At this very moment Ray is gainsaying evolution in another thread with
> "chimpanzees never morphed into humans". Which is a misstatement of
> what ToE actually claims (chimps and humans have a common ancestor).
Brazen straw man and quote-mining.
I wrote: "....chimpanzees morphed into men over the course of millions
of years."
Ray
mur...@tntech.edu
---DPM
> Ray
Ernest Major
<cdf2107d-ab91-420a...@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Which is a misstatement of the relevant part of the theory of evolution,
as explained by the previous poster, even before we criticise your
misleading choice of verb.
>
>Ray
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Yet another misstatement of the theory of evolution. Genetic drift is
differential reproductive success not causally correlated with genotype.
It is no more reducible to random mutation than is natural selection
(differential reproductive success causally correlated with genotype).
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
>"Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the relative frequency in
>which a gene variant (allele) occurs in a population due to random sampling
>and chance"
Note the absence of any mention of mutation, random or otherwise, in
that definition.
>
>>>Now, I am aware that there are some papers that propose non-random
>>>mutations, in the sense that certain portions of the genome might be more
>>>susceptible to mutation than others. But this is tentative speculation,
>>>and
>>>if it is shown to be the case, it will require both evolutionists and
>>>antievolutionists to revise their definitions.
>>>
>>
>> ... rather than misstate the theory further. Mutations are in many ways
>> non-random, and that some portions of the genome are more susceptible to
>> mutation than others is not tentative speculation, but a well known
>> observation. See "mutational hotspot". When mutations are described as
>> random what is meant is that they are not systematically biased in favour
>> of beneficial mutations, not that all mutations are equally likely. (This
>> point is made in the 2nd paragraph of the statement you direct us to.)
>
>When did I ever say that "random mutation" means "equally likely"? Moreover,
>since the overwhelming number of mutations are harmful, it is meaningless to
>claim that mutations are not biased in favor of beneficial mutations. In
>fact they are biased in favor of harmful ones.
>
>What I mean by random is, for example, that one cannot predict when and
>where a cosmic ray proton will strike a genome. One can perhaps assign some
>set of probabilities to which mutations are likely to occur once the proton
>has struck. But whether or not those mutations occur at all is dependent on
>an unpredictable process.
>
>I really don't understand why you keep insisting that I have misstated the
>theory of evolution.
What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that you haven't
misstated the theory of evolution, where it's crystal clear that you
have. Doing so makes would normally make your arguments against
evolution less, rather than more, credible, but in your case, perhaps
not.
> I have not. Maybe it's because I'm on to something - a
>sore point of Darwinism that no one wants to look at squarely?
You're carefully avoiding several points of the theory of evolution. Why
don't you want to look at them squarely? I suspect that at least
subconsciously you realise that common descent with modification through
the agency of natural selection and other processes is overwhelming
supported by observation.
> I guess I
>should be flattered, then.
>
If you flattered by being thought of as the moral and intellectual equal
of Ray Martinez and Tony Pagano.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:xJ6dneHJ3tY...@giganews.com...
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Coyne and Ken Miller don't agree on many things. But one thing
>>> they do agree on is that this issue of science vs. God has to be faced
>>> squarely. If the ToE is perceived as eliminating any role for God, then
>>> don't expect a highly religious people like Americans to be too partial
>>> to the ToE.
>> And that's odd, if you think about it. Why should biology be the last
>> refuge of god? Why don't people demand a role for god in the motions of
>> the planets, or the formation of chemical bonds? And even in biology, why
>> is the non-intervention of god in metabolism, fertilization, development,
>> ecology, etc. perfectly acceptable, as long as he personally designed
>> every beetle species?
>
> What do you mean by "non-intervention"? God is defined as the being on whom
> everything else, without exception, depends for its existence. That includes
> planets, chemical bonds, beetles, and even your own thoughts, words, and
> actions. So what would it mean for God not to intervene?
So you think that god personally moves every atom to each new position,
guides every photon emission, curving that photon's path just so
whenever necessary, and pulls the strings for each and every event in
the universe? That's a weird god you have. I, on the other hand, think
all these things happen all by themselves, so what it means for god not
to intervene is just what we see.
>> Now of course the fight over the motion of planets happened a long time
>> ago, so maybe it's just recency that counts here.
>
> As Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 15.13: "I enter into each planet, and
> by My energy they stay in orbit...."
Bet that's a recent translation. So Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes
the planets to move? Why did Lord Krishna choose ellipses rather than,
say, octagons?
Frank J
> Probe anybody on why they claim to gainsay evolutionary theory, and
> they'll eventually misstate part of the theory itself somewhere along
> the line.
>
> --Iain
Good observation, and one of the many ironies in the "debate."
When one says "anti-evolutionist" it is really shorthand for "one who
is anti-science, with a particular objection to what they think - or
want their audience to think - is evolution." They might not
necessarily deny evolution as science describes it.
But you're right, they always get it wrong, deliberately or not.
Though there's no hard line between the rank and file and the
activists (and the latter usually start out as the former) I suspect
that most activists, save perhaps most hard-line Biblicals, do it
deliberately. But the rank and file probably just go by the same
misconceptions that plague many nonscientists who accept evolution. Or
what they think is evolution.
bpuharic
>
>"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jtoswDCO...@meden.invalid...
>> In message <hu9n4p$og6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
>> writes
>>>> Interesting. Would you provide an example of an anti-evolutionist who
>>>> does
>>>> state the theory correctly.
>>>
>>>Ahem, yours truly.
>>
>> Considering that I've had cause to complain about you presenting a
>> strawman version of the theory, I disagree. And there was your recent
>> claim that speciation had not been observed. (Admittedly that's misstating
>> the evidence, not the theory.)
>
>Actually, since "species" is not defined rigorously, as, say, "force" is in
>physics, one can say either that speciation has or has not been observed
>depending on what non-rigorous definition one chooses. With so many options,
>the "evidence" loses value as evidence.
>
>That, in fact, is the problem with calling evolution a "theory" at all. The
>entities it purports to explain are often rather fuzzy.
actually that's what we'd expect with evolution. if there are
transitional forms, then 'fuzziness' is a characteristic of evolution
thanks for, in your own why, inadvertently demonstrating a feature of
evolution!
>
>One of my favorite strawmen is when Darwinists try to bait creationists by
>saying "the debate is over, evolution is a fact", and when they are called
>to task they fall back on one of the most general and therefore trivial and
>undisputed definitions of evolution, such as "change in allele frequencies
>in a population over time."
and the problem with that definition is?
>
>I am an anti-evolutionist, or more properly, an anti-Darwinist, and I do not
>misstate the "theory".
no. you mis state science. to you, astrology is science
res ipsa loquitur
>
bpuharic
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>So you think that god personally moves every atom to each new position,
looks like pantheism. creationists dont seem to realize they have alot
in common with pantheists
Ernest Major
<wf...@comcast.net> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Kalkidas
> In message <hubheu$9cv$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> writes
>>
>>"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:qSzePNcgDUCMFw$Q...@meden.invalid...
>>> In message <hube53$3em$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
>>> writes
[snip]
>>>>Well, I can simply direct you to the statements of evolutionists
>>>>
>>>>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should read that statement, which explicitly mentions (in
>>> the
>>> first paragraph) at least one contributing factor other than mutation
>>> and
>>> natural selection ...
>>
>>What, you mean genetic drift? It's reducible to random mutation:
>
> Yet another misstatement of the theory of evolution. Genetic drift is
> differential reproductive success not causally correlated with genotype.
> It is no more reducible to random mutation than is natural selection
> (differential reproductive success causally correlated with genotype).
>
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
>>"Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the relative frequency in
>>which a gene variant (allele) occurs in a population due to random
>>sampling
>>and chance"
>
> Note the absence of any mention of mutation, random or otherwise, in that
> definition.
Ahem, variants of a gene, i.e. alleles, must originally be the product of
random mutation. At least according to the "theory" of evolution. Unless you
want to claim that the primordial common ancestor already possessed all the
alleles that any future organism would ever inherit.
Well you have certainly misstated my statements. You incorrectly
characterized my use of "random". You also seem not to know that there can
be no genetic drift without different alleles, and there cannot be different
alleles without random mutation of a gene, at least, that's what
evolutionary "theory" says.
>> I have not. Maybe it's because I'm on to something - a
>>sore point of Darwinism that no one wants to look at squarely?
>
> You're carefully avoiding several points of the theory of evolution. Why
> don't you want to look at them squarely? I suspect that at least
> subconsciously you realise that common descent with modification through
> the agency of natural selection and other processes is overwhelming
> supported by observation.
>
>> I guess I
>>should be flattered, then.
>>
> If you flattered by being thought of as the moral and intellectual equal
> of Ray Martinez and Tony Pagano.
As I have said in other threads, trying to pit me against other creationists
will not be successful. I do not share your scorn of them, (except Nando, of
course).
Dana Tweedy
> On Jun 3, 12:54 pm, aganunitsi<ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> At this very moment Ray is gainsaying evolution in another thread with
>> "chimpanzees never morphed into humans". Which is a misstatement of
>> what ToE actually claims (chimps and humans have a common ancestor).
>
> Brazen straw man and quote-mining.
How is this either, Ray?
>
> I wrote: "....chimpanzees morphed into men over the course of millions
> of years."
No one claims that chimps "morphed into" humans. Humans and chimps are
close relatives, not descentant/ancestors.
DJT
Kalkidas
I don't understand your reply. What do you mean "all by themselves"? Do you
mean that each individual object is an isolated monad which acts without any
connection to other objects? In that case, the laws of physics are wrong.
And what does "just what we see" mean? Who is "we"? Compared to us you are
blind. Who cares what you see?
>>> Now of course the fight over the motion of planets happened a long time
>>> ago, so maybe it's just recency that counts here.
>>
>> As Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 15.13: "I enter into each planet,
>> and by My energy they stay in orbit...."
>
> Bet that's a recent translation. So Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the
> planets to move? Why did Lord Krishna choose ellipses rather than, say,
> octagons?
Yes, Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move.
Dana Tweedy
actually, Ray, it usually shows you have nothing to offer but name
calling. When you *do* misunderstand something, it's valid to point
out that you don't understand it.
For example: You often claim that evolution is impossible because
animals don't have the magic power to change themselves. This totally
ignores the fact that evolution doesn't require any magic powers, and
that evolutionary theory doesn't suggest that animals (and plants, and
other living things) change themselves. This indicates clearly you
don't understand the concept of evolution, and how it operates.
DJT
bpuharic
>
>
>Yes, Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move.
too bad lord krishna forgot to tell us about relativity
guess he forgot....over the last 3000 years
another reason creationism is useless
>
Burkhard
Which according to the ToE is still wrong. Human and chimpanzees are
the result of lines that separated six million years ago, they are not
our ancestors
John Harshman
Fortunately, that isn't what I mean. I mean "without god personally
making it all happen".
> And what does "just what we see" mean? Who is "we"? Compared to us you are
> blind. Who cares what you see?
Who is "us"? I'm sure you can see much more than I can, if we're allowed
to count hallucinations. But I don't think any of that extra stuff is real.
>>>> Now of course the fight over the motion of planets happened a long time
>>>> ago, so maybe it's just recency that counts here.
>>> As Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 15.13: "I enter into each planet,
>>> and by My energy they stay in orbit...."
>> Bet that's a recent translation. So Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the
>> planets to move? Why did Lord Krishna choose ellipses rather than, say,
>> octagons?
>
> Yes, Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move.
Why does Lord Krishna like ellipses so much? And was Newton a complete
idiot?
Desertphile
> No it isn't.
Sorry. He meant "The fact that organisms evolve is indisputable
among the educated, intelligent people."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
>
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:xJ6dneHJ3tY...@giganews.com...
> > Steven L. wrote:
> >
> >> Jerry Coyne and Ken Miller don't agree on many things. But one thing
> >> they do agree on is that this issue of science vs. God has to be faced
> >> squarely. If the ToE is perceived as eliminating any role for God, then
> >> don't expect a highly religious people like Americans to be too partial
> >> to the ToE.
> >
> > And that's odd, if you think about it. Why should biology be the last
> > refuge of god? Why don't people demand a role for god in the motions of
> > the planets, or the formation of chemical bonds? And even in biology, why
> > is the non-intervention of god in metabolism, fertilization, development,
> > ecology, etc. perfectly acceptable, as long as he personally designed
> > every beetle species?
> What do you mean by "non-intervention"? God is defined as the being on whom
> everything else, without exception, depends for its existence. That includes
> planets, chemical bonds, beetles, and even your own thoughts, words, and
> actions. So what would it mean for god not to intervene?
Gods, your god sure is an asshole. Tell it to leave me the fuck
alone.
Desertphile
Why didn't the god prevent your cult leaders from murdering
innocent people. Why didn't the god prevent your cult leaders from
kidnapping people, torturing people, and raping little girls?
Desertphile
No.
Desertphile
>> So Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move?
> Yes, Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move.
Bill
We agree that the argument "if you only understood my argument you'd
agree with me" doesn't work. That, however, does not mean that I
actually think you understand the theory of evolution. If you do
understand it, it would be instructive to see you explain it and argue
in favor of it, just as an exercise to be sure you've understood it.
Greg G.
wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:50:04 +0100, "johnbee"
>
> > "Michael Young" <youngms...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:241840bc-d0dc-4d2c...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >> The fact that organisms evolve is indisputable.
> > No it isn't.
>
> Sorry. He meant "The fact that organisms evolve is indisputable
> among the educated, intelligent people."
Look, MY came here for an argument.
William Morse
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:xJ6dneHJ3tY...@giganews.com...
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Coyne and Ken Miller don't agree on many things. But one thing
>>> they do agree on is that this issue of science vs. God has to be faced
>>> squarely. If the ToE is perceived as eliminating any role for God, then
>>> don't expect a highly religious people like Americans to be too partial
>>> to the ToE.
>> And that's odd, if you think about it. Why should biology be the last
>> refuge of god? Why don't people demand a role for god in the motions of
>> the planets, or the formation of chemical bonds? And even in biology, why
>> is the non-intervention of god in metabolism, fertilization, development,
>> ecology, etc. perfectly acceptable, as long as he personally designed
>> every beetle species?
>
> What do you mean by "non-intervention"? God is defined as the being on whom
> everything else, without exception, depends for its existence. That includes
> planets, chemical bonds, beetles, and even your own thoughts, words, and
> actions. So what would it mean for God not to intervene?
>
>> ago, so maybe it's just recency that counts here.
>>
>
> As Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 15.13: "I enter into each planet, and
> by My energy they stay in orbit...."
OK, but why does that say anything about the theory of evolution. We
have the fossils, we have the DNA, we have the mechanism - we know how
God has worked in this case. End of story. Evolution is fact - it is how
God worked.
Kalkidas
"William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hucdb...@news5.newsguy.com...
1) "We" have the fossils too, and we disagree that they show evolution.
2) Nobody has any DNA older than a few thousand years.
3) "We" have the mechanism too, and we disagree that it can produce men from
molecules.
3a) According to Harshman, the mechanism works "all by itself", which means
God is not involved.
Your story ends prematurely.
RAM
> "William Morse" <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hucdb...@news5.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kalkidas wrote:
> >> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
Yours is silly and will not endure.
bpuharic
>
>>>
>>> As Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 15.13: "I enter into each planet,
>>> and by My energy they stay in orbit...."
>>
>> OK, but why does that say anything about the theory of evolution. We have
>> the fossils, we have the DNA, we have the mechanism - we know how God has
>> worked in this case. End of story. Evolution is fact - it is how God
>> worked.
>
>1) "We" have the fossils too, and we disagree that they show evolution.
>2) Nobody has any DNA older than a few thousand years.
>3) "We" have the mechanism too, and we disagree that it can produce men from
>molecules.
>3a) According to Harshman, the mechanism works "all by itself", which means
>God is not involved.
how one can conclude this is beyond me. if god made the laws of
nature
and nature made man
then the conclusion is obivious...except to creationists.
but they've been wrong for thousands of years, so they're just
continuing their tradition
>
>Your story ends prematurely.
>
John S. Wilkins
> Under "Oh. I heard it was angels...."
>
> >> So Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move?
>
> > Yes, Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move.
>
Krishna varies with the inverse of the square of the distance.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Kalkidas
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1jjm8m5.lseabf221wh1N%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
>> Under "Oh. I heard it was angels...."
>>
>> >> So Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move?
>>
>> > Yes, Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move.
>>
>
> Krishna varies with the inverse of the square of the distance.
I'm just pleased that I got people to think of Krishna. One Krishna is worth
billions of disputations.
bpuharic
no one thinks of krishna. i certainly think of some of his followers
as idiots
not mentioning names, you understand
>
John S. Wilkins
To prevent good karma, I immediately thought of Ahriman and Shaitan
equally.
Ernest Major
The usual advice is that if you're in a hole you're best to stop
digging. But I'm willing for the time being to provide you with
replacement spades.
That is not a valid justification for trying to pretend that genetic
drift is just a form of mutation. Natural selection also depends on
their being variants of a gene, but you haven't (yet) tried to claim
that natural selection is just a form of mutation.
As far as I know, it is possible to shoehorn all population-level
evolutionary processes into two non-arbitrary categories - variation and
differential reproductive success - but these are equivalent to mutation
and natural selection.
I don't understand why you feel it necessary to defend your particular
strawman of the theory of evolution; when you resort to epistemological
nihilism to gainstay then theory you don't need that particular
strawman. Are you just unable to omit to having made a mistake.
You contrasted random mutation with some portions of the genome being
more prone to mutations than other, and claimed that the latter is not
part of the mainstream theory of evolution. If you did not mean to imply
that all mutations are equally likely you failed to express yourself
clearly.
> You also seem not to know that there can
>be no genetic drift without different alleles, and there cannot be different
>alleles without random mutation of a gene, at least, that's what
>evolutionary "theory" says.
See above for an explication of the idiocy of that argument.
>
>>> I have not. Maybe it's because I'm on to something - a
>>>sore point of Darwinism that no one wants to look at squarely?
>>
>> You're carefully avoiding several points of the theory of evolution. Why
>> don't you want to look at them squarely? I suspect that at least
>> subconsciously you realise that common descent with modification through
>> the agency of natural selection and other processes is overwhelming
>> supported by observation.
>>
>>> I guess I
>>>should be flattered, then.
>>>
>> If you flattered by being thought of as the moral and intellectual equal
>> of Ray Martinez and Tony Pagano.
>
>As I have said in other threads, trying to pit me against other creationists
>will not be successful. I do not share your scorn of them, (except Nando, of
>course).
>
I don't understand why you would consider that an attempt to pit you
against other creationists.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
writes
Krishna is evil and human morality is meaningless? Because those (and
epistemological nihilism) are the implications of occasionalism.
Desertphile pulled his punches.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes
Ouch! Missing negative syndrome strikes again. Make that "are NOT
equivalent".
--
Alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
writes
Either you have a remarkable high conception of the value of few, or
you're misstating the observations again. We have a Neanderthal genome
from tens of thousand of years back, and some DNA from other species
with ages of the order of hundreds of thousands of years. (I'm skeptical
of the reports of ancient DNA with ages of tens or hundreds of millions
of years.)
>3) "We" have the mechanism too, and we disagree that it can produce men from
>molecules.
>3a) According to Harshman, the mechanism works "all by itself", which means
>God is not involved.
>
>Your story ends prematurely.
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<wf...@comcast.net> writes
>On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 19:54:58 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>>
>>>> As Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 15.13: "I enter into each planet,
>>>> and by My energy they stay in orbit...."
>>>
>>> OK, but why does that say anything about the theory of evolution. We have
>>> the fossils, we have the DNA, we have the mechanism - we know how God has
>>> worked in this case. End of story. Evolution is fact - it is how God
>>> worked.
>>
>>1) "We" have the fossils too, and we disagree that they show evolution.
>>2) Nobody has any DNA older than a few thousand years.
>>3) "We" have the mechanism too, and we disagree that it can produce men from
>>molecules.
>>3a) According to Harshman, the mechanism works "all by itself", which means
>>God is not involved.
>
>how one can conclude this is beyond me. if god made the laws of
>nature
As far as I can tell he's denying the existence of the laws of nature.
>
>and nature made man
>
>then the conclusion is obivious...except to creationists.
>
>but they've been wrong for thousands of years, so they're just
>continuing their tradition
>
>
>>
>>Your story ends prematurely.
>>
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
bpuharic
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <mifj06h545h8usm2d...@4ax.com>, bpuharic
><wf...@comcast.net> writes
>>On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 19:54:58 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 15.13: "I enter into each planet,
>>>>> and by My energy they stay in orbit...."
>>>>
>>>> OK, but why does that say anything about the theory of evolution. We have
>>>> the fossils, we have the DNA, we have the mechanism - we know how God has
>>>> worked in this case. End of story. Evolution is fact - it is how God
>>>> worked.
>>>
>>>1) "We" have the fossils too, and we disagree that they show evolution.
>>>2) Nobody has any DNA older than a few thousand years.
>>>3) "We" have the mechanism too, and we disagree that it can produce men from
>>>molecules.
>>>3a) According to Harshman, the mechanism works "all by itself", which means
>>>God is not involved.
>>
>>how one can conclude this is beyond me. if god made the laws of
>>nature
>
>As far as I can tell he's denying the existence of the laws of nature.
>>
>
i always loved that creationist argument...the laws of nature dont
exist...god did it directly...
and that proves the orderliness of nature...the existence of natural
laws...
amazing they can try to hold these ideas in their pretty little heads
Michael Young
> < "Michael Young" <youngms...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:241840bc-d0dc-4d2c...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> The fact that organisms evolve is indisputable. >
>
> No it isn't.
Well, alright. I suppose it CAN be disputed, but not with any sound
logic or rationality. Evolution happens. We've seen it, witnessed it,
tested it, and caused it to happen. You want to claim it doesn't, go
ahead. Scientists have mountains of evidence that it does.
Kalkidas
If I was really in a hole, you wouldn't be trying to dig new ones for me to
fall into.
> That is not a valid justification for trying to pretend that genetic drift
> is just a form of mutation. Natural selection also depends on their being
> variants of a gene, but you haven't (yet) tried to claim that natural
> selection is just a form of mutation.
If you want to claim that the mechanics of reproduction and inheritance are
part of the "theory" of evolution, you will be misstating the theory by
falsely identifying it with ordinary biology. Genetic drift is certainly
influenced by the mendelian laws of inheritance, and by natural selection.
But the Mendelian laws are not part of the "theory" of evolution. When I say
that genetic drift is reducible to random mutation, I mean that genetic
drift is not a "process" in itself, but merely a statistical tool used to
characterize the alleles of offspring. But the source of the existence of
alleles must be random mutation, unless the alleles are primordial.
In your remarks I see the beginnings of the evolutionary strawman of
claiming that biology=evolutionary theory. That's yet another example of the
"make the definition so general that it can't be falsified" fallacy.
> As far as I know, it is possible to shoehorn all population-level
> evolutionary processes into two non-arbitrary categories - variation and
> differential reproductive success - but these are equivalent to mutation
> and natural selection.
No. They are equivalent. If there was a primordial common ancestor, then any
descendant organism whose genome differed from it MUST, according to the
ToE, have a mutated genome, and it MUST, according to ToE, have experienced
differential reproductive success. The exception would be if the primordial
common ancestor already possessed a variety of alleles, so that its
descendants could differ from it without there having been (direct)
mutation. But in that case the standard evolutionary scenario of an increase
in genetic information over time does not apply, since all the genetic
information was already present in the form of varieties of alleles, which
were then merely selected or not, etc.
That's all. Now you can keep on tweaking definitions to avoid capture if you
like.
> I don't understand why you feel it necessary to defend your particular
> strawman of the theory of evolution; when you resort to epistemological
> nihilism to gainstay then theory you don't need that particular strawman.
> Are you just unable to omit to having made a mistake.
I will not allow you to get away with claiming that there's no scientific
controversy, or that all the controversy is over superficial details rather
than fundamental concepts.
There is a problem, and it's not the result of simple misunderstanding of
words. It's a war over which ideas will rule the world.
[snip]
Kalkidas
Western philosophical categories are not sufficient to characterize
Krishna's relation to the world. He is simultaneously one with and different
from the world. Thus secondary causes are real, yet Krishna is the sole
power behind everything. Krishna is everything, yet nothing is Krishna
except Himself.
I know you think that is gibberish. Too bad. At least you're thinking of
Krishna. That will eventually benefit you.
> Desertphile pulled his punches.
Yes, that's what bluffers do....
Ernest Major
It was your idea to claim that genetic drift could be buried in the
rubric of mutation. I couldn't have tried to dig that hole for you; it
never crossed my mind that you would try such a transparently silly
argument. You cited a web page, claiming that it supported your amply
debunked claim that the theory of evolution states that random mutation
and natural selection are solely responsible for the disparity and
diversity of contemporary life. I merely pointed out that the page
didn't support your claim. Rather than admit you made an error (or were
bluffing) you proceeded to add further misstatements of the theory of
evolution. It's you that's doing the digging.
>
>> That is not a valid justification for trying to pretend that genetic drift
>> is just a form of mutation. Natural selection also depends on their being
>> variants of a gene, but you haven't (yet) tried to claim that natural
>> selection is just a form of mutation.
>
>If you want to claim that the mechanics of reproduction and inheritance are
>part of the "theory" of evolution, you will be misstating the theory by
>falsely identifying it with ordinary biology. Genetic drift is certainly
>influenced by the mendelian laws of inheritance, and by natural selection.
>But the Mendelian laws are not part of the "theory" of evolution. When I say
>that genetic drift is reducible to random mutation, I mean that genetic
>drift is not a "process" in itself, but merely a statistical tool used to
>characterize the alleles of offspring. But the source of the existence of
>alleles must be random mutation, unless the alleles are primordial.
You're still digging. To claim that genetic drift is merely a
statistical tool used to characterize the alleles of offspring barely
reaches being wrong. To claim that in the theory of evolution genetic
drift is not a process is to misstate the theory.
To reiterate, the source of the alleles is ultimately mutation for both
genetic drift and natural selection. (I doubt that any primordial
alleles still exist.) To sink one process into mutation, and not the
other, is inconsistent.
If you were trying to substantiate the claim made at the top of the
thread you could hardly provide a better example.
>
>In your remarks I see the beginnings of the evolutionary strawman of
>claiming that biology=evolutionary theory. That's yet another example of the
>"make the definition so general that it can't be falsified" fallacy.
>
>> As far as I know, it is possible to shoehorn all population-level
>> evolutionary processes into two non-arbitrary categories - variation and
>> differential reproductive success - but these are equivalent to mutation
>> and natural selection.
To repeat a clarification already made, I accidentally omitted "not"
before "equivalent".
>
>No. They are equivalent. If there was a primordial common ancestor, then any
>descendant organism whose genome differed from it MUST, according to the
>ToE, have a mutated genome, and it MUST, according to ToE, have experienced
>differential reproductive success. The exception would be if the primordial
>common ancestor already possessed a variety of alleles, so that its
>descendants could differ from it without there having been (direct)
>mutation. But in that case the standard evolutionary scenario of an increase
>in genetic information over time does not apply, since all the genetic
>information was already present in the form of varieties of alleles, which
>were then merely selected or not, etc.
>
>That's all. Now you can keep on tweaking definitions to avoid capture if you
>like.
Red herring. (And projection.) I realise that I accidentally omitted a
negative above, but on either reading of my words, your paragraphs above
are non-responsive. They also fall short of comprehensibility. (I can't
identify the antecedents of the first "they".)
>
>> I don't understand why you feel it necessary to defend your particular
>> strawman of the theory of evolution; when you resort to epistemological
>> nihilism to gainstay then theory you don't need that particular strawman.
>> Are you just unable to omit to having made a mistake.
>
>I will not allow you to get away with claiming that there's no scientific
>controversy, or that all the controversy is over superficial details rather
>than fundamental concepts.
Red herring. This is not relevant to the issue of whether you have
misstated the theory of evolution. (You have.) And anyway I made no
statements on those lines.
>
>There is a problem, and it's not the result of simple misunderstanding of
>words. It's a war over which ideas will rule the world.
>
Red herring. This is not relevant to the issue of whether you have
misstated the theory of evolution. (You have.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
writes
>>>>> > Yes, Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move.
>Thus secondary causes are real, yet Krishna is the sole
>power behind everything.
So is gravity real, or not?
--
alias Ernest Major
Mitchell Coffey
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:Kg$2DaDQW...@meden.invalid...
>
>
>
> > In message <huchnl$qe...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> > writes
>
> >>"John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> >>news:1jjm8m5.lseabf221wh1N%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> >>> Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Under "Oh. I heard it was angels...."
>
> >>>> >> So Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move?
>
> >>>> > Yes, Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move.
>
> >>> Krishna varies with the inverse of the square of the distance.
>
> >>I'm just pleased that I got people to think of Krishna. One Krishna is
> >>worth
> >>billions of disputations.
>
> > Are you also pleased that you got me to think that you believe that
> > Krishna is evil and human morality is meaningless? Because those (and
> > epistemological nihilism) are the implications of occasionalism.
>
> Western philosophical categories are not sufficient to characterize
> Krishna's relation to the world. He is simultaneously one with and different
> from the world. Thus secondary causes are real, yet Krishna is the sole
> power behind everything. Krishna is everything, yet nothing is Krishna
> except Himself.
>
> I know you think that is gibberish. Too bad. At least you're thinking of
> Krishna. That will eventually benefit you.
>
You think this isn't covered by Western philosophical categories?
It's positively Catholic!
Mitchell Coffey
bpuharic
>
>
>
>Western philosophical categories are not sufficient to characterize
>Krishna's relation to the world.
that's true. it's hard to philosophize abouta religion that is
deranged and gets its money from airports.
He is simultaneously one with and different
>from the world. Thus secondary causes are real, yet Krishna is the sole
>power behind everything. Krishna is everything, yet nothing is Krishna
>except Himself.
>
>I know you think that is gibberish. Too bad. At least you're thinking of
>Krishna. That will eventually benefit you.
so you guys have been saying.
for 3000 years. you've been pushing this drivel. any idea when this
magical transformation will take place?
Richard Clayton
I wish you'd stop saying the K-word. Every time I read or hear it, I
need to have sex out of wedlock while eating a cheeseburger.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
John S. Wilkins
> On 6/4/2010 11:53 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> > "John S. Wilkins"<jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> > news:1jjm8m5.lseabf221wh1N%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> >> Desertphile<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Under "Oh. I heard it was angels...."
> >>>
> >>>>> So Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move?
> >>>
> >>>> Yes, Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Krishna varies with the inverse of the square of the distance.
> >
> > I'm just pleased that I got people to think of Krishna. One Krishna is worth
> > billions of disputations.
>
> I wish you'd stop saying the K-word. Every time I read or hear it, I
> need to have sex out of wedlock while eating a cheeseburger.
Don't have a cow, man
Greg G.
> > >news:1jjm8m5.lseabf221wh1N%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> > >> Desertphile<desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> Under "Oh. I heard it was angels...."
>
> > >>>>> So Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move?
>
> > >>>> Yes, Lord Krishna, not gravity, causes the planets to move.
>
> > >> Krishna varies with the inverse of the square of the distance.
>
> > > I'm just pleased that I got people to think of Krishna. One Krishna is worth
> > > billions of disputations.
>
> > I wish you'd stop saying the K-word. Every time I read or hear it, I
> > need to have sex out of wedlock while eating a cheeseburger.
>
> Don't have a cow, man
Don't be a plain Jain.
William Morse
The fossils occur in the expected geologic strata, the fossils fit the
expected pattern of common descent with modification, but you think the
fossils don't show evolution. You probably also think the earth is flat.
> 2) Nobody has any DNA older than a few thousand years.
Ernest Major already corrected you on the point. And in fact the DNA
evidence does not rely only on the age of the DNA, but also on the
pattern of DNA found in primitive and derived organisms, which matches
what we expect from evolution.
> 3) "We" have the mechanism too, and we disagree that it can produce men from
> molecules.
We are not discussing producing people from molecules, we are discussing
producing people from bacteria, and AFAIK we have at least a first
approximation of all the steps.
> 3a) According to Harshman, the mechanism works "all by itself", which means
> God is not involved.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
> Your story ends prematurely.
The story of evolution will go on for as long as life endures. If
history is any guide, the myth of creationism will largely die out in a
few centuries, much like the flat earth and geocentrism.
Kalkidas
Um, no. The number of anomalous fossils grows at a rate which exceeds the
ability of evolutionists to invent new stories to explain them.
>> 2) Nobody has any DNA older than a few thousand years.
>
> Ernest Major already corrected you on the point. And in fact the DNA
> evidence does not rely only on the age of the DNA, but also on the pattern
> of DNA found in primitive and derived organisms, which matches what we
> expect from evolution.
Um, no. There is no preserved DNA from primitive organisms. The oldest DNA
in existence is a few thousand years old.
>> 3) "We" have the mechanism too, and we disagree that it can produce men
>> from molecules.
>
> We are not discussing producing people from molecules, we are discussing
> producing people from bacteria, and AFAIK we have at least a first
> approximation of all the steps.
Um, no. You do not have even an approximation of the steps required to
produce men from bacteria.
>> 3a) According to Harshman, the mechanism works "all by itself", which
>> means God is not involved.
>
> Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
Um, yes it does. I'm not responsible for your inability to follow a simple
syllogism.
>> Your story ends prematurely.
>
> The story of evolution will go on for as long as life endures. If history
> is any guide, the myth of creationism will largely die out in a few
> centuries, much like the flat earth and geocentrism.
Um, no. The story of evolution is a couple of hundred years old. It is the
product of anxiety-ridden mental speculation only, and like all such
endeavors, its glamour will fade when people realize that it does not
promote happiness or a better, more fulfilled life.
Ernest Major
writes
>>> 2) Nobody has any DNA older than a few thousand years.
>>
>> Ernest Major already corrected you on the point. And in fact the DNA
>> evidence does not rely only on the age of the DNA, but also on the pattern
>> of DNA found in primitive and derived organisms, which matches what we
>> expect from evolution.
>
>Um, no. There is no preserved DNA from primitive organisms. The oldest
>DNA in existence is a few thousand years old.
The second half of your claim has already been corrected. Why are you
repeating this falsehood?
Apart from that, although the usage of primitive for morphologically
conservative organisms, while widespread, is less that ideal, given that
usage the first half of your claim is also false. (As primitive is
contrasted with derived clearly that usage is intended.) Furthermore the
absence of DNA more than a few *hundred-thousand* years old (discounting
the claimed multi-million year old samples) is not a problem.
--
alias Ernest Major
bpuharic
>
>
>Um, no. The number of anomalous fossils grows at a rate which exceeds the
>ability of evolutionists to invent new stories to explain them.
there is only 1 story: evolution
and religion? how many thousands of gods, demons, angels, spirits,
etc. has religion had? that's another reason it's failed to explain
nature
>
>Um, no. The story of evolution is a couple of hundred years old. It is the
>product of anxiety-ridden mental speculation only
except it's testable
and religion? it explains things that go 'bump' in the night.
, and like all such
>endeavors, its glamour will fade when people realize that it does not
>promote happiness or a better, more fulfilled life.
science does not promote happiness. it explains nature. this is why
creationism is dead. nature is not about 'happiness'. it's about
nature
>