Evolution
scarp1...@yahoo.co.uk
was dead. Since there was absolutely no progress in term of evolution
research. The advancement of molecular genetic does not prove or
disprove evolution. In a certain extend, biologists such as myself,
accept that changes can happen to genome and change the phenotype of a
certain organisms, and that is inheritable. But you can call it
evolution, just because a species has changed.
So, what does it tell us? Is there a God? In recent publication by
Professor Richard Dawkins, a very prominent biologist, called 'The God
Delusion', he used sciences to attack every bit of religion. For
recent times, he has been crusading to take God away from our lives.
On the other end of the scale, the Bible belt of America is advocating
the teaching of intelligent design as a science. The problem is, as a
scientific sound theory, it has to be reproducible.
Now, it is down to belief. Do I or do you believe in God and His
creation? The point here is, no matter the answer, it does change any
fact that God created the universe, or not.
Nick Milton
>For a long while I thought the arguement between evolution and creation
>was dead.
Obviously this person has never lurked in ukrc
Michael J Davis
scarp1...@yahoo.co.uk writes
Could I refer the honourable member to a thread called 'Mr Dawkins new
book?' which has rather done this to death in 229 posts?
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Peter Ashby
> For a long while I thought the arguement between evolution and creation
> was dead. Since there was absolutely no progress in term of evolution
> research. The advancement of molecular genetic does not prove or
> disprove evolution. In a certain extend, biologists such as myself,
> accept that changes can happen to genome and change the phenotype of a
> certain organisms, and that is inheritable. But you can call it
> evolution, just because a species has changed.
You are ignoring the process of selection. Variation is the raw material
of evolution, it takes Natural Selection to act on the variation to get
evolution. I suggest you read Ernst Mayer's book What Evolution Is to
improve your understanding.
Dobzhansky's comment that nothing in biology makes sense without
evolution is very true. Why does Insulin signalling use a protein kinase
cascade while Wnt signalling goes through beta Catenin? because when
receptor tyrosine kinases evolved that was the variation available and
when seven pass membrane receptors branched out beta catenin had the
variation to get involved. Without that understanding the plethora of
mechanisms that are used without apparent rhyme or reason would drive
you mad.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Dobzhansky's comment that nothing in biology makes sense without
> evolution is very true. Why does Insulin signalling use a protein kinase
> cascade while Wnt signalling goes through beta Catenin? because when
> receptor tyrosine kinases evolved that was the variation available and
> when seven pass membrane receptors branched out beta catenin had the
> variation to get involved. Without that understanding the plethora of
> mechanisms that are used without apparent rhyme or reason would drive
> you mad.
Or, of course, God may have created the different signalling mechanisms in
order to avoid false signals.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Peter Ashby
>In message <1hmy93z.18yuuqq2rcqjcN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>
>>Dobzhansky's comment that nothing in biology makes sense without
>>evolution is very true. Why does Insulin signalling use a protein kinase
>>cascade while Wnt signalling goes through beta Catenin? because when
>>receptor tyrosine kinases evolved that was the variation available and
>>when seven pass membrane receptors branched out beta catenin had the
>>variation to get involved. Without that understanding the plethora of
>>mechanisms that are used without apparent rhyme or reason would drive
>>you mad.
>
>Or, of course, God may have created the different signalling mechanisms in
>order to avoid false signals.
Since we can trace the evolution of the proteins involved this is easy
to test, and guess what? there is no god shaped hole in the data, adding
god as an explanation adds nothing except unnecessary complexity. So god
is rejected as an explanation. Godditit is never an acceptable
explanation and I hope it never will be or else science will simply end.
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Since we can trace the evolution of the proteins involved this is easy
> to test, and guess what? there is no god shaped hole in the data, adding
> god as an explanation adds nothing except unnecessary complexity. So god
> is rejected as an explanation. Godditit is never an acceptable
> explanation and I hope it never will be or else science will simply end.
You mean, you can find creatures in the fossil record who have those
particular proteins? Wow! That is *so* impressive.
Peter Ashby
>In message <1hn0eaj.gab6z31a4g4nhN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>
>>Since we can trace the evolution of the proteins involved this is easy
>>to test, and guess what? there is no god shaped hole in the data, adding
>>god as an explanation adds nothing except unnecessary complexity. So god
>>is rejected as an explanation. Godditit is never an acceptable
>>explanation and I hope it never will be or else science will simply end.
>
>You mean, you can find creatures in the fossil record who have those
>particular proteins? Wow! That is *so* impressive.
I just love it when theists so openly display their ignorance. I see I
managed to lay a heffalump trap without even trying.
Now then, molecular evolution. It works like this:
I take protein from species A and sequence it, ideally at both protein
and dna level.
I take same protein from species B (related in some way to A) and do
same.
Ideally for the sake of the stats I should take the same from a third,
more distantly related species to ground the study.
Now, informed by such things as the fossil record and cladistic analysis
of both test species we analyse how the proteins have evolved, including
such things as neutral substiutions and weighting it for changes within
or without any active site (the active site being selected against
changes relative to the rest of the bulk).
If you have a whole series of related beasties or organisms including
ideally a 'living fossil' species you can reconstruct the most likely
protein sequence in a long dead common ancestor.
It is from such analyses of both the protein and rna components of the
ribosome that we have some of the best evidence that life got started
via self replicating rna molecules, the so called RNA World (google on
that to learn more).
Are you screaming to be let out yet?
Simon Robinson
> Kendall K. Down <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
>> You mean, you can find creatures in the fossil record who have those
>> particular proteins? Wow! That is *so* impressive.
>
> I just love it when theists so openly display their ignorance. I see I
> managed to lay a heffalump trap without even trying.
>
> Now then, molecular evolution. It works like this:
> I take protein from species A and sequence it, ideally at both protein
> and dna level.
Good luck Peter! Many of us have been trying (and failing) to convince
Ken to stop misrepresenting evolutionary theory for years.
Peter Beale
Robinson) wrote:
>
> Good luck Peter! Many of us have been trying (and failing) to
> convince Ken to stop misrepresenting evolutionary theory for years.
>
> Simon
> http://www.simonrobinson.com
Strange how Christian evolutionists seem to find atheists more kindred spirits than they
do Christian creationists.
---
Peter Beale
Peter Ashby
I teach, he seems to have a problem with his understanding and knowledge
of modern evolutionary science. I am happy to enlighten him.
scarp1...@yahoo.co.uk
> Kendall K. Down <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
>
>
> >In message <1hn0eaj.gab6z31a4g4nhN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> > pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Since we can trace the evolution of the proteins involved this is easy
> >>to test, and guess what? there is no god shaped hole in the data, adding
> >>god as an explanation adds nothing except unnecessary complexity. So god
> >>is rejected as an explanation. Godditit is never an acceptable
> >>explanation and I hope it never will be or else science will simply end.
> >
> >You mean, you can find creatures in the fossil record who have those
> >particular proteins? Wow! That is *so* impressive.
>
> I just love it when theists so openly display their ignorance. I see I
> managed to lay a heffalump trap without even trying.
Well, you are amused then!
> Now then, molecular evolution. It works like this:
> I take protein from species A and sequence it, ideally at both protein
> and dna level.
>
> I take same protein from species B (related in some way to A) and do
> same.
>
> Ideally for the sake of the stats I should take the same from a third,
> more distantly related species to ground the study.
>
> Now, informed by such things as the fossil record and cladistic analysis
> of both test species we analyse how the proteins have evolved, including
> such things as neutral substiutions and weighting it for changes within
> or without any active site (the active site being selected against
> changes relative to the rest of the bulk).
This is really a good way to study the protein among different species.
Are we supposed the same will do the same thing into different
species? The fact, which was found thirty odds years ago that the
closeness of a blood protein sequence between pig and human suggested
that we are somehow related. The similarity of the heart size and
structure prompted people to consider genetically produced pig's heart
for human heart transplantation. What some strange reason, we are not
as close to monkey as pig.
Every species is unique, in fact every individual is unique. The
protein sequences are the same within a species, like you said, the
active site is the same too. Yet, you cannot transfer the protein from
one individual to another. The difference is there for a reason and
this is not easily explained by evolution.
> If you have a whole series of related beasties or organisms including
> ideally a 'living fossil' species you can reconstruct the most likely
> protein sequence in a long dead common ancestor.
'If'! Let wait and see 'if' we can collect all these illusive
evidences. BTW Where are the 'intermediates'?
> It is from such analyses of both the protein and rna components of the
> ribosome that we have some of the best evidence that life got started
> via self replicating rna molecules, the so called RNA World (google on
> that to learn more).
Scientifically speaking, we cannot prove that RNA can replicate by
itself. Can you? RNA organisms such as flu virus and retrovirus need
to retrotranscribe their RNA into DNA, intergrate into the host DNA
system, allow the host to replicate their DNA and the viral DNA. Once
reach at certain point the viral DNA will produce the viral RNA, which
in turn to make protein and form the virus. So, without the host, this
primitive organism cannot grow, let alone evlove. This is basic
O-level and most 15 years old know about it without the google.
However, you cannot rule out RNA can replicate itself without the host
or DNA, in the same way, you cannot rule out God existence.
Yes, I accept that protein, like prion can replicate without going
through the central dogma of genetics (think you know what that is, if
not, just google), but prion needs host too, where was the host at the
beginning? some had to evolve into higher life before the lower life,
so to give the lower life a chance to evolve.
> Are you screaming to be let out yet?
huh??
scarp1...@yahoo.co.uk
Yes, evolution seem to explain every biological process. I agree. It
is the same as how chormosome change from one species to another.
Mouse chromosome have no p arm, with long telomere, there are 40 pairs
of them, whereas all Chinese hamster chromosome, 10 pairs, got both p
and q arms. Strange about them is, they have got telomere sequence in
the centromere, and the signal is long. They are not, by definition,
telomere yet process some property of telomere. Human, 23 pairs, short
telomere, some chromosome have no p-arms. In term of telomere, since
there is no p-arm in mouse, and emergence of Chinese hamster, whose
chromosome have both arm and more importantly the telomere sequence in
the centromere, we speculated (remember, speculation, not a theory, not
a prove, however, I published this result in the journal Chromosome
Research two years ago) that somewhere along the 'evolution'
chromosomes fused together and rearrange to form a new set of chromsome
and so on. You are a fellow biologist, think you would understand.
However, this would only pose more questions. How about the chromosome
number? If they fuse, number should reduce. In fact it just changed.
How about the gene location? Gene at subtelomeric regions are
important, because we believe there is a silencing effect by the length
of telomere. (Which is something I am working on). What about the
interstitial telomere?
The whole system is just too Da** sophisticated to be a result of
evolution.
Simon Woods
> Yes, evolution seem to explain every biological process.
As a layman, can someone explain to me the difference between this and
Douglas Adam's "puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a
depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the
same shape as the puddle."
Nick Milton
wrote:
>Strange how Christian evolutionists seem to find atheists more kindred spirits than they
>do Christian creationists.
Not so strange, when the topic is evolution.
Alec Brady
Ashby) wrote:
>Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site.com> wrote:
>>Good luck Peter! Many of us have been trying (and failing) to convince
>>Ken to stop misrepresenting evolutionary theory for years.
>
>I teach, he seems to have a problem with his understanding and knowledge
>of modern evolutionary science. I am happy to enlighten him.
LOL!!!
I'm speechless with...well, something. Have you seen the new
Barclaycard advert with the guy who's invited to ride a bronco and
says "hey! How hard can it be?"
Ken is utterly incorrigible; but go on, have a ball. As long as we can
watch.
Nick Milton
Ashby) wrote:
>Kendall K. Down <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In message <1hn0eaj.gab6z31a4g4nhN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
>> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Since we can trace the evolution of the proteins involved this is easy
>>>to test, and guess what? there is no god shaped hole in the data, adding
>>>god as an explanation adds nothing except unnecessary complexity. So god
>>>is rejected as an explanation. Godditit is never an acceptable
>>>explanation and I hope it never will be or else science will simply end.
>>
>>You mean, you can find creatures in the fossil record who have those
>>particular proteins? Wow! That is *so* impressive.
>
>I just love it when theists so openly display their ignorance. I see I
>managed to lay a heffalump trap without even trying.
For "theists" read "young earth creationists"
the two are by no means equivalent, as any student of ukrc will tell
you
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Now, informed by such things as the fossil record and cladistic analysis
> of both test species we analyse how the proteins have evolved, including
> such things as neutral substiutions and weighting it for changes within
> or without any active site (the active site being selected against
> changes relative to the rest of the bulk).
> If you have a whole series of related beasties or organisms including
> ideally a 'living fossil' species you can reconstruct the most likely
> protein sequence in a long dead common ancestor.
As I undertstand it, these relationships frequently turn out to be entirely
different to the relationships confidently proclaimed by evolutionists based
on pre-DNA criteria. The north American griffon, to take an imaginary
example, turns out not to be related to the Mexican hippogriff at all, but
its nearest relative is a starfish from the eastern Pacific.
That seems to me to indicate that instead of a lineal descent with one step
neatly leading to another, you have a series of unrelated steps. They can,
it is true, be arranged in an order of complexity, but that arrangement is
essentially meaningless. You might as well arrange a canal lock, a steam
engine and a colour television set in orer of complexity.
> It is from such analyses of both the protein and rna components of the
> ribosome that we have some of the best evidence that life got started
> via self replicating rna molecules, the so called RNA World (google on
> that to learn more).
Yes. First it was amino acids (produced by lightning hitting puddles), then
it was DNA, now it is RNA. I wonder what it will be tomorrow?
Paul Roberts
Is there a point you wish to make? If so, I suggest you make it more
explicitly.
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address
Peter Ashby
>Peter Ashby wrote:
>
>>Now then, molecular evolution. It works like this:
>>I take protein from species A and sequence it, ideally at both protein
>>and dna level.
>>
>>I take same protein from species B (related in some way to A) and do
>>same.
>>
>>Ideally for the sake of the stats I should take the same from a third,
>>more distantly related species to ground the study.
>>
>>Now, informed by such things as the fossil record and cladistic analysis
>>of both test species we analyse how the proteins have evolved, including
>>such things as neutral substiutions and weighting it for changes within
>>or without any active site (the active site being selected against
>>changes relative to the rest of the bulk).
>
>This is really a good way to study the protein among different species.
> Are we supposed the same will do the same thing into different
>species? The fact, which was found thirty odds years ago that the
>closeness of a blood protein sequence between pig and human suggested
>that we are somehow related. The similarity of the heart size and
>structure prompted people to consider genetically produced pig's heart
>for human heart transplantation. What some strange reason, we are not
>as close to monkey as pig.
Nobody is disputing that. The point about the pig protein sequence was
that it was surprising how close to human it was despite pigs not being
close. It was an example of convergent evolution. As you say the
similarity of the pig heart makes it a tempting target for transplants,
however there are formidable technical hurdles to overcome before that
one becomes reality. However people routinely receive pig heart valves
in valve replacement operations, these are enabled because the valves
are fixed (a sort of pickling) which makes the proteins one big mass so
hiding them from the immune system.
>Every species is unique, in fact every individual is unique. The
>protein sequences are the same within a species, like you said, the
>active site is the same too. Yet, you cannot transfer the protein from
>one individual to another. The difference is there for a reason and
>this is not easily explained by evolution.
that is wrong, if you cannot transfer proteins from one individual to
another no blood transfusions would take place, let alone organ
transplants. In addition the whole point about about transgenic plants
is that they contain foreign proteins. I spent five years of my life
putting a bacterial enzyme that breaks down galactose into mice.
>>If you have a whole series of related beasties or organisms including
>>ideally a 'living fossil' species you can reconstruct the most likely
>>protein sequence in a long dead common ancestor.
>
>'If'! Let wait and see 'if' we can collect all these illusive
>evidences. BTW Where are the 'intermediates'?
That If was not there in the sense of 'if only' it was there in the
sense of 'an alternative possibility'. IOW when you do those things you
*can* get out that endpoint.
>>It is from such analyses of both the protein and rna components of the
>>ribosome that we have some of the best evidence that life got started
>>via self replicating rna molecules, the so called RNA World (google on
>>that to learn more).
>
>Scientifically speaking, we cannot prove that RNA can replicate by
>itself. Can you?
Google scholar is my friend ;-)
<http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/12/4360>
Also if you remove all the protein components of ribososmes leaving
just some of the rnas you do get function. It is very inefficient and
rather buggy but it works. If you are unfamiliar with the concept try
googling or wikipedia for ribozymes.
>RNA organisms such as flu virus and retrovirus need
>to retrotranscribe their RNA into DNA, intergrate into the host DNA
>system, allow the host to replicate their DNA and the viral DNA. Once
>reach at certain point the viral DNA will produce the viral RNA, which
>in turn to make protein and form the virus. So, without the host, this
>primitive organism cannot grow, let alone evlove. This is basic
>O-level and most 15 years old know about it without the google.
>However, you cannot rule out RNA can replicate itself without the host
>or DNA, in the same way, you cannot rule out God existence.
What you say is true but there is far more to that truth than I think
you are aware of. RNA is more than just an intermediate between dna and
protein, it can also be an enzyme. Rnas that are also enzymes are called
ribozymes and the science is advanced to the point where they are a
technology in the lab. I have myself designed ribozymes, there are tools
on the web to help you do it.
>Yes, I accept that protein, like prion can replicate without going
>through the central dogma of genetics (think you know what that is, if
>not, just google), but prion needs host too, where was the host at the
>beginning? some had to evolve into higher life before the lower life,
>so to give the lower life a chance to evolve.
The rna world is an idea for how life first got started, in a world
without cells even. As far as we know this does not happen today, though
if we simplify the ribosome we can get echos of it today. Once complex
cells evolved using DNA, RNA and Protein more efficient methods were
found, including souped up ribosomes, but that does not invalidate the
concept of rna at the beginning.
Peter Ashby
I think I know where you are coming from, I have met and worked with a
number of people who do fairly hard core molecular biology but are
essentially pretty ignorant of Biology in general. They cannot see the
forest because they focus only on the twigs on the ends of the branches
of the trees. Your inability to see it is I strongly suspect because you
do not know enough evolutionary theory. Which is why I reccommended you
read Ernst Mayr's book What Evolution is. Also some of Richard Dawkins'
work, like The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable. For a
long treatment try Steve Jones's Almost Like a Whale, he essentially
rewrites Darwin's On the Origin of Species with modern data, evidence
and understanding. it is very easy to read.
To cure misunderstanding more study is needed.
Peter Ashby
That was not about evolution. that was Adams's response to the Strong
Anthropic Principle, sometimes also called the Goldilocks Universe.
For Adams on evolution you simply need the babel fish and how it
disproved God ;-)
Peter Ashby
Indeed but it is my experience that if you scratch a christian hard
enough you will find a little corner that is creationist or IDer. The
argument from Design has more implications than many people realise. The
people in the Creation Science institute and the hard core IDers
appreciate them very well. That is why they man the barricades so
assiduously, though the creationists put theirs much, much further out.
Their problem is that means they have a much greater area to defend...
Peter Ashby
I haven't had a good evolutionary argument for while. If Kendall is keen
to display his ignorance I am keen to enlighten him. I have all sorts of
ways to back stuff up and have messed with all sorts of creationists and
IDers of various stripes. So come on Kendall what is wrong with
evolution?
Peter Ashby
>In message <1hn2500.19rki4iy40dhsN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>
>>Now, informed by such things as the fossil record and cladistic analysis
>>of both test species we analyse how the proteins have evolved, including
>>such things as neutral substiutions and weighting it for changes within
>>or without any active site (the active site being selected against
>>changes relative to the rest of the bulk).
>>If you have a whole series of related beasties or organisms including
>>ideally a 'living fossil' species you can reconstruct the most likely
>>protein sequence in a long dead common ancestor.
>
>As I undertstand it, these relationships frequently turn out to be entirely
>different to the relationships confidently proclaimed by evolutionists based
>on pre-DNA criteria. The north American griffon, to take an imaginary
>example, turns out not to be related to the Mexican hippogriff at all, but
>its nearest relative is a starfish from the eastern Pacific.
Firstly I fail to see why the progression of science should be a mark
against it. Secondly it is true that in the initial enthusiasm to use
sequence data to map relationships mistakes were made. As a result
standards and methods have improved and the geneticists began to talk to
the cladists.
BTW did you know that echinoderms are a close sister group to the
chordates?
>That seems to me to indicate that instead of a lineal descent with one step
>neatly leading to another, you have a series of unrelated steps. They can,
>it is true, be arranged in an order of complexity, but that arrangement is
>essentially meaningless. You might as well arrange a canal lock, a steam
>engine and a colour television set in orer of complexity.
Considering your demonstrated misunderstanding and misrepresentation
listed above we can safely dispose of this piece of confused satire.
>>It is from such analyses of both the protein and rna components of the
>>ribosome that we have some of the best evidence that life got started
>>via self replicating rna molecules, the so called RNA World (google on
>>that to learn more).
>
>Yes. First it was amino acids (produced by lightning hitting puddles), then
>it was DNA, now it is RNA. I wonder what it will be tomorrow?
Again you criticise science for progressing its understanding. But guess
what? as we progress we get more and more and more evidence and the
story becomes firmer and firmer.
But please, keep trying.
Simon Robinson
> Simon Robinson wrote:
>
>> Good luck Peter! Many of us have been trying (and failing) to
>> convince Ken to stop misrepresenting evolutionary theory for years.
> Strange how Christian evolutionists seem to find atheists more kindred spirits than they
> do Christian creationists.
????????
Simon Woods
> Simon Woods <simonwo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >scarp1...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Yes, evolution seem to explain every biological process.
> >
> >As a layman, can someone explain to me the difference between this and
> >Douglas Adam's "puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a
> >depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the
> >same shape as the puddle."
>
> That was not about evolution. that was Adams's response to the Strong
> Anthropic Principle ...
Good point ... and yet my question still stands.
Nick Milton
Ashby) wrote:
>Indeed but it is my experience that if you scratch a christian hard
>enough you will find a little corner that is creationist or IDer
Perhaps that reflects the circles in which you encounter Christians
Nick Milton
A veiled insult, I think, Simon
Ian
> Strange how Christian evolutionists seem to find atheists more kindred spirits than they
> do Christian creationists.
As far as biology goes, why not?
Ian
Ian
> I haven't had a good evolutionary argument for while. If Kendall is keen
> to display his ignorance I am keen to enlighten him. I have all sorts of
> ways to back stuff up and have messed with all sorts of creationists and
> IDers of various stripes. So come on Kendall what is wrong with
> evolution?
Let me anticipate the answer.
"There's nothing /wrong/ with evolution, just as there is nothing
/wrong/ with the plot of "Hamlet" - it's just that neither of them
happened. Everything you think is evidence supporting evolution was
created by God in a capricious moment to give precisiely that wrong
impression."
It's an unanswerable argument, I'm afraid. As is the one that says that
Kendall doesn't exist and never has - what appear to be his posts are
the direct work of God meddling with a router somewhere in the world.
Which he created four weeks ago, although He implanted memories to make
it seem rather older ...
Ian
Michael J Davis
Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
Oh my god! Please count me out on this one!
Peter. I respect Ken deeply as a Christian brother and friend, but I
would like to dissociate me and most of my Church[1] from any views he
may express on evolution.
Enjoy your discussion.
Mike
[1] the RCC, but I have to admit that we do not have an official line on
evolution, and many of the hundreds of millions of members haven't
thought about the issues. In most Christian churches creationism is not
a doctrine. All that *is* a matter of faith is that God created man and
woman with the materials He had to hand.
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Michael J Davis
<webm...@diggingsonline.com> writes
>
>That seems to me to indicate that instead of a lineal descent with one step
>neatly leading to another, you have a series of unrelated steps. They can,
>it is true, be arranged in an order of complexity, but that arrangement is
>essentially meaningless. You might as well arrange a canal lock, a steam
>engine and a colour television set in orer of complexity.
Actually Ken, there is a sense that you can logically do that. In
industrial archaeology and engineering design there is a principle
called the "evolution of the machine tool."
In that a machine that can work to an accuracy of say, 1/10" can make a
machine (say treadle lathe) that can work to an accuracy of 1/100". In
turn this can make a further machine tool that can work to 1/1000" and
so on.
In that respect, they can be logically arranged according to the
generation of machine tools that was necessary to form them.
Damn! I said I wasn't going to get involved!!!
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
"Entrenched positions are always a bad thing."
Ken Down
<><
Nick Milton
wrote:
>Peter Ashby wrote:
>
>> I haven't had a good evolutionary argument for while. If Kendall is keen
>> to display his ignorance I am keen to enlighten him. I have all sorts of
>> ways to back stuff up and have messed with all sorts of creationists and
>> IDers of various stripes. So come on Kendall what is wrong with
>> evolution?
>
>Let me anticipate the answer.
>
>"There's nothing /wrong/ with evolution, just as there is nothing
>/wrong/ with the plot of "Hamlet" - it's just that neither of them
>happened. Everything you think is evidence supporting evolution was
>created by God in a capricious moment to give precisiely that wrong
>impression."
Mis-anticipated.
Ken's argument would be that the evidence for evolution is not as
strong as people think, and that the evidence for 7-day creation is
there, but either has not yet been uncovered, or is being consistently
misinterpreted. No doubt he will be along in a moment to say his
piece, but it may take a patience to dig down to the bedrock of his
argument
As an ex-professional geologist, I am convinced he is completely
wrong, but recognise that his argument is not the one you cite.
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Firstly I fail to see why the progression of science should be a mark
> against it.
Not exactly a mark against it, but a warning not to take its results too
seriously, particularly in the area of evolution. Note that the facts are
not in dispute: I am quite happy to accept that chimps or prairie dogs or
whatever they are, have 95% similarity to us. It is the interpretation of
facts that is disputable.
> Secondly it is true that in the initial enthusiasm to use
> sequence data to map relationships mistakes were made. As a result
> standards and methods have improved and the geneticists began to talk to
> the cladists.
I was thinking more of alleged relationships based on similarity of
structure, rather than early attempts at DNA sequencing. Monkeys look human,
so they *must* be related to us.
> BTW did you know that echinoderms are a close sister group to the
> chordates?
No. Is that significant?
> Again you criticise science for progressing its understanding. But guess
> what? as we progress we get more and more and more evidence and the
> story becomes firmer and firmer.
No, I am all in favour of science making progress. What I criticise is the
eagerness with which evolutionists leap on some discovery and make it the
basis for further leaps of faith.
As an example, ages ago some chap set up a test tube in which he put a
carefully selected solution of chemicals and then bombarded it with
artifical "lightning strikes". The unlikelihood of such a set-up occurring
in nature was overlooked as evolutionists hailed the production of a few
amino acids as the "proof" that this is how life began. I don't see much
difference between that and some of the wilder-eyed fanatics of the
creationist movement.
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Indeed but it is my experience that if you scratch a christian hard
> enough you will find a little corner that is creationist or IDer. The
> argument from Design has more implications than many people realise. The
> people in the Creation Science institute and the hard core IDers
> appreciate them very well. That is why they man the barricades so
> assiduously, though the creationists put theirs much, much further out.
> Their problem is that means they have a much greater area to defend...
I believe the defence in depth is highly thought of in military circles.
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> The rna world is an idea for how life first got started, in a world
> without cells even. As far as we know this does not happen today
About as close as you are going to get to an evolutionist admitting that
there is no experimental evidence (aka scientific evidence) for the wild
theorisings of his fellow believers.
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> I haven't had a good evolutionary argument for while. If Kendall is keen
> to display his ignorance I am keen to enlighten him. I have all sorts of
> ways to back stuff up and have messed with all sorts of creationists and
> IDers of various stripes. So come on Kendall what is wrong with
> evolution?
As you admitted in a previous post, it lacks scientific evidence. An
ingenious theory, I grant you.
pg
news:c79809754...@diggingsonline.com...
| In message <1hn3h5s.maslid4gwd5vN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
| pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
|
| > The rna world is an idea for how life first got started, in a world
| > without cells even. As far as we know this does not happen today
|
| About as close as you are going to get to an evolutionist admitting
that
| there is no experimental evidence (aka scientific evidence) for the
wild
| theorisings of his fellow believers.
What progress has there been on the theory (Shapiro's?) that a monomer
mix exposed to an energy source provided the spark for life? No joy
with RNA, so have efforts shifted to an attempt to reproduce organic
monomers?
Peter Ashby
Can you reformulate it, since I cannot answer it as it stands since
there is no connection between the Anthropic principle and evolution,
that I can see.
Peter Ashby
If you are going to take an ultra existentialist position it is true
there are few answers*. However you are also likely to be greeted either
with bemusement or derision. Few are likely to take you seriously.
*Over in iirc u.p.h a few years ago we had a guy who informed us that
god dreamed his consciousness, he used the analogy that his head was
simply like a TV. that was his achilles heel because he could not point
to a structure or mechanism in the brain that functioned as a receiver.
He also could not sustain his thesis and frequently lapsed back into the
'normal' world. When challenged he would invariably run away back into
his pseudo existentialism.
Peter Ashby
That implication is contained in 'it is my experience'. That is why I
chose to use those exact words.
Peter Ashby
>Peter. I respect Ken deeply as a Christian brother and friend, but I
>would like to dissociate me and most of my Church[1] from any views he
>may express on evolution.
>
>Enjoy your discussion.
>
>Mike
>
>[1] the RCC, but I have to admit that we do not have an official line on
>evolution, and many of the hundreds of millions of members haven't
>thought about the issues. In most Christian churches creationism is not
>a doctrine. All that *is* a matter of faith is that God created man and
>woman with the materials He had to hand.
I have a question then, it was my understanding that the late Pope
essentially accepted that evolution was an established fact. It is
entirely possible that I have misapprehended the doctrinal firmness of
that. Have I?
Michael J Davis
<pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
No, I think that was probably his personal opinion. I can't find his
message on the Vatican web site, but have it archived here somewhere.
Ask if you'd like to see it.
I think I've already mentioned his later encyclical 'Fides et Ratio' -
Faith & Reason - as a confirmation that philosophers, scientists and
theologians are all seeking the truth. And there is only one truth.
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
We arrive at the Truth not by agreement
but by open minded disagreement,
while to close our mind is to be disagreeable.
<><
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Ian <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> [...]
> *Over in iirc u.p.h a few years ago we had a guy who informed us that
> god dreamed his consciousness, he used the analogy that his head was
> simply like a TV. that was his achilles heel because he could not point
> to a structure or mechanism in the brain that functioned as a receiver.
Coincidently his name as also "Ian". "Interesting Ian" the
neo-Berkleyan. I remember him in u.p.a, but maybe all that discussion
was cross-posted.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
My Reply-To address is valid.
Simon Robinson
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:38:59 +0100, Simon Robinson
>>> Simon Robinson wrote:
>>>> Good luck Peter! Many of us have been trying (and failing) to
>>>> convince Ken to stop misrepresenting evolutionary theory for years.
>>> Strange how Christian evolutionists seem to find atheists more kindred spirits than they
>>> do Christian creationists.
>> ????????
>
> A veiled insult, I think, Simon
Yes, I rather suspected that too, but I hoped there might be more to it
than that. I was hoping Peter would respond to my ???'s by clarifying
what he actually meant.
Tony Gillam
Mr Straw wouldn't approve of that.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Kendall K. Down
"pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
> What progress has there been on the theory (Shapiro's?) that a monomer
> mix exposed to an energy source provided the spark for life? No joy
> with RNA, so have efforts shifted to an attempt to reproduce organic
> monomers?
No idea. Sorry.
Kendall K. Down
{R} <nos...@spam.nium.org> wrote:
> So all Darwinists are totally wrong ?
No. They have some useful insights into why populations rise and fall or
change in superficial ways. Those moths whose population changed from mostly
grey to mostly black (and then back again) because of industrial pollution
are a case in point. The amusing thing is that both evolutionists and
creationists love them as an example, the evolutionists because they changed
colour and the creationists because they remained moths.
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> I have a question then, it was my understanding that the late Pope
> essentially accepted that evolution was an established fact. It is
> entirely possible that I have misapprehended the doctrinal firmness of
> that. Have I?
There has been a change of pope since then and the present incumbent appears
to lean, if only slightly, towards the Intelligent Design school of thought.
Kendall K. Down
"Ian" <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Let me anticipate the answer.
> "There's nothing /wrong/ with evolution, just as there is nothing
> /wrong/ with the plot of "Hamlet" - it's just that neither of them
> happened. Everything you think is evidence supporting evolution was
> created by God in a capricious moment to give precisiely that wrong
> impression."
If you are anticipating that that would be my answer, then I fear that you
are wrong.
Kendall K. Down
Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Actually Ken, there is a sense that you can logically do that. In
> industrial archaeology and engineering design there is a principle
> called the "evolution of the machine tool."
Indeed, and there are some things that can be arranged in order of
complexity, which is why I didn't chose Model-T, Austin A40 and Mercedes
C-class as my examples.
Peter Ashby
>In message <1hn3tjf.1xagllbloygqvN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>
>>I haven't had a good evolutionary argument for while. If Kendall is keen
>>to display his ignorance I am keen to enlighten him. I have all sorts of
>>ways to back stuff up and have messed with all sorts of creationists and
>>IDers of various stripes. So come on Kendall what is wrong with
>>evolution?
>
>As you admitted in a previous post, it lacks scientific evidence. An
>ingenious theory, I grant you.
I'm afraid I shall have to insist you back up that claim as to my
'admission'. I'm afraid because I greatly fear you must have seriously
misinterpreted my words and if that is the case then this is something
which needs to be sorted.
Peter Ashby
>Peter Ashby wrote:
>
>>Ian <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>>[...]
>
>>*Over in iirc u.p.h a few years ago we had a guy who informed us that
>>god dreamed his consciousness, he used the analogy that his head was
>>simply like a TV. that was his achilles heel because he could not point
>>to a structure or mechanism in the brain that functioned as a receiver.
>
>Coincidently his name as also "Ian". "Interesting Ian" the
>neo-Berkleyan. I remember him in u.p.a, but maybe all that discussion
>was cross-posted.
Yes, that was the name Jeffrey. So come clean Ian, were you Interesting?
Peter Ashby
>In message <1hn5d1r.mv1aomqefwcjN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter Ashby
><pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>
>>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Peter. I respect Ken deeply as a Christian brother and friend, but I
>>>would like to dissociate me and most of my Church[1] from any views he
>>>may express on evolution.
>>>
>>>Enjoy your discussion.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>[1] the RCC, but I have to admit that we do not have an official line on
>>>evolution, and many of the hundreds of millions of members haven't
>>>thought about the issues. In most Christian churches creationism is not
>>>a doctrine. All that *is* a matter of faith is that God created man and
>>>woman with the materials He had to hand.
>>
>>I have a question then, it was my understanding that the late Pope
>>essentially accepted that evolution was an established fact. It is
>>entirely possible that I have misapprehended the doctrinal firmness of
>>that. Have I?
>
>No, I think that was probably his personal opinion. I can't find his
>message on the Vatican web site, but have it archived here somewhere.
>Ask if you'd like to see it.
I don't think that will be necessary. My confusion is that you say the
RCC has no official line on it. Then you say JP the second said it, yet
he is supposed to be infallible. Or is it that he is allowed to flag up
which bits are possibly fallible? this sounds rather ignorant, but I'm
just trying to get a handle on why that opinion was not firm.
>I think I've already mentioned his later encyclical 'Fides et Ratio' -
>Faith & Reason - as a confirmation that philosophers, scientists and
>theologians are all seeking the truth. And there is only one truth.
>
>http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM
Thanks for the link, it is bookmarked.
Peter Ashby
>In message <1hn3h5s.maslid4gwd5vN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>
>>The rna world is an idea for how life first got started, in a world
>>without cells even. As far as we know this does not happen today
>
>About as close as you are going to get to an evolutionist admitting that
>there is no experimental evidence (aka scientific evidence) for the wild
>theorisings of his fellow believers.
Wild theorising? I think not Kendall. There is real, hard core
experimental evidence. But before we discuss it you need to have your
ideas about the limitations of rna disabused.
Peter Ashby
>In message <1hn44xa.18r2tbp1qylagwN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>
>>Firstly I fail to see why the progression of science should be a mark
>>against it.
>
>Not exactly a mark against it, but a warning not to take its results too
>seriously, particularly in the area of evolution. Note that the facts are
>not in dispute: I am quite happy to accept that chimps or prairie dogs or
>whatever they are, have 95% similarity to us. It is the interpretation of
>facts that is disputable.
OK that is good to have up front. Do you accept that despite false
trails the general effect of science is to gradually asymptote in the
direction of truth or at least further and further away from ignorance?
>>Secondly it is true that in the initial enthusiasm to use
>>sequence data to map relationships mistakes were made. As a result
>>standards and methods have improved and the geneticists began to talk to
>>the cladists.
>
>I was thinking more of alleged relationships based on similarity of
>structure, rather than early attempts at DNA sequencing. Monkeys look human,
>so they *must* be related to us.
I detect a problem with your knowledge of how morphological features are
used to deduce philogeny in your use of the term 'look'. Are you
familiar with the methods of cladistics?
>>BTW did you know that echinoderms are a close sister group to the
>>chordates?
>
>No. Is that significant?
Indeed, you are much more closely related to starfish and sea urchins
than you are to crabs. But then so are the fish.
>>Again you criticise science for progressing its understanding. But guess
>>what? as we progress we get more and more and more evidence and the
>>story becomes firmer and firmer.
>
>No, I am all in favour of science making progress. What I criticise is the
>eagerness with which evolutionists leap on some discovery and make it the
>basis for further leaps of faith.
Ah you characterise them as 'leaps of faith', that too is interesting.
This is good and helpful Kendall, I am getting a good impression of the
places your knowledge is in need of a buffing.
>As an example, ages ago some chap set up a test tube in which he put a
>carefully selected solution of chemicals and then bombarded it with
>artifical "lightning strikes". The unlikelihood of such a set-up occurring
>in nature was overlooked as evolutionists hailed the production of a few
>amino acids as the "proof" that this is how life began. I don't see much
>difference between that and some of the wilder-eyed fanatics of the
>creationist movement.
Well firstly he differed from the creationists in that he actually set
up an experiment. And au contraire the likelihood of the conditions
informed the experiment which was to test various combinations of gases
that covered the gamut of the information they had at the time as to
what may have been present. That under some conditions they got complex
organic molecules acted as a readout that perhaps they were close.
I think I see your problem with the evidence, you have it purely from
popular media reports which very often get it wrong when reporting
experiments, especially wrt the rationale for the experiment.
Also if the best argument you have against an origin of life theory is
that old work then you really are running scared. Did you google for the
rna world? Try going to here for a start:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis>
This is the current absolute best candidate for how replication got
started on this planet. Note I use the word replication, the rna world
does not contain life as most people know it. This is the ancestor to
the original selfish gene, singular. We have a ways to go from there to
the first 'cell'. But that's ok we have lots of time.
I don't think we can progress this until you have read the above site.
But I'm going away for the weekend so take your time.
Peter Beale
Robinson) wrote:
Not an insult, veiled or otherwise. Merely a comment that my impression is that
Christian evolutionists appear to find atheists more kindred spirits than they do
Christian creationists: they will tend to "side" with the former against the latter. Am I
mistaken in this impression?
---
Peter Beale
Paul Roberts
[snip]
> Not an insult, veiled or otherwise. Merely a comment that my
> impression is that Christian evolutionists appear to find atheists
> more kindred spirits than they do Christian creationists: they will
> tend to "side" with the former against the latter. Am I mistaken in
> this impression?
On this particular issue, yes, it appears to be true.
Do you have a point you wish to make, given this fact?
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address
Gareth McCaughan
> Not an insult, veiled or otherwise. Merely a comment that my impression is that
> Christian evolutionists appear to find atheists more kindred spirits than they do
> Christian creationists: they will tend to "side" with the former against the latter.
> Am I mistaken in this impression?
My recollection of being a Christian evolutionist is that
I tended to side with Christian creationists on questions
such as "Is Christianity right?" and with atheist evolutionists
on questions such as "Is evolution right?". This doesn't
appear to me sufficiently surprising to warrant mentioning.
Probably you mean something less uninteresting by "more kindred
spirits", but I'm not sure exactly what.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Emma Pease
> Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>No, I think that was probably his personal opinion. I can't find his
>>message on the Vatican web site, but have it archived here somewhere.
>>Ask if you'd like to see it.
>
> I don't think that will be necessary. My confusion is that you say the
> RCC has no official line on it. Then you say JP the second said it, yet
> he is supposed to be infallible. Or is it that he is allowed to flag up
> which bits are possibly fallible? this sounds rather ignorant, but I'm
> just trying to get a handle on why that opinion was not firm.
I believe the Catholic position is that Popes are only infalliable
when speaking ex cathedra. This has happened I think only a couple of
times since Papal infallibility was officially made a doctrine in the
late 1800s. Encyclicals are church statements but are not necessarily
immutable.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Nick Milton
wrote:
>Not an insult, veiled or otherwise. Merely a comment that my impression is that
>Christian evolutionists appear to find atheists more kindred spirits than they do
>Christian creationists: they will tend to "side" with the former against the latter. Am I
>mistaken in this impression?
You are entirely mistaken, if you assume this "kindred spirituality"
to extend beyond the topic of Creationism. In fact, as a servant of
the Truth, I would oppose a Creationist just as strongly where he or
she atheist, Christian, JW, or any other flavour.
Michael J Davis
<em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> writes
Yes, Emma that's pretty well it.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Michael J Davis
>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>No, I think that was probably his personal opinion. I can't find his
>>message on the Vatican web site, but have it archived here somewhere.
>>Ask if you'd like to see it.
>
>I don't think that will be necessary. My confusion is that you say the
>RCC has no official line on it. Then you say JP the second said it, yet
>he is supposed to be infallible.
Most are sadly ignorant of the meaning of 'infallible' as applied to the
RCC.
Firstly it relates to matters of faith and morals, and secondly only to
statements made by the Pope on behalf of the whole Church. It is
generally accepted that there have only been two infallible statements
made in the last 150 years. Both on theological points that are
unconnected with our discussion.
>Or is it that he is allowed to flag up
>which bits are possibly fallible? this sounds rather ignorant, but I'm
>just trying to get a handle on why that opinion was not firm.
It was an opinion. Even were popes 'more' infallible, they are allowed
'opinions'. In spite of representations by its opponents the RCC is not
as monolithic as you might think! It is certainly anything but
'anti-science' - it has a 'board' of scientific advisors, many of whom
are atheists.
>>I think I've already mentioned his later encyclical 'Fides et Ratio' -
>>Faith & Reason - as a confirmation that philosophers, scientists and
>>theologians are all seeking the truth. And there is only one truth.
>>
>>http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM
>
>Thanks for the link, it is bookmarked.
You are welcome. It's hard going in parts, I admit.
Michael J Davis
<webm...@diggingsonline.com> writes
>In message <1hn5d1r.mv1aomqefwcjN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>> I have a question then, it was my understanding that the late Pope
>> essentially accepted that evolution was an established fact. It is
>> entirely possible that I have misapprehended the doctrinal firmness of
>> that. Have I?
>
>There has been a change of pope since then and the present incumbent appears
>to lean, if only slightly, towards the Intelligent Design school of thought.
But not as you know it, Scottie! ;-)
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> OK that is good to have up front. Do you accept that despite false
> trails the general effect of science is to gradually asymptote in the
> direction of truth or at least further and further away from ignorance?
Yes - though I suspect that you and I may disagree on the time scale
involved.
> I detect a problem with your knowledge of how morphological features are
> used to deduce philogeny in your use of the term 'look'. Are you
> familiar with the methods of cladistics?
No. Nor, to tell the truth, am I greatly interested.
> Indeed, you are much more closely related to starfish and sea urchins
> than you are to crabs. But then so are the fish.
Well, that's a weight off my mind.
> Well firstly he differed from the creationists in that he actually set
> up an experiment. And au contraire the likelihood of the conditions
> informed the experiment which was to test various combinations of gases
> that covered the gamut of the information they had at the time as to
> what may have been present. That under some conditions they got complex
> organic molecules acted as a readout that perhaps they were close.
This is true. I would be interested in some suggestions on how a Creationist
could set up an experiment, seeing that God is a person, not a force.
> Also if the best argument you have against an origin of life theory is
> that old work then you really are running scared. Did you google for the
> rna world? Try going to here for a start:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis>
Oh dear me no. That is by no means the best argument, just one that I used
as an illustration. Some of the best arguments came from Britain's leading
creationist magazine, New Scientist, in an article they published last year.
I wonder if I still have it?
> This is the current absolute best candidate for how replication got
> started on this planet. Note I use the word replication, the rna world
> does not contain life as most people know it. This is the ancestor to
> the original selfish gene, singular. We have a ways to go from there to
> the first 'cell'. But that's ok we have lots of time.
It's the best candidate, but I wonder how you are going to set up an
experiment for something which you (or pg) stated does not happen now?
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> >As you admitted in a previous post, it lacks scientific evidence. An
> >ingenious theory, I grant you.
> I'm afraid I shall have to insist you back up that claim as to my
> 'admission'. I'm afraid because I greatly fear you must have seriously
> misinterpreted my words and if that is the case then this is something
> which needs to be sorted.
Er - it's possible that I confused you and Mr pg.
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> I don't think that will be necessary. My confusion is that you say the
> RCC has no official line on it. Then you say JP the second said it, yet
> he is supposed to be infallible. Or is it that he is allowed to flag up
> which bits are possibly fallible? this sounds rather ignorant, but I'm
> just trying to get a handle on why that opinion was not firm.
The problem is that you misunderstand what is meant by "papal
infallibility". The doctrine states that under certain stringent conditions,
a formal statement by the pope is infallible. This means that not every word
that a pope utters is infallible: when he looks out at a grey sky and
remarks that it looks like rain, that is not an infallible pronouncement.
Likewise when he expresses a personal opinion on something like evolution,
or even when he commissions and endorses a committee report.
pg
news:726e51764...@diggingsonline.com...
| In message <1hn6rim.myiiqc14ioqykN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
| pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
|
| > >As you admitted in a previous post, it lacks scientific evidence.
An
| > >ingenious theory, I grant you.
|
| > I'm afraid I shall have to insist you back up that claim as to my
| > 'admission'. I'm afraid because I greatly fear you must have
seriously
| > misinterpreted my words and if that is the case then this is
something
| > which needs to be sorted.
|
| Er - it's possible that I confused you and Mr pg.
? Don't think I've contributed to this discussion yet! Still, the way
controversial discussions tend to proliferate in exponential fashion
would be enough to confuse anyone - even your god! And possibly even
Richard!!! :- 0
Ian
> In message <1hn3h5s.maslid4gwd5vN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
> > The rna world is an idea for how life first got started, in a world
> > without cells even. As far as we know this does not happen today
>
> About as close as you are going to get to an evolutionist admitting that
> there is no experimental evidence (aka scientific evidence) for the wild
> theorisings of his fellow believers.
I think you'll find that "things used to happen in one environment
which no longer happen today because the environment has changed and
better solutions to the same problem have arisen" is a pretty
evolutionary statement.
Ian
Ian
Peter Ashby
>In message <1hn6ru2.fsnbj7hbc58vN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>
>>OK that is good to have up front. Do you accept that despite false
>>trails the general effect of science is to gradually asymptote in the
>>direction of truth or at least further and further away from ignorance?
>
>Yes - though I suspect that you and I may disagree on the time scale
>involved.
Fair enough, but it is good to have that since some of your words
implied otherwise.
>>I detect a problem with your knowledge of how morphological features are
>>used to deduce philogeny in your use of the term 'look'. Are you
>>familiar with the methods of cladistics?
>
>No. Nor, to tell the truth, am I greatly interested.
OK so you are wilfully ignorant of morphological evidence. Again nice to
have that out in the open. However this inevitably greatly weakens your
arguments from this basis.
>>Indeed, you are much more closely related to starfish and sea urchins
>>than you are to crabs. But then so are the fish.
>
>Well, that's a weight off my mind.
;-)
>>Well firstly he differed from the creationists in that he actually set
>>up an experiment. And au contraire the likelihood of the conditions
>>informed the experiment which was to test various combinations of gases
>>that covered the gamut of the information they had at the time as to
>>what may have been present. That under some conditions they got complex
>>organic molecules acted as a readout that perhaps they were close.
>
>This is true. I would be interested in some suggestions on how a Creationist
>could set up an experiment, seeing that God is a person, not a force.
I can think of none, and since xians are specifically abjured from
testing the Creator would be a blasphemy. Thankyou again for pointing
out that creationism is unscientific.
>>Also if the best argument you have against an origin of life theory is
>>that old work then you really are running scared. Did you google for the
>>rna world? Try going to here for a start:
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis>
>
>Oh dear me no. That is by no means the best argument, just one that I used
>as an illustration. Some of the best arguments came from Britain's leading
>creationist magazine, New Scientist, in an article they published last year.
>I wonder if I still have it?
I have online access to their archive (as do you if you are a
subscriber) so a few key words and we can find it.
but let me ask you your reaction to the RNA world in its modern many
stranded form. What do you think of my conclusion that the rna world
hypothesis presents a plausible mechanism for how nucleotide based
replicators could bootstrap their way towards life?
>>This is the current absolute best candidate for how replication got
>>started on this planet. Note I use the word replication, the rna world
>>does not contain life as most people know it. This is the ancestor to
>>the original selfish gene, singular. We have a ways to go from there to
>>the first 'cell'. But that's ok we have lots of time.
>
>It's the best candidate, but I wonder how you are going to set up an
>experiment for something which you (or pg) stated does not happen now?
<http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/58/1/217.pdf> which informs me that
bacteriophage viruses contain rnas that can replicate copies of
themselves. So this does happen today, just not freely in nature (naked
rna molecules in the environment tend to be food sources for more
complex organisms which is why such replicators died out. Their
descendants ate them.
The other simple answer is you synthesise an rna sequence you think will
function as an rna replicase and you put known numbers of them together
under appropriate condtions and after a while you measure how much rna
is there and you might sequence them to check the fidelity of the
copies.
With modern molecular biology such is not hard to do and as the paper
above and the one I linked to earlier in this thread show we are doing
it.
So now what about your assesment of plausibility?
Peter Ashby
Peter Ashby
Indeed, a niche can be both closed by an organism and opened by that
organism's very presence. It is hard to make a living as rhinoceros
specific parasite if there are no rhinos.
The recent discovery of the 'missing link' in the line from lobe finned
fish to terrestrial vertebrates (named Tiktaalik if you want to Google
it) got me thinking about things, especiall the point in the New
Scientist article that vertebrate emergence onto the land happened once
and once only (as best we can tell, certainly all living terrrestrial
vertebrates are monophyletic). That is because once that lineage had
occupied the niches there was no room for another invasion.
The next mass extinction might change all that of course, that is the
great use of large hunks of space rock, like a Magnadoodle.
BTW the first terrestrial vertebrates didn't crawl out of the sea, they
moved ever further up into the root chocked shallows of streams. Both to
escape larger predatory fish in deeper water and to exploit the
invertebrate food to be found there. Whether the environment changed in
such a way that those able to drag themselves from drying out pools to
those with water passed on their genes or there was advantage in chasing
giant millipedes away from the water's edge (or combinations) is
difficult to tell but either would be sufficient.
Peter Ashby
>In message <1hn6rim.myiiqc14ioqykN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>
>>>As you admitted in a previous post, it lacks scientific evidence. An
>>>ingenious theory, I grant you.
>
>>I'm afraid I shall have to insist you back up that claim as to my
>>'admission'. I'm afraid because I greatly fear you must have seriously
>>misinterpreted my words and if that is the case then this is something
>>which needs to be sorted.
>
>Er - it's possible that I confused you and Mr pg.
Ok then. Panic over ;-)
Kendall K. Down
"Ian" <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I think you'll find that "things used to happen in one environment
> which no longer happen today because the environment has changed and
> better solutions to the same problem have arisen" is a pretty
> evolutionary statement.
So when are we going to get the test tube filled with nutrients and
bombarded with sparks in which the RNA *can* replicate?
Simon Woods
> Simon Woods <simonwo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Peter Ashby wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Simon Woods <simonwo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>scarp1...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Yes, evolution seem to explain every biological process.
> >>>
> >>>As a layman, can someone explain to me the difference between this and
> >>>Douglas Adam's "puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a
> >>>depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the
> >>>same shape as the puddle."
> >>
> >>That was not about evolution. that was Adams's response to the Strong
> >>Anthropic Principle ...
> >
> >Good point ... and yet my question still stands.
>
> Can you reformulate it, since I cannot answer it as it stands since
> there is no connection between the Anthropic principle and evolution,
> that I can see.
Peter, thanks for your reply, I shouldn't worry too much. I'm probably
shooting from the hip. I must admit to finding an anti-science bias in
myself and I don't know why it is there. It doesn't seem right but it
is there! It currently expresses itself in that I can't really see how
the axioms of science (repeatablility, testability etc etc) deal with
the problems of collective projection. It seems to me that the axioms
of science are themselves expressions of collective projection and
therefore what Adams says of the SAP would seem to be true of any
scientific theory - I just happened to swing a punch at evolution!
However, I'm sure my myopic understanding will be enlightened in other
current threads as the mind/body problem is discussed.
Simon
Alec Brady
Ashby) wrote:
>I don't think that will be necessary. My confusion is that you say the
>RCC has no official line on it. Then you say JP the second said it, yet
>he is supposed to be infallible. Or is it that he is allowed to flag up
>which bits are possibly fallible? this sounds rather ignorant, but I'm
>just trying to get a handle on why that opinion was not firm.
The Pope's judgements are only infallible (strictly speaking
"irreformable") when he says they are. This has happened twice in the
last two hundred years.
Even when we don't have a formally infallible definition, we are
expected to take the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium very
seriously indeed. But JPII's statement about evolution was not
presented as a teaching, in a formal instrument of his episcopal
authority: it was offered in the course of a speech to the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences in 1996.
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius
XII had already stated that there was no opposition between
evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his
vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several
indisputable points.[...]Today, almost half a century after
the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to
the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a
hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been
progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of
discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence,
neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that
was conducted independently is in itself a significant
argument in favor of this theory."
What's he saying? He's *not* saying that the RCC thinks that the
theory of evolution is true. He *is* saying that it makes sense on the
natural level, and that there's no theological reason to disagree with
it. And that, really, is as far as the church should go - it's not the
Pope's place to judge the results of science, unless scientists start
drawing theological conclusions. The core point (as evidenced by the
title of the talk) is that truth cannot contradict truth.
Alec Brady
wrote:
>Not an insult, veiled or otherwise. Merely a comment that my impression is that
>Christian evolutionists appear to find atheists more kindred spirits than they do
>Christian creationists: they will tend to "side" with the former against the latter. Am I
>mistaken in this impression?
Oddly (or not) Christian socialists also appear to find humanists more
kindred spirits than they do Neoconservative fundamentalists - at
least when the subject under discussion is politics.
Kendall K. Down
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> >This is true. I would be interested in some suggestions on how a Creationist
> >could set up an experiment, seeing that God is a person, not a force.
> I can think of none, and since xians are specifically abjured from
> testing the Creator would be a blasphemy. Thankyou again for pointing
> out that creationism is unscientific.
I think you'll find that I am firmly of the opinion that both creationism
and evolution are religions based on faith and with tenuous links to
science.
> I have online access to their archive (as do you if you are a
> subscriber) so a few key words and we can find it.
I don't subscribe. I encourage my local newsagent by buying from them.
> but let me ask you your reaction to the RNA world in its modern many
> stranded form. What do you think of my conclusion that the rna world
> hypothesis presents a plausible mechanism for how nucleotide based
> replicators could bootstrap their way towards life?
Of course it's plausible - but so were the previous theories. After all, no
one would advance them if they were implausible! Plausible, however, is a
long way from either practical or correct.
Peter Ashby
Yes I think that is because both seek to value people first and foremost
and thus see and feel most keenly where injustice lurks.
Peter Ashby
thankyou for that excellent clarification, I agree that it would be
inappropriate for the Pope to make acceptance of a scientific 'truth'
part of doctrine.
Peter Ashby
>Peter, thanks for your reply, I shouldn't worry too much. I'm probably
>shooting from the hip. I must admit to finding an anti-science bias in
>myself and I don't know why it is there. It doesn't seem right but it
>is there! It currently expresses itself in that I can't really see how
>the axioms of science (repeatablility, testability etc etc) deal with
>the problems of collective projection. It seems to me that the axioms
>of science are themselves expressions of collective projection and
>therefore what Adams says of the SAP would seem to be true of any
>scientific theory - I just happened to swing a punch at evolution!
>However, I'm sure my myopic understanding will be enlightened in other
>current threads as the mind/body problem is discussed.
I think the answer may be that scientific knowledge, being a special way
of knowing, transcends the collective. It is the idea that science done
by an Englishman should not materailly differ from that done by a
Japanese woman or a Yanomami Indian in the Amazon. They may bring
different vantage points but that would not change the underlying
utility or veracity of the model. It would further hold that an alien
intelligence orbiting a different star would discover much the same
things we do using the scientific method.
The best example of the faith we have in this is the Seti institute's
activities, some of which my computer works on when unused.
Peter Ashby
>In message <1160981456.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> "Ian" <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think you'll find that "things used to happen in one environment
>>which no longer happen today because the environment has changed and
>>better solutions to the same problem have arisen" is a pretty
>>evolutionary statement.
>
>So when are we going to get the test tube filled with nutrients and
>bombarded with sparks in which the RNA *can* replicate?
Again you are displaying a misunderstanding. That experiment is highly
unlikely to be done since no one thinks that is how it happened any
more.
We know that individual nucleotides form inorganically, they have been
detected in interstellar dust and in comets so we don't need to account
much for the presence on a young Earth.
There is a theory and iirc some experimental evidence that some clays
are able to function as templates and catalysts in forming rna (and dna)
chains. It is not clear that such clays existed before Life though the
principle that inorganic substrates could serve that purpose has been
established. No sparks required, but then science dropped Vitalism some
time ago.
Peter Ashby
>>but let me ask you your reaction to the RNA world in its modern many
>>stranded form. What do you think of my conclusion that the rna world
>>hypothesis presents a plausible mechanism for how nucleotide based
>>replicators could bootstrap their way towards life?
>
>Of course it's plausible - but so were the previous theories. After all, no
>one would advance them if they were implausible! Plausible, however, is a
>long way from either practical or correct.
I and a lot of other people did not find previous ideas plausible. The
proteins first hypothesis suffered from not being an information store.
The DNA first one suffered from a large gap in firstly how if the first
molecules were DNA they could be replicated or how you jump from DNA to
protein (since messenger rna is no use without proteins to be produced).
The discovery that rna can act as an enzyme opened the possibility for
self replicating molecules, the demonstration that the ribosome still
has function without proteins opened the way for rna to make proteins.
The most likely way that DNA made its way in is not clear but DNA as an
information store has clear advantages over rna because DNA is
chemically more stable. We have got DNA out of fossils, we don't have
very much hope of getting rna though.
All this means that we finally have a plausible and better demonstrable
way to get replication going. Getting yourself wrapped up in lipid
micelles makes sense since naked replicators have no way of keeping
resources like free nucleotides to themselves.
BTW did you manage to read that paper on self replicating rnas I linked
to?
Simon Woods
> Simon Woods <simonwo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Peter, thanks for your reply, I shouldn't worry too much. I'm probably
> >shooting from the hip. I must admit to finding an anti-science bias in
> >myself and I don't know why it is there. It doesn't seem right but it
> >is there! It currently expresses itself in that I can't really see how
> >the axioms of science (repeatablility, testability etc etc) deal with
> >the problems of collective projection. It seems to me that the axioms
> >of science are themselves expressions of collective projection and
> >therefore what Adams says of the SAP would seem to be true of any
> >scientific theory - I just happened to swing a punch at evolution!
> >However, I'm sure my myopic understanding will be enlightened in other
> >current threads as the mind/body problem is discussed.
>
> I think the answer may be that scientific knowledge, being a special way
> of knowing, transcends the collective. It is the idea that science done
> by an Englishman should not materailly differ from that done by a
> Japanese woman or a Yanomami Indian in the Amazon. They may bring
> different vantage points but that would not change the underlying
> utility or veracity of the model. It would further hold that an alien
> intelligence orbiting a different star would discover much the same
> things we do using the scientific method.
The 'a million flies can't be wrong' argument? ;-)
It may suggest what you're saying. OTOH, it may suggest commonality of
workings of (the human) mind. Where is an independent vantage point
which transcends the workings of the mind? As was suggested in the link
Richard Dudley posted re Conscious Realism, the physical world
projected (created?) by mind is still subject to
exploration/interaction just as any virtual world which is the product
of collective intelligence.
Peter Ashby
>Peter Ashby wrote:
>
>
>>Simon Woods <simonwo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Peter, thanks for your reply, I shouldn't worry too much. I'm probably
>>>shooting from the hip. I must admit to finding an anti-science bias in
>>>myself and I don't know why it is there. It doesn't seem right but it
>>>is there! It currently expresses itself in that I can't really see how
>>>the axioms of science (repeatablility, testability etc etc) deal with
>>>the problems of collective projection. It seems to me that the axioms
>>>of science are themselves expressions of collective projection and
>>>therefore what Adams says of the SAP would seem to be true of any
>>>scientific theory - I just happened to swing a punch at evolution!
>>>However, I'm sure my myopic understanding will be enlightened in other
>>>current threads as the mind/body problem is discussed.
>>
>>I think the answer may be that scientific knowledge, being a special way
>>of knowing, transcends the collective. It is the idea that science done
>>by an Englishman should not materailly differ from that done by a
>>Japanese woman or a Yanomami Indian in the Amazon. They may bring
>>different vantage points but that would not change the underlying
>>utility or veracity of the model. It would further hold that an alien
>>intelligence orbiting a different star would discover much the same
>>things we do using the scientific method.
>
>The 'a million flies can't be wrong' argument? ;-)
Not quite, no. I do not like such arguments. In The Trouble With Science
Robin Dunbar makes a good case I think using several different examples
that the scientific method is culture independent.
>It may suggest what you're saying. OTOH, it may suggest commonality of
>workings of (the human) mind. Where is an independent vantage point
>which transcends the workings of the mind? As was suggested in the link
>Richard Dudley posted re Conscious Realism, the physical world
>projected (created?) by mind is still subject to
>exploration/interaction just as any virtual world which is the product
>of collective intelligence.
Which is dangerously close to solipsism in my estimation. The best way
to test the conviction of a solipsist as to the possible projection of
the physical world is to invite them to leave via a fourth floor window.
Simon Woods
> >>Simon Woods <simonwo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Peter, thanks for your reply, I shouldn't worry too much. I'm probably
> >>>shooting from the hip. I must admit to finding an anti-science bias in
> >>>myself and I don't know why it is there. It doesn't seem right but it
> >>>is there! It currently expresses itself in that I can't really see how
> >>>the axioms of science (repeatablility, testability etc etc) deal with
> >>>the problems of collective projection. It seems to me that the axioms
> >>>of science are themselves expressions of collective projection and
> >>>therefore what Adams says of the SAP would seem to be true of any
> >>>scientific theory - I just happened to swing a punch at evolution!
> >>>However, I'm sure my myopic understanding will be enlightened in other
> >>>current threads as the mind/body problem is discussed.
> >>
> >>I think the answer may be that scientific knowledge, being a special way
> >>of knowing, transcends the collective. It is the idea that science done
> >>by an Englishman should not materailly differ from that done by a
> >>Japanese woman or a Yanomami Indian in the Amazon. They may bring
> >>different vantage points but that would not change the underlying
> >>utility or veracity of the model. It would further hold that an alien
> >>intelligence orbiting a different star would discover much the same
> >>things we do using the scientific method.
I'm sure that's true because the method predetermines the parameters of
potential findings. You cannot see far off galaxies with a microscope.
> Not quite, no. I do not like such arguments. In The Trouble With Science
> Robin Dunbar makes a good case I think using several different examples
> that the scientific method is culture independent.
... but not homo sapiens independent?
> >It may suggest what you're saying. OTOH, it may suggest commonality of
> >workings of (the human) mind. Where is an independent vantage point
> >which transcends the workings of the mind? As was suggested in the link
> >Richard Dudley posted re Conscious Realism, the physical world
> >projected (created?) by mind is still subject to
> >exploration/interaction just as any virtual world which is the product
> >of collective intelligence.
>
> Which is dangerously close to solipsism in my estimation. The best way
> to test the conviction of a solipsist as to the possible projection of
> the physical world is to invite them to leave via a fourth floor window.
So, and this is a genuine request, as I am tending towards this type of
thinking, how can you help me? I'm not going to jump out of a fourth
flow window because I'm not strongly convicted. How can you show me a
better way and my error, proving that you are not an expression of a
particular way of thinking that is uncovered in (my/the?) mind? Show me
what is!
Richard Dudley
> >It may suggest what you're saying. OTOH, it may suggest commonality of
> >workings of (the human) mind. Where is an independent vantage point
> >which transcends the workings of the mind? As was suggested in the link
> >Richard Dudley posted re Conscious Realism, the physical world
> >projected (created?) by mind is still subject to
> >exploration/interaction just as any virtual world which is the product
> >of collective intelligence.
>
> Which is dangerously close to solipsism in my estimation.
Its a variant of solipsism, yes, but nothing at all dangerous about it.
Just read Hoffman's paper. Or read Freeman's 'How Brains make up their
Minds' - he also espouses a similar view but this book is much more
difficult to get into than Hoffman.
> The best way
> to test the conviction of a solipsist as to the possible projection of
> the physical world is to invite them to leave via a fourth floor window.
Nope, that's a *completely hopeless* way of testing the conviction of a
solipsist, since they're bound to ignore you ;-) Anyway, Hoffman deals
with a variant of this 'objection' in his paper.
Richard
Peter Beale
nickspamt...@hotmail.com (Nick Milton) wrote:
> I would oppose a Creationist just as strongly where he or
> she atheist, Christian, JW, or any other flavour.
I think you'll find atheist creationists fairly thin on the ground... :-)
---
Peter Beale
Simon Robinson
>>>>>> Good luck Peter! Many of us have been trying (and failing) to
>>>>>> convince Ken to stop misrepresenting evolutionary theory for
>>> years.
>>>> Peter Beale wrote:
>>>>> Strange how Christian evolutionists seem to find atheists more
>>> kindred spirits than they >>do Christian creationists.
Peter Beale wrote:
> Not an insult, veiled or otherwise. Merely a comment that my impression is that
> Christian evolutionists appear to find atheists more kindred spirits than they do
> Christian creationists: they will tend to "side" with the former against the latter. Am I
> mistaken in this impression?
You used the word 'strange' which seems to imply you think there's
something odd about it if it is the case. But apologies for thinking
there was some kind of insult involved.
As far as finding atheists to be kindred spirits: In the course of any
discussion, I will argue for whichever point I happen to believe is
correct. If the people who are arguing on the same side as me happen to
be atheists, then I'm not going to reject them or treat them any
differently from others who happen to agree with me, just because I
disagree with them about the (different) question of whether there is a
God. I'm not totally sure what 'kindred spirits' means in the context
you were using it, so can't really comment on whether that makes them
kindred spirits or not :-)
Michael J Davis
<em...@via.my.web.site> writes
>I'm not totally sure what 'kindred spirits' means in the context you
>were using it, so can't really comment on whether that makes them
>kindred spirits or not :-)
Pleasant, generous and with a ruddy hue, I should think. Followers of
the IPU, at a guess.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Peter Ashby
>Peter Ashby wrote:
>
>
>>>>Simon Woods <simonwo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Not quite, no. I do not like such arguments. In The Trouble With Science
>>Robin Dunbar makes a good case I think using several different examples
>>that the scientific method is culture independent.
>
>... but not homo sapiens independent?
I'm onto that chapter now, we have done pigeons putting the world into
categories and now we are onto what primates can do. So he is attempting
to make the case.
>>>It may suggest what you're saying. OTOH, it may suggest commonality of
>>>workings of (the human) mind. Where is an independent vantage point
>>>which transcends the workings of the mind? As was suggested in the link
>>>Richard Dudley posted re Conscious Realism, the physical world
>>>projected (created?) by mind is still subject to
>>>exploration/interaction just as any virtual world which is the product
>>>of collective intelligence.
>>
>>Which is dangerously close to solipsism in my estimation. The best way
>>to test the conviction of a solipsist as to the possible projection of
>>the physical world is to invite them to leave via a fourth floor window.
>
>So, and this is a genuine request, as I am tending towards this type of
>thinking, how can you help me? I'm not going to jump out of a fourth
>flow window because I'm not strongly convicted. How can you show me a
>better way and my error, proving that you are not an expression of a
>particular way of thinking that is uncovered in (my/the?) mind? Show me
>what is!
If that does not convince you nothing would I fear. Not even me in front
of you breathing at you as I speak would suffice obviously since I could
be the product of your diseased imagination (in the sense that your
imagination would have to be diseased to need to imagine me). ;-)
Peter Ashby
>>The best way
>>to test the conviction of a solipsist as to the possible projection of
>>the physical world is to invite them to leave via a fourth floor window.
>
>Nope, that's a *completely hopeless* way of testing the conviction of a
>solipsist, since they're bound to ignore you ;-) Anyway, Hoffman deals
>with a variant of this 'objection' in his paper.
As I think I have detailed to you before I have met a man who had lost
his faith in such things and causation in general. He was quite
debilitated by it according to his wife. Though he was sufficiently
better to have been able to stand a flight to Turkey.
Richard Dudley
> >>The best way
> >>to test the conviction of a solipsist as to the possible projection of
> >>the physical world is to invite them to leave via a fourth floor window.
> >
> >Nope, that's a *completely hopeless* way of testing the conviction of a
> >solipsist, since they're bound to ignore you ;-) Anyway, Hoffman deals
> >with a variant of this 'objection' in his paper.
>
> As I think I have detailed to you before I have met a man who had lost
> his faith in such things
He'd lost his faith in solipsism ? How bizarre - do tell us more Peter.
I've never in my wildest imaginings entertained the possibility of a
lapsed solipsist.
> and causation in general. He was quite
> debilitated by it according to his wife.
Of course, it was only his wife that considered the debility to be
caused by the loss of faith ;-) What was his own explanation ?
Richard
Nick Milton
wrote:
>In article <vdf4j2tgkfbuppfq2...@4ax.com>,
My point exactly
James
>Re: Evolution
>For a long while I thought the arguement between evolution and creation
>was dead. Since there was absolutely no progress in term of evolution
>research. The advancement of molecular genetic does not prove or
>disprove evolution. In a certain extend, biologists such as myself,
>accept that changes can happen to genome and change the phenotype of a
>certain organisms, and that is inheritable. But you can call it
>evolution, just because a species has changed.
>
>So, what does it tell us? Is there a God? In recent publication by
>Professor Richard Dawkins, a very prominent biologist, called 'The God
>Delusion', he used sciences to attack every bit of religion. For
>recent times, he has been crusading to take God away from our lives.
>
>On the other end of the scale, the Bible belt of America is advocating
>the teaching of intelligent design as a science. The problem is, as a
>scientific sound theory, it has to be reproducible.
>
>Now, it is down to belief. Do I or do you believe in God and His
>creation? The point here is, no matter the answer, it does change any
>fact that God created the universe, or not.
Hello,
Evolution's strongest proof would be in the fossil record. It is sadly
lacking here. But the creation account is the strongest here. So if we
are going to be scientific, then we should support the strongest data,
right?
To cut to the chase, evolution says life evolved from previous life
over millions of years. Thus thousands and thousands of transitional
life forms once would have existed to eventually produce all the
thousands and thousands of different life forms today. (as well as
those extinct)
On the other hand, the creation account says that each different life
form was created whole and complete on the spot. Thus were would be no
transitional life forms in the fossil record. They would show up full
and complete.
So what does the fossil record show? It shows life forms quickly
showing up in the fossil record as whole and complete organisms. Even
Darwin had problems with those needed transitional life forms. He
stated:
"The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended
together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious
difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54).
Yes that "very obvious difficulty" still exists today in that THEORY
of evolution. Now if a "theory" fails to find the strongest evidence
to support it, doesn't it sound reasonable to have doubts about the
theory's credibility?
True, religionists have to have a lot of faith to believe in their
religion, but one would expect those of science to stay with the
scientific proof, not go by faith. And the science (fossil record)
supports the creation account over the evolutionary theory. If it
looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then.....
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
Charles Lindsey
>To cut to the chase, evolution says life evolved from previous life
>over millions of years. Thus thousands and thousands of transitional
>life forms once would have existed to eventually produce all the
>thousands and thousands of different life forms today. (as well as
>those extinct)
>On the other hand, the creation account says that each different life
>form was created whole and complete on the spot. Thus were would be no
>transitional life forms in the fossil record. They would show up full
>and complete.
>So what does the fossil record show? It shows life forms quickly
>showing up in the fossil record as whole and complete organisms. Even
>Darwin had problems with those needed transitional life forms. He
>stated:
>"The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended
>together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious
>difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54).
Yes, but if you think about it carefully, long gaps in the fossil record
are exactly what you would expect to see if evolution is working.
If there is a population of millions of some creature all thriving and
reproducing, then their will be millions of dead bodies produced and you
will find lots of fossils of them.
But such a large population will not evolve, because even if some
favourable mutation appears in a single creature, you would have to wait
for millions of generations before that mutation had become widespread
throughout the population.
So it is only when you have a small population of some species that is
under pressure and in danger of extinction (because its environment has
changed or some new predator has appeared) that a favourable mutation will
have any chance of propagating to become present in the majority of the
population (at which point the population may well start to expand to the
millions and so stop evolving further).
For that reason, you don't expect the intermediate species to show up in
the fossil record because their populations were so small and, likewise
their number of dead bodies, that you cannot expect to find many of their
fossils lying around.
However, as people continue to look further for fossils of these "missing
links", they do turn up from time to time (as was reported recently for a
fossil somewhere between Australopithecus and Lucy).
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5