Shaw on God's creation
r norman
essay titled "I Wish I Had Said That, and I Will" where she quotes
Shaw as saying:
"If I were God I should try to create something higher than myself. I
do not wish to be uncomplimentary, but just think about yourselves,
ladies and gentlemen: can you conceive God deliberately creating you
if he could have created anything better?"
I can't verify the citation (at least google can't). Still it sounds
perfectly Shavian and perfectly sensible.
Ken Shaw
I can categorically state that I have never written or said that. ;)
Ken
r norman
wrote:
But, as the title of the essay goes, you probably wish you had!
There are lots of Shaws besides George Bernard. Does anyone know the
true source?
Chris Thompson
news:QCdec.8388$K_.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
But do you wish you had?
Chris
Ken Shaw
Of course I do. BTW I am pretty sure this isn't by George Bernard. It
would be helpful to know which Shaw is supposed to have said this. There
are quite a few of us after all.
Ken
Not-easily-duped
> In today's (Apr.11, 2004) NY Times Book Review, Margo Jefferson has an
> essay titled "I Wish I Had Said That, and I Will" where she quotes
> Shaw as saying:
>
> "If I were God I should try to create something higher than myself. I
> do not wish to be uncomplimentary, but just think about yourselves,
> ladies and gentlemen: can you conceive God deliberately creating you
> if he could have created anything better?"
Can he conceive natural selection evolving you If it could have
evolved anything better?
R.Schenck
> r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<cpli70tib2noqums3...@4ax.com>...
snip
>> "If I were God I should try to create something higher than myself.
>> I do not wish to be uncomplimentary, but just think about yourselves,
>> ladies and gentlemen: can you conceive God deliberately creating you
>> if he could have created anything better?"
>
> Can he conceive natural selection evolving you If it could have
> evolved anything better?
Natural selection doesn't deal with hypotheticals. Natural selection is
quite panglossian.
snip
Hank
> In today's (Apr.11, 2004) NY Times Book Review, Margo Jefferson has an
> essay titled "I Wish I Had Said That, and I Will" where she quotes
> Shaw as saying:
>
> "If I were God I should try to create something higher than myself. I
> do not wish to be uncomplimentary, but just think about yourselves,
> ladies and gentlemen: can you conceive God deliberately creating you
> if he could have created anything better?"
According to Bill Cosby, one of the little known facts about God is that
he has a sense of humor. :-)
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
david ford
> Chris Thompson wrote:
> > Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote in
> > news:QCdec.8388$K_.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> >>r norman wrote:
> >>
> >>>In today's (Apr.11, 2004) NY Times Book Review, Margo Jefferson has
> >>>an essay titled "I Wish I Had Said That, and I Will" where she quotes
> >>>Shaw as saying:
> >>>
> >>>"If I were God I should try to create something higher than myself.
> >>>I do not wish to be uncomplimentary, but just think about yourselves,
> >>>ladies and gentlemen: can you conceive God deliberately creating you
> >>>if he could have created anything better?"
> >>>
> >>>I can't verify the citation (at least google can't). Still it sounds
> >>>perfectly Shavian and perfectly sensible.
> >>
> >>I can categorically state that I have never written or said that. ;)
> >>
> >>Ken
> >
> > But do you wish you had?
>
> Of course I do. BTW I am pretty sure this isn't by George Bernard.
I recently read George Bernard Shaw's famous preface, and don't recall
coming across the statement above.
For language style comparison purposes, see
1983 Jeremy Rifkin, 1939 Luther Burbank, 2002 Judith Hooper, Darwin
autobiography on design, 1921 George Bernard Shaw
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404070956.1db2b888%40posting.google.com
Ken Shaw
I made the mistake that you were miraculously trying to be helpful. I
won't be making that mistake again. Please go play in traffic or climb
the White House fence.
Ken
Severian
wrote:
>
>
Ford has a certain "way" with intercourse. Helpfulness is certainly
not one of its traits.
--
Sev
david ford
In my opinion, the quotation in question does not appear in George
Bernard Shaw's famous preface (which I recently read), does not read
like the way he wrote in his preface, and does not say something
harmonious with what he said in his preface.
You are, of course, free to consider my two cents as not-helpful.
Incidentally, the quote above makes an argument from incredulity.
david ford
On several occasions, in response to the appearance in newsgroups of
quotations of uncertain origin, or brief quotations, I have presented
fuller quotations with citations. In your view, was my presentation
of the fuller quotations with citations helpful?
Some illustrations of my presenting fuller quotations appear in:
Simpson, Eldredge in _Synthese_, Ager, Corner, Rosen, Grasse,
Patterson, Raup, Stanley
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981222231509.19980I-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1970 Mayr, 1980 Gorman, 1982 and 1980 Rensberger, 1980 Lewin, 1981
Ruse, 1981 Jastrow, 1976 Bethell, 1982 Hitching
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0009120411410.1773811-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082032.5b24b389%40posting.google.com
Crick comment
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402152141.5349373c%40posting.google.com
AC
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> Incidentally, the quote above makes an argument from incredulity.
And you're the expert on those.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
r norman
Your problem, David, is that GBShaw wrote an awful lot of stuff beyond
his "famous preface". In fact, virtually all his plays contain a
famous preface. And there are an awful lot of other writings. You did
quote extensively from one particular Shaw piece and, you are correct,
the quote attributed to Shaw did not appear there. But if you read
the quote, you find sounds like part of an address to an audience, not
part of a written essay or play or piece of musical criticism or
whatever. Does that mean it could not possibly be in something else
that you may not be familiar with?
The Bernard Shaw Information and Research Service at
http://www.georgebernardshaw.com/
indicates that "In his own words, Shaw said he was a writing machine.
He wrote 65 plays & was an avid pamphleteer writing on such subjects
as Drama, Women & Feminism, Stimulants, Vivisection, Natural
Selection, Music, Marriage, Capital Punishment, The Soviet Union. The
list is almost endless....Apart from writing, Shaw loved to speak on
the radio." Are you now positive that the quote in question does not
appear in anything Shaw ever wrote or said?
Incidentally, Shaw was an incredibly witty fellow. An argument from
incredulity in this instance is quite appropriate in the context in
which it was offered.
david ford
david ford:
> > Incidentally, the quote above makes an argument from incredulity.
>
> And you're the expert on those.
Please present those words of mine, if any, that make you
think that I've made an argument from incredulity.
Do you think Darwin made an argument from incredulity in
the passage below?
Darwin, Charles. July 1860. Letter to Asa Gray in _Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin_ (New York: D. Appleton and
Co., 1898), edited by Francis Darwin, volume 1, page 284.
Cited in Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, _Why
Scientists Accept Evolution_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Book House), 113pp., 48:
One word more on "designed laws" and "undesigned
results." I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun
and kill it, I do this _designedly_. An innocent and
good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of
lightning. Do you believe (and I really should like to
hear) that God _designedly_ killed this man? Many or
most persons do believe this; I can't and don't. If you
believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up
a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow
should snap up that particular gnat at that particular
instant? I believe that the man and the gnat are in the
same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat
are designed, I see no reason to believe that their _first_
birth or production should be necessarily designed.
AC
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc801af.1fc....@alder.alberni.net>...
> david ford:
>> > Incidentally, the quote above makes an argument from incredulity.
>>
>> And you're the expert on those.
>
> Please present those words of mine, if any, that make you
> think that I've made an argument from incredulity.
Your whole world-view is based upon arguments from incredulity.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
david ford
david ford:
Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote in message news:<w_Ifc.35788$i74.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >> > Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote in message news:<JJfec.15415$i74.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >> >>Chris Thompson wrote:
> >> >>>Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote in
> >> >>>news:QCdec.8388$K_.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
No, I'm not, and I did not say that I was. Look again at what I
said-- it is restricted to his 1921 _Methuselah_ preface.
> Incidentally, Shaw was an incredibly witty fellow. An argument from
> incredulity in this instance is quite appropriate in the context in
> which it was offered.
What was [rn]"the context in which it was offered"?
Do you think the argument is a good/solid argument?
Incidentally, according to his 1921 preface to which I have referred,
G.B. Shaw was a hardcore skeptic earlier in his life, and later in his
life ceased to be such. Perhaps the quotation in question came from
his hardcore skeptic years.
david ford
Your above sentence is not [df]"words of mine." Feel free to
elaborate on your allegation, if you wish.
> <snip>
I see that you snipped my Darwin quote and accompanying question.
Let's try this again, with another Darwin comment.
Darwin, Charles. Letter to Asa Gray, probably in late 1860. Cited in
Sara Joan Miles's "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and
Design"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html
But I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as
you do about Design .... [Y]ou lead me to infer that you
believe "that variation has been led along certain
beneficial lines."--I cannot believe this; & I think you
would have to believe, that the tail of the fan-tail was
led to vary in the number & direction of its feathers in
order to gratify the caprice of a few men.
Do you think Darwin made an argument from incredulity in the passage
above?
Do you think Darwin set up a strawman position in the passage above?
Ken Shaw
Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
quotations from others.
What is your goal with the threads you start?
What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
years ago?
Choosing not to answer these simple questions will of course serve to
confirm that you are simply a pathetic creationist desperate to find
something to use as an argument against the ToE.
Ken
AC
I don't play your games any more. When you return to the thread you fled,
then we'll talk some more. Until then forget it. You bought my behavior
towards you when you ran away. I'm a one-track mind sort of guy, David. I
will not discuss anything else with you but the thread you abandoned. If
you don't like it, then killfile me now.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
david ford
> David,
>
> Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
> answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
> questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
> quotations from others.
>
> What is your goal with the threads you start?
Questions are good.
Any goals I might have for starting a thread depend upon what the
thread is. What are 2 threads that you had in mind?
> What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
I am an old earth creationist/ intelligent-designist.
> Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
> years ago?
I like the history of science. The theory of natural selection has
never received confirmation from the fossil record, breeding
experiments, and laboratory experiments. Showing that this was the
case through the years since 1859 helps bolster my position that the
theory of natural selection currently lacks any significant support
from these areas.
> Choosing not to answer these simple questions will of course serve to
> confirm that you are simply a pathetic creationist desperate to find
> something to use as an argument against the ToE.
Of course.
david ford
My recollection of my scribbled response to your post in the
incredulity thread is that you brought up the topic of multiple
universes, and mentioned something about you being able to present
statements from others in support of the theory of evolution. With
respect to the latter topic, the Darlington thread has continued to
discuss the theory of natural selection. With respect to the
possibility of multiple universes, posited by you as a way of possibly
getting around the Big Bang theory's seeming-implication that a
not-material entity or entities was responsible for our universe's
beginning to exist, I'm currently much more interested in discussing
biology.
In my opinion, there are stronger design arguments to be made from the
realm of biology than from the realm of physics. Biology's
seeming-intelligent-design (or rather, actual intelligent design) is
much more obvious than physics's seeming-intelligent-design (or
rather, actual intelligent design). In addition, we know that biology
began to exist, since the universe in which biology resides began to
exist in the Big Bang creation event. With respect to physics's
beginning to exist, there is of course the possibility that ours is
merely one out of numerous universes, the whole collection of which
conceivably could have never begun to exist (though I would suggest
that the second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to
exist in any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes).
My scribbled response consisted largely of asking questions. If you
do not like my current approach of asking numerous questions, you
would not like my scribbled incredulity thread musings.
I am currently engaging in a one-track assault on the theory of
natural selection, plus discussing whatever else happens to strike my
fancy. Posing of questions about multiple universes will wait until
some other time.
I have ceased to discuss within (your word: [AC]"abandoned") numerous
threads. I haven't replied to numerous posts.
I have never killfiled anyone, and do not anticipate doing so in the
future.
AC
Yes, I'm sure you are, as you appear to be better at finding eighty year old
quotes and quote-mining people with biology. The best you could do was slag
Carl Sagan, who really wasn't a practicing science for the latter part of
his life.
>
> In my opinion, there are stronger design arguments to be made from the
> realm of biology than from the realm of physics.
And we all know what your opinion is worth.
> Biology's
> seeming-intelligent-design (or rather, actual intelligent design) is
> much more obvious than physics's seeming-intelligent-design (or
> rather, actual intelligent design).
As I said, your whole world-view is based upon incredulity. "I don't
believe NS could produce life we see so I'll quote mine books from the 1938
to defend my incredulity." Beyond which, NS is only one force in evolution.
>In addition, we know that biology
> began to exist, since the universe in which biology resides began to
> exist in the Big Bang creation event. With respect to physics's
> beginning to exist, there is of course the possibility that ours is
> merely one out of numerous universes, the whole collection of which
> conceivably could have never begun to exist (though I would suggest
> that the second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to
> exist in any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
> never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes).
Why would you reasonably suggest anything about other universes? I don't
know if I even buy into brane theory, which at the moment is even a theory,
more than just an interesting area of potential research.
>
> My scribbled response consisted largely of asking questions. If you
> do not like my current approach of asking numerous questions, you
> would not like my scribbled incredulity thread musings.
> I am currently engaging in a one-track assault on the theory of
> natural selection,
No David, you are not assaulting NS. You're quote-mining and digging up
ancient quotes. To consider what you're doing an assault is the height of
arrogance.
>plus discussing whatever else happens to strike my
> fancy. Posing of questions about multiple universes will wait until
> some other time.
When you have more time to quote-mine cosmologists no doubt.
>
> I have ceased to discuss within (your word: [AC]"abandoned") numerous
> threads. I haven't replied to numerous posts.
> I have never killfiled anyone, and do not anticipate doing so in the
> future.
Your record is largely to run from thread to thread, particularly when
things get a little hot or beyond you. It's that which I object to.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
maff
But Christian Taliban historians don't determine science. They're
defeated just like Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist
terrorists.
Ken Shaw
david ford wrote:
> Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote in message news:<WGegc.42330$K_.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>David,
>>
>>Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
>>answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
>>questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
>>quotations from others.
>>
>>What is your goal with the threads you start?
>
>
> Questions are good.
> Any goals I might have for starting a thread depend upon what the
> thread is. What are 2 threads that you had in mind?
>
>
>>What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
>
>
> I am an old earth creationist/ intelligent-designist.
>
>
>>Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
>>years ago?
>
>
> I like the history of science. The theory of natural selection has
> never received confirmation from the fossil record, breeding
> experiments, and laboratory experiments. Showing that this was the
> case through the years since 1859 helps bolster my position that the
> theory of natural selection currently lacks any significant support
> from these areas.
Are you using the term "theory of natural selection" as a synonym for
the ToE? Otherwise I don't see how you can have a serious objection to
ns. Most creationists try to avoid ns or call it a tautology and act
like that somehow hurts the ToE.
Would you care to expand on what part(s) of ns you have a problem with?
Ken
John Harshman
Ken Shaw wrote:
I believe David uses "theory of natural selection" as shorthand for the
claim that natural selection (perhaps coupled with other known,
non-directed processes such as drift) is a mechanism sufficient to
account for the entire history of life, or perhaps just the origins of
adaptive features.
david ford
> > some other time.
> >
> > I have ceased to discuss within (your word: [AC]"abandoned") numerous
> > threads. I haven't replied to numerous posts.
> > I have never killfiled anyone, and do not anticipate doing so in the
> > future.
>
> But Christian Taliban historians don't determine science. They're
> defeated just like Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist
> terrorists.
Who, if anyone, determines what [m]"science" is?
How are [m]"Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist terrorists" [m]"defeated"?
maff
> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Posing of questions about multiple universes will wait until
> > > some other time.
> > >
> > > I have ceased to discuss within (your word: [AC]"abandoned") numerous
> > > threads. I haven't replied to numerous posts.
> > > I have never killfiled anyone, and do not anticipate doing so in the
> > > future.
> >
> > But Christian Taliban historians don't determine science. They're
> > defeated just like Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist
> > terrorists.
>
> Who, if anyone, determines what [m]"science" is?
Scientists in their respective fields of study, regardless of
religion, culture or ethnicity. They usually publish in peer reviewed
sceince journals. It certainly not determined by Christian Taliban
historian, David Ford.
Peer Reviewed Journals
http://www.eurekalert.org/links.php?jrnl=A
What Is This Thing Called Science: An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0335201091/
by Alan F. Chalmers
> How are [m]"Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist terrorists" [m]"defeated"?
You mean Confederates and Bible Belt fundamentalists won the Civil
War?
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> > maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Posing of questions about multiple universes will wait until
> > > > some other time.
> > > >
> > > > I have ceased to discuss within (your word: [AC]"abandoned") numerous
> > > > threads. I haven't replied to numerous posts.
> > > > I have never killfiled anyone, and do not anticipate doing so in the
> > > > future.
> > >
> > > But Christian Taliban historians don't determine science. They're
> > > defeated just like Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist
> > > terrorists.
> >
> > Who, if anyone, determines what [m]"science" is?
>
> Scientists in their respective fields of study, regardless of
> religion, culture or ethnicity.
A majority of scientists working in which (if any) of the following
areas of science possess personal awareness of strong, evidence-based
grounds for the often-alleged validity of the theory of evolution?:
Pharmaceuticals
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
Circulation
Internal Medicine
Neurology
Ophthalmology
Pediatrics
Surgery
Physics
Clinical Nutrition
Emergency Medicine
Internal Medicine
Biochemistry
Arthritis
Cancer
Agriculture
Radiology
Surgery
Developmental Cell Biology
Genome Research
Biotechnology
Gastroenterology
Neuroscience
Astronomy
Geophysics
Geology
Planetary Astronomy
Chemistry
> They usually publish in peer reviewed
> sceince journals. It certainly not determined by Christian Taliban
> historian, David Ford.
What are 2 of the statements of mine that make you think that I have
attempted to determine what [m]"science" is?
> Peer Reviewed Journals
> http://www.eurekalert.org/links.php?jrnl=A
>
> What Is This Thing Called Science: An Assessment of the Nature and
> Status of Science and Its Methods
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0335201091/
> by Alan F. Chalmers
>
> > How are [m]"Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist terrorists" [m]"defeated"?
>
> You mean Confederates and Bible Belt fundamentalists won the Civil
> War?
In 1865, the North defeated the Confederacy to end America's Civil
War.
david ford
> david ford wrote:
> > Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote in message news:<WGegc.42330$K_.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >>David,
> >>
> >>Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
> >>answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
> >>questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
> >>quotations from others.
> >>
> >>What is your goal with the threads you start?
> >
> > Questions are good.
> > Any goals I might have for starting a thread depend upon what the
> > thread is. What are 2 threads that you had in mind?
> >
> >>What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
> >
> > I am an old earth creationist/ intelligent-designist.
> >
> >>Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
> >>years ago?
> >
> > I like the history of science. The theory of natural selection has
> > never received confirmation from the fossil record, breeding
> > experiments, and laboratory experiments. Showing that this was the
> > case through the years since 1859 helps bolster my position that the
> > theory of natural selection currently lacks any significant support
> > from these areas.
>
> Are you using the term "theory of natural selection" as a synonym for
> the ToE?
No.
Schutzenberger wasn't a creationist; options for the
blindwatchmakingist
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980527000035.6222A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> Otherwise I don't see how you can have a serious objection to
> ns. Most creationists try to avoid ns or call it a tautology and act
> like that somehow hurts the ToE.
>
> Would you care to expand on what part(s) of ns you have a problem with?
The fossil record decisively refutes 2 major predictions of the theory
of natural selection.
The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
and new body structures having new functions would appear.
Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311302356490.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS's "crazy-quilt" prediction;
creationist Behe recommends research on the
intelligent-design-of-common-descent hypothesis
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com
fallacy of false extrapolation
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
Selection
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
1916 Caullery: "data of Mendelism embarrass us"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403191919.590c22e3%40posting.google.com
fruit flies
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin" on the Discovery Institute website
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=130
NIEH
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980604010337.18472C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Koestler, Waddington, Dobzhansky, and a remark for Gould
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980606011626.8316A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Ken Shaw
Please only post links to actual references not to your old posts which
quote other sources.
BTW what does this have to do with answering a simple question? One that
your one word answer was sufficient for.
>
>> Otherwise I don't see how you can have a serious objection to
>>ns. Most creationists try to avoid ns or call it a tautology and act
>>like that somehow hurts the ToE.
>>
>>Would you care to expand on what part(s) of ns you have a problem with?
>
>
> The fossil record decisively refutes 2 major predictions of the theory
> of natural selection.
> The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
> from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
> enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
> and new body structures having new functions would appear.
> Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
> to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
> Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
> the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
>
Are you familiar with the fossil record of ceratopians? It shows a clear
sequence of the development of a new body structure. In the early basal
animals there is no bony frill on the back of the skull. As the line
progresses the bony frill appears and increases in size and in complexity.
<snip more links to your posts>
Ken
Hank
Yes. :-)
Hank
This is one of the most laughable claims I've seen come from an anti-science propagandist. Natural Selection developed
as a result of observations *from* the fossil record. This is a classic example of the *big lie*.
> The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
> from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
> enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
> and new body structures having new functions would appear.
Like fins developing into legs? Scales into feathers? Both are well documented.
> Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
> to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
Bunk. Fruit fly experiments alone confirmed it long ago.
> Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
> the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
Which major organ would you expect to evolve in only 150 years?
maff
> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> > > maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Posing of questions about multiple universes will wait until
> > > > > some other time.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have ceased to discuss within (your word: [AC]"abandoned") numerous
> > > > > threads. I haven't replied to numerous posts.
> > > > > I have never killfiled anyone, and do not anticipate doing so in the
> > > > > future.
> > > >
> > > > But Christian Taliban historians don't determine science. They're
> > > > defeated just like Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist
> > > > terrorists.
> > >
> > > Who, if anyone, determines what [m]"science" is?
> >
> > Scientists in their respective fields of study, regardless of
> > religion, culture or ethnicity.
>
> A majority of scientists working in which (if any) of the following
> areas of science possess personal awareness of strong, evidence-based
> grounds for the often-alleged validity of the theory of evolution?:
You don't know much about science, do you Christian Taliban historian,
David Ford? Even Einstein had to publish in peer reviewed science
journals. That's only the first hurdle. Then Physicists and
astronomers from all over the world based on the evidence and
evaluation come to a consensus or not.
Einstein wouldn't dream of claiming that he's an expert on
evolutionary biology, Christian Taliban historian, David Ford.
Your misquotes and selective quotes, Christan Taliban historian, David
Ford. Science isn't determermined by misquotes.
>
> > Peer Reviewed Journals
> > http://www.eurekalert.org/links.php?jrnl=A
> >
> > What Is This Thing Called Science: An Assessment of the Nature and
> > Status of Science and Its Methods
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0335201091/
> > by Alan F. Chalmers
> >
> > > How are [m]"Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist terrorists" [m]"defeated"?
> >
> > You mean Confederates and Bible Belt fundamentalists won the Civil
> > War?
>
> In 1865, the North defeated the Confederacy to end America's Civil
> War.
>
> How are [m]"Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist terrorists"
> [m]"defeated"?
They same way you'll be defeated, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford.
wbarwell
> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
> news:<18510aff.04041...@posting.google.com>...
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
>> news:<b1c67abe.04041...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Posing of questions about multiple universes will wait until
>> > some other time.
>> >
>> > I have ceased to discuss within (your word: [AC]"abandoned") numerous
>> > threads. I haven't replied to numerous posts.
>> > I have never killfiled anyone, and do not anticipate doing so in the
>> > future.
>>
>> But Christian Taliban historians don't determine science. They're
>> defeated just like Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist
>> terrorists.
>
> Who, if anyone, determines what [m]"science" is?
Peer reviewed journals.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
david ford
> david ford wrote:
> > maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
> > news:<18510aff.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> >> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
> >> news:<b1c67abe.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > Posing of questions about multiple universes will wait until
> >> > some other time.
> >> >
> >> > I have ceased to discuss within (your word: [AC]"abandoned") numerous
> >> > threads. I haven't replied to numerous posts.
> >> > I have never killfiled anyone, and do not anticipate doing so in the
> >> > future.
> >>
> >> But Christian Taliban historians don't determine science. They're
> >> defeated just like Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist
> >> terrorists.
> >
> > Who, if anyone, determines what [m]"science" is?
>
> Peer reviewed journals.
In what year did [w]"peer reviewed journals" first appear?
Before that year, was there [m]"science"?
david ford
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
> > The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
> > from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
> > enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
> > and new body structures having new functions would appear.
>
> Like fins developing into legs? Scales into feathers? Both are well
> documented.
>
> > Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
> > to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
>
> Bunk. Fruit fly experiments alone confirmed it long ago.
You don't know what you're talking about.
fruit flies
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
Selection
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
> > Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
david ford
Hank
Correct, but how about the rest of the story? Yes, the fossil record is imperfect - but it still gives us *plenty* of
evidence for natural selection. Any reason you chose to leave that detail out of your allegation?
>
> > > The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
> > > from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
> > > enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
> > > and new body structures having new functions would appear.
> >
> > Like fins developing into legs? Scales into feathers? Both are well
> > documented.
> >
> > > Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
> > > to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
> >
> > Bunk. Fruit fly experiments alone confirmed it long ago.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about.
> fruit flies
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
>
> Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
> Selection
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
Too funny. Yes, I tried the links. The first one was from a *religious* web site dedicated to combating evolution. (And
the reason you would think this is objective would be ... ?) Quite a number of out-of context quotes there.
The second link was to a page (http://www.hartnell.cc.ca.us/faculty/jhodin/superfly.htm) that thoroughly refuted each of
those claims. Well, at least you had the honesty to illuminate both sides (unless it was accidental). Did you not even
read this link???
>
> > > Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
> > > the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
> >
> > Which major organ would you expect to evolve in only 150 years?
I notice you avoided this question. An oversight perhaps? Care to address it now? Certainly you're not
honesty-challenged?
Hank
Hello -- Earth calling. People working in any one of those fields would tend to have enough education to know what
science is about.
... and how often do you "wink wink" to guys???
Thomas P.
ford) wrote:
>Hank <Ha...@application.com> wrote in message news:<408FC071...@Company.com>...
>> david ford wrote:
>> > Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote in message news:<yMVgc.3424$um3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> > > david ford wrote:
>> > > > Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote in message news:<WGegc.42330$K_.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
snip
>> > The fossil record decisively refutes 2 major predictions of the theory
>> > of natural selection.
>>
>> This is one of the most laughable claims I've seen come from an anti-science
>> propagandist. Natural Selection developed as a result of observations
>> *from* the fossil record. This is a classic example of the *big lie*.
>
>You don't know what you're talking about.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
>_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
>imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
>record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
>then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
>of natural selection.
There are a few problems with your example. The biggest problem is
that Darwin's writings are not holy scripture; a great deal has been
discovered in the past ca. 150 years. Even, however, if we limit
ourselves to what Darwin wrote above, the failure of something to
completely confirm something is not the same things as refuting it.
In any event the theory does not depend on the fossil record, which
one could not possibly expect to be complete. No biologist has ever
refuted evolution, which is accepted, not as some popular concept, but
as a well established fact. DNA research in recent years has only
strengthened the theory. Try to find one biologist actually doing
research who questions evolution. They do not exist. Their is no
controversy.
It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
the only two choices.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Tyson Burghardt
Hmm. Surgeons, radiologists, ophthalmologists,
pediatricians, and emergency physicians (at least!) aren't
really scientists. They _could_ be, and some are, but I've
never heard of a "surgical scientist."
Moreover, just arguing from my medical school class, it seems
depressingly that disbelief in evolution isn't a huge hindrance
for becoming a medical professional. Still, nuts to them--it
made anatomy a whole lot easier for me!
--
/////******
Tyson Burghardt
"I asked a man what was Right. He answered me that it was
the assurance of the full exercise of possibilities. That
man was called Galli Mathias. I ate him."
--Oswaldo de Andrade, "Cannibal Manifesto"
VoiceOfReason
<snip>
> It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
> non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
> on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
> about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
> claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
> the only two choices.
I think in the beginning, it tends to be ignorance. Some creation
supporters I've met were totally unaware that it's quite possible to
reconcile both religious faith and evolution. Somehow they get the
impression that accepting evolution means they have to give up on God,
which couldn't be further from the truth.
But for the big-time anti-evilutionists - they're just a bunch of con
artists trying to sell more books. At least that's the distinct
impression I get. :-)
david ford
Would people working in any one of those fields tend to have enough
education to know what are some of the strong, evidence-based grounds
for the T0E's oft-alleged validity?
> ... and how often do you "wink wink" to guys???
When pulling their leg, sometimes.
david ford
Note that I'm talking about the theory of natural selection. I was
unaware that the fossil record provides a lot of evidence for the
theory of NS. If you would, please briefly describe 2 lines of fossil
record evidence supporting the theory of natural selection.
> > > > The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
> > > > from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
> > > > enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
> > > > and new body structures having new functions would appear.
> > >
> > > Like fins developing into legs? Scales into feathers? Both are well
> > > documented.
> > >
> > > > Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
> > > > to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
> > >
> > > Bunk. Fruit fly experiments alone confirmed it long ago.
> >
> > You don't know what you're talking about.
> > fruit flies
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
> >
> > Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
> > Selection
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
>
> Too funny. Yes, I tried the links. The first one was from a *religious* web site dedicated to combating evolution. (And
> the reason you would think this is objective would be ... ?) Quite a number of out-of context quotes there.
I didn't say that site was objective. In fact, I have only cursorily
looked at that site.
> The second link was to a page (http://www.hartnell.cc.ca.us/faculty/jhodin/superfly.htm) that thoroughly refuted each of
> those claims. Well, at least you had the honesty to illuminate both sides (unless it was accidental). Did you not even
> read this link???
Yes, I read that link closely. And then proceeded to supply 7 links
of my own for readers to compare with that link. Did you take a look
at the 7 links I supplied? Did you take a look at the Macbeth on
Faulty Extrapolation link?
The Watcher
>You don't know what you're talking about.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
>_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
>imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
>record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
>then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
>of natural selection.
The fossil record DOES contain plenty of confirmation for Darwin's theory of
natural selection. Also, if the fossil record was "perfect" that would be more
of a miracle than a person walking on water, since the chances of any dead
organism becoming a fossil are pretty slim. When you factor in the even more
unlikely odds of one of EVERY organism becoming a fossil(and then being found),
you're getting into some pretty slim chances.
>
>> > The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
>> > from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
>> > enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
>> > and new body structures having new functions would appear.
>>
>> Like fins developing into legs? Scales into feathers? Both are well
>> documented.
>>
>> > Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
>> > to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
>>
>> Bunk. Fruit fly experiments alone confirmed it long ago.
>
>You don't know what you're talking about.
>fruit flies
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
>
>Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
>Selection
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
>
>> > Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
>> > the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
>>
>> Which major organ would you expect to evolve in only 150 years?
>
I notice none of the anti-evolution crowd have ever been willing to put their
money where their big mouths are. I submit that any of them who REALLY sincerely
believe their propaganda should make sure and tell their doctor if they ever get
an infection that they only want to be treated with sulfa drugs, since sulfa
drugs were pretty effective against bacteria when they were developed, and since
evolution doesn't happen, the sulfa drugs should still do the job.
Thomas P.
If you are really interested in a good answer to that question why not
ask a biologist?
>
>> ... and how often do you "wink wink" to guys???
>
>When pulling their leg, sometimes.
Thomas P.
Thomas P.
I agree. It also covers both the choices I proposed - lying or
ignorance.
Richard Forrest
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
> You don't know what you're talking about.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
> _Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
> imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
> record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
> then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
> of natural selection.
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
RF
david ford
Biologists reading this, if you would, please briefly describe 2
strong, evidence-based lines of evidence for the claim that all of
life is the product of totally-mindless processes.
david ford
> "Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<qoi490h3374bpfs4s...@4ax.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
> > non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
> > on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
> > about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
> > claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
> > the only two choices.
>
> I think in the beginning, it tends to be ignorance. Some creation
> supporters I've met were totally unaware that it's quite possible to
> reconcile both religious faith and evolution. Somehow they get the
> impression that accepting evolution means they have to give up on God,
> which couldn't be further from the truth.
[p/ VOR]"it's quite possible to reconcile both religious faith and evolution"
What is the definition of [p/ VOR]"evolution"?
r norman
ford) wrote:
>"Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<ggi690dq0rc025jan...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 1 May 2004 05:09:50 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
>> ford) wrote:
>> >Would people working in any one of those fields tend to have enough
>> >education to know what are some of the strong, evidence-based grounds
>> >for the T0E's oft-alleged validity?
>>
>> If you are really interested in a good answer to that question why not
>> ask a biologist?
>
>Biologists reading this, if you would, please briefly describe 2
>strong, evidence-based lines of evidence for the claim that all of
>life is the product of totally-mindless processes.
Briefly, the evidence is usually categorized into types, each
supporting different aspects of evolution and together forming a
solid, heavily interlocking and mutually confirming validation:
for extinct species:
fossil record
for extant species:
comparative anatomy or morphology
comparative embryology or development
comparative biochemistry/cell biology/molecular biology
comparative physiology
genome sequencing and analysis
What is most compelling is the fact that evolution was primarily based
on morphology plus very primitive notions of embryology and physiology
plus the fossil record. In the 150 years since Darwin, all we have
learned of genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and the
molecular and genetic foundations of development and physiology plus
all we have learned from genome sequencing have only confirmed and
strengthened the evolutionary basis of biology.
Note: all the laws of physics, all the operations of chemistry, all of
astronomy and cosmology and geology -- in fact, all of science -- is
"mindless", operating by mechanistic causal relations involving matter
and energy. (Quantum mechanics is "mechanistic" in a slightly
different sense.) Biology is no exception.
Bennett Standeven
> papa_...@hotmail.com (VoiceOfReason) wrote in message news:<6c4d0eab.04043...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<qoi490h3374bpfs4s...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
> > > non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
> > > on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
> > > about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
> > > claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
> > > the only two choices.
> >
> > I think in the beginning, it tends to be ignorance. Some creation
> > supporters I've met were totally unaware that it's quite possible to
> > reconcile both religious faith and evolution. Somehow they get the
> > impression that accepting evolution means they have to give up on God,
> > which couldn't be further from the truth.
>
> [p/ VOR]"it's quite possible to reconcile both religious faith and evolution"
> What is the definition of [p/ VOR]"evolution"?
>
[p/ VOR]"evolution" refers to the theory developed by Charles Darwin,
and refined by later biologists during the past century and a half.
Among other things, it states that most organisms are related to one
another, and that the differences between them are produced largely
through the action of natural selection.
david ford
Niles Eldredge is a big-time anti-creationist. I invite someone to
briefly describe 2 of the better lines of argumentation that Eldredge
uses on behalf of his pro-evolution anti-creation stance.
david ford
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:06:29 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> (snip)
> >You don't know what you're talking about.
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
> >_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
> >imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
> >record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
> >then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
> >of natural selection.
>
> The fossil record DOES contain plenty of confirmation for Darwin's theory of
> natural selection.
Supporting quotations from the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
please.
My theory of natural selection essay contains several fossil record
quotations from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. After you
present your quotations, we can compare your peer-reviewed quotations
with mine.
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Is it your belief that [TW]"evolution" is illustrated by bacteria
developing hardiness to the presence of sulfa drugs?
If so, what are 3 other illustrations of your conception of
[TW]"evolution"?
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> <snipped>
> David Ford wrote:
> > You don't know what you're talking about.
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
> > _Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
> > imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
> > record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
> > then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
> > of natural selection.
>
> <snipped>
>
> I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Just calling it like it is.
Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."
Citation in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
> Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
> hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
> presented the weakness in his theory.
In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
would the presentation get published?
Thomas P.
wrote:
David will now, of course, admit that he was wrong.
david ford
[rn]"supporting different aspects of evolution.... evolution was
primarily based on morphology plus" Is [rn]"evolution" equivalent to
"common descent"? If not, what is meant by [rn]"evolution"?
If so, note that I have no problem with common descent, and didn't ask
about common descent.
ID + CD: A Proposal
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404181835.d59cf7d%40posting.google.com
> Note: all the laws of physics, all the operations of chemistry, all of
> astronomy and cosmology and geology -- in fact, all of science -- is
> "mindless", operating by mechanistic causal relations involving matter
> and energy. (Quantum mechanics is "mechanistic" in a slightly
> different sense.) Biology is no exception.
I agree that physics proceeds in a mindless manner.
Physics began to exist in the out-of-nothing Big Bang creation event.
Did physics originate in a totally-mindless manner?
Did the first lifeform arise as a result of the operation of
totally-mindless processes?
Was the appearance of extant and extinct kinds of organisms the result
of totally-mindless-at-every-level processes?
Thomas P.
ford) wrote:
Once again we have an example of misrepresentation. Why do you imply
above that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life? You
must be aware by now that it does not.
Thomas P.
I have no idea what he said or didn't say. It is also irrelevant.
Evolution is an established theory. It is not anti-religion. It is
not anti-creation. It has nothing to do with such matters. It merely
describes what has been observed in nature.
Steve Mading
: On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:06:29 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
: (snip)
:>You don't know what you're talking about.
:>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
:>_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
:>imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
:>record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
:>then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
:>of natural selection.
:
: The fossil record DOES contain plenty of confirmation for Darwin's theory of
: natural selection. Also, if the fossil record was "perfect" that would be more
: of a miracle than a person walking on water, since the chances of any dead
: organism becoming a fossil are pretty slim. When you factor in the even more
: unlikely odds of one of EVERY organism becoming a fossil(and then being found),
: you're getting into some pretty slim chances.
Also, don't forget the really big problem that the in-between states
of evolution are largely a matter of arbitrarily defining boundries
between groups of similar creatures. No matter how many species exist,
no matter how varied they are, you can always claim there's a need
for another in-between step between the ones that have been found.
As time goes on, those inbetween "missing links" occupy a smaller and
smaller sliver of differentiation as more inbetween links are found,
and it's never enough to satisfy. Find a form that's halfway between
two other forms, and they'll ask for a form that's halfway between
THAT and the other two forms. Cut those slices in half, finding a
"1/4" form and a "3/4" form, and then they'll start asking for
a 1/8 and a 3/8 and a 5/8 and a 7/8 form, and so on and so forth,
until eventually it reaches an absurd level where they're splitting
hairs over teeth length, eye color and how tall someone is.
Richard Forrest
> ric...@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> > <snipped>
> > David Ford wrote:
> > > You don't know what you're talking about.
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
> > > _Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
> > > imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
> > > record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
> > > then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
> > > of natural selection.
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> > I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
>
> Just calling it like it is.
>
> Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
> the imperfection of the geologic record."
> Citation in
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Presumably written by someone who hadn't read the original either
>
> > Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
> > hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
> > presented the weakness in his theory.
>
> In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
> his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
> would the presentation get published?
If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
seriously by the scientific community.
>
> > It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
RF
VoiceOfReason
Yeah, what he said. :-) Plus all organisms (including man) having
evolved from previous organisms. And the earth being billions of
years old. It's not a problem for religion unless your denomination
requires adherence to the literal interpretation of the 6-day thing.
In that event you'd have problems not just with evolution, but with
*any* science that indicates the Earth and the universe are billions
of years old (astronomy, geology, physics, etc.)
The T.O archive has a couple FAQs on God and evolution.
david ford
Once again we have an example of misrepresentation. Upon what basis
do you imply above that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of
life? You must be aware by now that it does.
Russell Doolittle and Julian Huxley believe that the concept of
evolution has something [TP]"to do with the origin of life."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970802094315.27893C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Let me know if you want more statements along similar lines. I
suspect I could rustle up some Dawkins and Futuyma.
r norman
ford) wrote:
You ask "what is evolution" and indicate you have no problem with
common descent. You also acknowledge that physics is mindless, but
ask three questions about the role of "mind": the big bang, the origin
of life, and the current diversity of life.
You also specifically directed your initial question to a biologist.
The biological definition of evolution is the change in the genetic
composition of a population. Sometimes, this is expressed as a change
in the allele frequencies of a population because allele frequencies
represent the most common and most important manifestation of "genetic
composition" in a sexually reproducing population. The fact of the
matter is that such a process encompasses two features that most lay
people think is more characteristic of the notion of evolution:
descent with modification plus common origin. Without modification,
you cannot have two distinct types sharing a common ancestor. "Descent
with modification" is virtually synonymous with "change in genetic
composition" now that we know the nature of what actually is modified.
Since you say you have no problem with common descent, it is hard to
imagine why you have a problem with evolution at all! All the types
of evidence I outlined indicate reproduction with variation (i.e.,
descent with modification) and validate common origin. In other
words, they confirm that all life is the product of the mindless
mechanisms of the evolutionary process.
This answers your final question: yes, the appearance of extant and
extinct kinds of organisms are the result of scientific mechanisms,
i.e. totally-mindless-at-every-level processes
You question the "mindless" nature of abiogenesis, the origin of life.
Many people are happy to point out to you that abiogenesis is a
subject quite separate from evolution. The reason is that the
mechanisms (the mindless processes) underlying the two are quite
distinct. Evolution requires life; it starts only after the first
"living" things developed. However a broader view shows that all
science is connected, even though we scientists partition things into
separate categories. The same physical (i.e. mindless) process are at
work in cosmology (resulting in atoms and elements, galaxies, stars,
solar systems, and planets), in chemistry (resulting in energy
relations in chemical reactions), in geology (resulting in mountains
and oceans and continents). Those same processes acting on chemicals
in the geological structures on earth eventually produced metabolic
reactions (energy releasing) controlled by catalysts (ultimately
enzymes) which themselves were products of chemical synthetic
reactions and which were controlled by informational processes
themselves products of chemical synthetic reactions. That is to say,
life is an interlocking set of energetic and informational processes
all realized in terms of chemical reactions. There is nothing more
and nothing less than the process of chemistry and physics, all
realized in a setting determined by geology. And the whole picture
originated in cosmology. All this is "mindless" physics. True, we
really don't know a lot of details about just how the particulars of
abiogenesis occurred on our planet. But we now know an awful lot more
than we did ten, fifty, or one hundred years ago. And in another ten,
fifty, or one hundred years we will know even more yet.
This answers your next-to-last question. Yes, the first life form did
arise as a result of the operation of scientific mechanisms, i.e.,
totally-mindless processes.
You also ask whether the big bang itself was mindless. You have to
ask the cosmologists about this, but my impression is that science
does not have anything whatsoever to say about events at or before the
singular point, itself. Many profoundly religious scientists are
perfectly happy with a physical ("mindless") universe proceeding from
a big bang that might well represent the ultimate creation. Whatever,
those questions lie outside of science. Just like evolution begins
only after life has formed, science itself deals with things that
happened only after the universe was formed.
This answers your third-from-last questions. We can't specify how
physics originated.
Since you are quite satisfied with the mindless nature of physics, are
you suggesting that there is more to science than that? If so, then
it is you who bears the immense burden of demonstrating exactly where
and how the laws of physics fall short and in producing an alternative
explanation, as thorough and as all-encompassing as what science has
so far produced.
Thomas P.
ford) wrote:
No it does not.
>Russell Doolittle and Julian Huxley believe that the concept of
>evolution has something [TP]"to do with the origin of life."
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970802094315.27893C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
>Let me know if you want more statements along similar lines. I
>suspect I could rustle up some Dawkins and Futuyma.
The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin
of life, nor did Huxley say it did. They are two separate things. I
gave you some advice before; I will give it again. If you are really
interested in what TOE really is ask a biologist, and I do not mean
post another question to a news group. Ask him/her if it has anything
to do with the origin of life. I suspect that you are only interested
in attacking it not in knowing anything about it.
maff
> wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<40903c68$0$17091$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...> > > news:<18510aff.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > >> > Posing of questions about multiple universes will wait until
> > >> > some other time.
> > >> >
> > >> > I have ceased to discuss within (your word: [AC]"abandoned") numerous
> > >> > threads. I haven't replied to numerous posts.
> > >> > I have never killfiled anyone, and do not anticipate doing so in the
> > >> > future.
> > >>
> > >> But Christian Taliban historians don't determine science. They're
> > >> defeated just like Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist
> > >> terrorists.
> > >
> > > Who, if anyone, determines what [m]"science" is?
> >
>
> In what year did [w]"peer reviewed journals" first appear?
> Before that year, was there [m]"science"?
'Nature' was published in 1869, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford. Before and after that Universities, scientific organizations
like AAAS, The Royal Society, The Royal Institution and other
orgabizations also plso published, Christian Taliban historian, David
Dord.
"Mankind, with reduced significance, seemed by these new challenges to
be decentered and launched into the unfathomable Copernican void,
causing John Donne's famous outburst of 1611, "Its all in peaces, all
cohaerence gone.""
- Gerald Holton
Hank
> Hank <Ha...@application.com> wrote in message news:<40925547...@Company.com>...
> david ford wrote:
> > > Hank <Ha...@application.com> wrote in message news:<408FC071...@Company.com>...
> > > > david ford wrote:
<snip>
>
> > > You don't know what you're talking about.
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
> > > _Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
> > > imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
> > > record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
> > > then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
> > > of natural selection.
> >
> > Correct, but how about the rest of the story? Yes, the fossil record is
> > imperfect - but it still gives us *plenty* of evidence for natural selection.
> > Any reason you chose to leave that detail out of your allegation?
>
> Note that I'm talking about the theory of natural selection. I was
> unaware that the fossil record provides a lot of evidence for the
> theory of NS. If you would, please briefly describe 2 lines of fossil
> record evidence supporting the theory of natural selection.
1 - The horse.
2 - Diatom fossils (Rhizosolenia) - show a continuous record of almost 2 million years.
3 - Whales (you have heard about the whale fossils that had legs, haven't you?)
Now - will you do the same and answer the the question I asked you a couple of posts ago?
> > > > > The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
> > > > > from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
> > > > > enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
> > > > > and new body structures having new functions would appear.
> > > >
> > > > Like fins developing into legs? Scales into feathers? Both are well
> > > > documented.
> > > >
> > > > > Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
> > > > > to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
> > > >
> > > > Bunk. Fruit fly experiments alone confirmed it long ago.
> > >
> > > You don't know what you're talking about.
> > > fruit flies
> > > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
> > >
> > > Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
> > > Selection
> > > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
> >
> > Too funny. Yes, I tried the links. The first one was from a *religious* web site dedicated to combating evolution. (And
> > the reason you would think this is objective would be ... ?) Quite a number of out-of context quotes there.
>
> I didn't say that site was objective. In fact, I have only cursorily
> looked at that site.
That's interesting. You list it as supporting your opinion, but now say you have "only cursorily looked at that site"? Funny -
I remember someone claiming that _I_ didn't know what I was talking about. And you haven't even read *your own* references?
> > The second link was to a page (http://www.hartnell.cc.ca.us/faculty/jhodin/superfly.htm) that thoroughly refuted each of
> > those claims. Well, at least you had the honesty to illuminate both sides (unless it was accidental). Did you not even
> > read this link???
>
> Yes, I read that link closely. And then proceeded to supply 7 links
> of my own for readers to compare with that link. Did you take a look
> at the 7 links I supplied? Did you take a look at the Macbeth on
> Faulty Extrapolation link?
From that link:
"NORMAN MACBETH, a Harvard-trained lawyer, has made the study of Darwinian theory his avocation for many years."
Surely you jest! You take a *lawyer's* word over that of the entire scientific community??? (What's wrong with this picture?)
He goes on about the same old micro/macro fallacy we've seen before.
Would you also take your plumber's opinion on medical issues?
> > > > > Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
> > > > > the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
> > > >
> > > > Which major organ would you expect to evolve in only 150 years?
> >
> > I notice you avoided this question. An oversight perhaps? Care to
> > address it now? Certainly you're not honesty-challenged?
Now are *you* going to answer the question I asked above?
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
Hank
Get off your ass and do your own research. Is it going to kill you to learn something new?
Hank
> don't...@there.com (The Watcher) wrote in message news:<40934601...@news.ritternet.com>...
> > On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:06:29 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > (snip)
> > >You don't know what you're talking about.
> > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
> > >_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
> > >imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
> > >record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
> > >then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
> > >of natural selection.
> >
> > The fossil record DOES contain plenty of confirmation for Darwin's theory of
> > natural selection.
>
> Supporting quotations from the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
> please.
> My theory of natural selection essay contains several fossil record
> quotations from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. After you
> present your quotations, we can compare your peer-reviewed quotations
> with mine.
>
> Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
I notice by clicking on the "View Complete Thread" link that this "essay" was torn to shreds the last time
you posted it. Why refer back to it?
Why don't you read the FAQs at the T.O archive and educate *yourself*
http://www.talkorigins.org
david ford
> On Sun, 2 May 2004 14:55:17 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> ford) wrote:
> >"Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<ai6990tvptgbmfr4l...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sun, 2 May 2004 04:36:40 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> >> ford) wrote:
> >> >I agree that physics proceeds in a mindless manner.
> >> >Physics began to exist in the out-of-nothing Big Bang creation event.
> >> >Did physics originate in a totally-mindless manner?
> >> >Did the first lifeform arise as a result of the operation of
> >> >totally-mindless processes?
> >> >Was the appearance of extant and extinct kinds of organisms the result
> >> >of totally-mindless-at-every-level processes?
> >>
> >> Once again we have an example of misrepresentation. Why do you imply
> >> above that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life? You
> >> must be aware by now that it does not.
> >
> >Once again we have an example of misrepresentation. Upon what basis
> >do you imply above that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of
> >life? You must be aware by now that it does.
>
> No it does not.
I have encountered the light. See below.
> >Russell Doolittle and Julian Huxley believe that the concept of
> >evolution has something [TP]"to do with the origin of life."
> >http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970802094315.27893C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
> >Let me know if you want more statements along similar lines. I
> >suspect I could rustle up some Dawkins and Futuyma.
>
> The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin
> of life, nor did Huxley say it did. They are two separate things.
I agree that the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with
the origin of life. Suppose an intelligence(s) made the first
lifeform with the genetic instructions for every single kind of
organism that the earth has ever seen. That first lifeform then gave
rise to all plants and animals. In this situation, the origin of life
has utterly no bearing on the theory-- or should I say fact-- of
evolution: all of biology is the product of
totally-mindless-at-every-level processes.
> I gave you some advice before; I will give it again. If you are really
> interested in what TOE really is ask a biologist, and I do not mean
> post another question to a news group. Ask him/her if it has anything
> to do with the origin of life. I suspect that you are only interested
> in attacking it not in knowing anything about it.
I suspect that you are only interested in defending it, not in knowing
anything about it.
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > ric...@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> > > <snipped>
> > > David Ford wrote:
> > > > You don't know what you're talking about.
> > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
> > > > _Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
> > > > imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
> > > > record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
> > > > then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
> > > > of natural selection.
> > >
> > > <snipped>
> > >
> > > I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
> >
> > Just calling it like it is.
> >
> > Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
> > the imperfection of the geologic record."
> > Citation in
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
>
> Presumably written by someone who hadn't read the original either
Your presumption is incorrect. See the 2nd paragraph of Hsu's
"Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
> > > Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
> > > hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
> > > presented the weakness in his theory.
> >
> > In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
> > his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
> > would the presentation get published?
>
> If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
> to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
> seriously by the scientific community.
That's very nice.
If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
presentation get published?
What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
presentation was approved for publication?
What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
before the presentation was approved for publication?
david ford
david ford wrote:
don't...@there.com (The Watcher) wrote in message news:<40934601...@news.ritternet.com>...
> > > On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:06:29 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > >You don't know what you're talking about.
> > > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
> > > >_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
> > > >imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
> > > >record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
> > > >then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
> > > >of natural selection.
> > >
> > > The fossil record DOES contain plenty of confirmation for Darwin's theory of
> > > natural selection.
> >
> > Supporting quotations from the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
> > please.
> > My theory of natural selection essay contains several fossil record
> > quotations from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. After you
> > present your quotations, we can compare your peer-reviewed quotations
> > with mine.
> >
> > Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
>
> I notice by clicking on the "View Complete Thread" link that this "essay" was torn to shreds the last time
> you posted it. Why refer back to it?
If you would, please identify 2 responses to my essay that, in your
view, tore the essay or portions of the essay to shreds.
I'm having difficulty understanding Larry's "Evolution Is a Fact and a
Theory" FAQ, last updated 22 Jan 1993. The FAQ almost wholly consists
of quotations of people repeating the mantra "evolution is a fact."
However, I don't recall seeing a definition of this "fact of
evolution." Perhaps you could assist me and identify the
definition(s) used by the individuals quoted when they talked about
the supposed "fact of evolution." Or, perhaps you could suggest a FAQ
different than Larry's "Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory" that would
contain the answer to my request for a definition(s).
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> > wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<40903c68$0$17091$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
> > > david ford wrote:
> > > > maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message
> > > > news:<18510aff.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
> > > >> news:<b1c67abe.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >> > Posing of questions about multiple universes will wait until
> > > >> > some other time.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have ceased to discuss within (your word: [AC]"abandoned") numerous
> > > >> > threads. I haven't replied to numerous posts.
> > > >> > I have never killfiled anyone, and do not anticipate doing so in the
> > > >> > future.
> > > >>
> > > >> But Christian Taliban historians don't determine science. They're
> > > >> defeated just like Confederate and Bible Belt funamentalist
> > > >> terrorists.
> > > >
> > > > Who, if anyone, determines what [m]"science" is?
> > >
> > > Peer reviewed journals.
> >
> > In what year did [w]"peer reviewed journals" first appear?
> > Before that year, was there [m]"science"?
>
> 'Nature' was published in 1869, Christian Taliban historian, David
> Ford.
In what year did _Nature_ become a peer-reviewed publication?
> Before and after that Universities, scientific organizations
> like AAAS, The Royal Society, The Royal Institution and other
> orgabizations also plso published, Christian Taliban historian, David
> Dord.
It's good to hear that there were publications produced by
universities and science organizations prior to 1869. In what year
david ford
In my opinion, it is quite possible to reconcile religious faith with
belief in the following:
most organisms are related to one another with all organisms
(including man) having derived from previous organisms,
the last universal common ancestor was the product of intelligent
design,
the differences between organisms were produced largely through the
action of variations plus the environment (which consists of the
weather and other surrounding organisms),
the variations mentioned were carefully induced in organisms' genomes
by the operation of one or more intelligent designer(s),
the earth is 4.5 billion years old,
the universe began to exist in the Big Bang out-of-nothing creation
event and is about 15 billion years old, and
the "days" of Genesis are long periods of time (or, were six 24 days
during which an intelligent designer spoke various commands; whatever
the intelligent designer spoke was as good as done, even as it took
long periods of time for the creations commanded to exist to appear in
physical form).
david ford
I hope not. Then again, I'm not learning anything.
Well, not from you, at any rate.
david ford
[TP]"Evolution is an established theory."
Please define what "the theory of evolution" means to you.
AC
Thomas P.
ford) wrote:
Why would I do that?
That first lifeform then gave
>rise to all plants and animals. In this situation, the origin of life
>has utterly no bearing on the theory-- or should I say fact-- of
>evolution: all of biology is the product of
>totally-mindless-at-every-level processes.
Do you have a point other than admitting that your claim that the
theory of eveolution included the origin of life was false?
>
>> I gave you some advice before; I will give it again. If you are really
>> interested in what TOE really is ask a biologist, and I do not mean
>> post another question to a news group. Ask him/her if it has anything
>> to do with the origin of life. I suspect that you are only interested
>> in attacking it not in knowing anything about it.
>
>I suspect that you are only interested in defending it, not in knowing
>anything about it.
Yet you are the one who admitted you were making false claims.
Richard Forrest
And? I don't think that anyone reading the 'Orgins' could describe
Darwin as "beating the drums and chanting". Hsu was using emotive and
inappropriate language. Perhaps you should try reading it for yourself
and forming your own opinion, rather than relying on other people's.
> > > > Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
> > > > hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
> > > > presented the weakness in his theory.
> > >
> > > In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
> > > his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
> > > would the presentation get published?
> >
> > If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
> > to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
> > seriously by the scientific community.
>
> That's very nice.
> If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
> natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
> presentation get published?
Yes. He backed it up with exhaustive observation.
> What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
> presentation was approved for publication?
Experiments? It's based on description! In my work I don't do any
experiments. I describe what is there. You don't have to carry out
experiments to do good science.
> What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
> before the presentation was approved for publication?
>
None. Darwin did not base his case for natural selection on the fossil
record. He based it mainly on his observations of the natural world.
Russel, who came up with the same theory and whose findings
preciptated the publication of the Origins based his version entirely
on his observations of the natural world.
Get this into your head: the fossil record is not fundamental to the
case for natural selection. How can it be? Natural selection is based
on observations of how existing organisms interact. How can the fossil
record show such interactions?
Natural selection is a process which drives evolution. The fossil
record shows that life has changed over geological time. It has become
more varied and complex. That is the observation which shows that
evolution has occured, and was known well before Darwin's time.
> > > > It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
As I have written before, you could present a stronger case if you
made the effort to educate yourself in the subject you are attacking.
RF
maff
You need to do better than that, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford. Hsu isn't Rinstein. It's Biologists world wide that you've to
convince, Christian Taliban historian, David Ford.
>
> > > > Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
> > > > hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
> > > > presented the weakness in his theory.
> > >
> > > In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
> > > his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
> > > would the presentation get published?
> >
> > If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
> > to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
> > seriously by the scientific community.
>
> That's very nice.
I don't think Christian Taliban are very nice. They are just
terrorists.
> If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
> natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
> presentation get published?
Of course but then Christian Taliban historian, David Ford is not well
for his intellect or contribution to science.
> What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
> presentation was approved for publication?
How eould you know one way or the other, Christian Taliban historian,
David Ford?
> What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
> before the presentation was approved for publication?
See above.
Larry Moran
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
> natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
> presentation get published?
No, because, as a general rule, scientific journals do not re-publish
theories that have been previously published. This is especially true
of theories that were first proposed 145 years ago and have been
well-supported by decades of research.
> What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
> presentation was approved for publication?
The paper wouldn't be accepted. There are already thousands of experiments
in the literature that prove natural selection.
> What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
> before the presentation was approved for publication?
None. The fossil record doesn't have much to do with the theory of
natural selection. You can't demonstrate natural selection with fossils.
The fossil record tells us about the history of life on Earth and
provides evidence that life has evolved over billions of years. Evolutionary
theory explains *how* evolution happens - natural selection is one of
the mechanisms - but it doesn't encompass the unique history that we
observe. This history is perfectly consistent with what we know about
how evolution occurs in the same sense that the formation of our solar
system is perfectly consistent with what we know about gravity. It doesn't
mean that the unique history of life is entirely predicted by the theory
of natural selection in particular, or evolutionary theory in general.
Similarly, the formation of any particular solar system, including our own,
is not predicted by the theory of gravity but we can deduce that gravity
played an important role.
Larry Moran
Larry Moran
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> I'm having difficulty understanding Larry's "Evolution Is a Fact and a
> Theory" FAQ, last updated 22 Jan 1993. The FAQ almost wholly consists
> of quotations of people repeating the mantra "evolution is a fact."
> However, I don't recall seeing a definition of this "fact of
> evolution." Perhaps you could assist me and identify the
> definition(s) used by the individuals quoted when they talked about
> the supposed "fact of evolution." Or, perhaps you could suggest a FAQ
> different than Larry's "Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory" that would
> contain the answer to my request for a definition(s).
The article on "Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory" is supposed to explain
the difference between evolutionary theory (which includes natural selection
among other things) and the observation of evolution as something that
happens (i.e. a fact). The article is intended for people like you who
get terribly confused about the difference.
The definition of evolution is explained in another article entitled
"What Is Evolution." I'm surpried that you missed it. The evidence of
evolution is contained in several dozen other articles on the talkorigins
website. Perhaps you should read them before posting any more nonsense
about things you don't understand?
Frankly, I'm surprised that you would admit to not understanding evolution
but still feel qualified to attack it.
Larry Moran
The Watcher
(snip)
>In my opinion, it is quite possible to reconcile religious faith with
>belief in the following:
(snip)
It's possible, but what's the point? If you're going to keep the religious
faith, you don't need to reconcile it with anything. It's based on faith anyway.
david ford
[m]"Hsu isn't Rinstein." Correct, he's Hsu.
about Hsu
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> > > > > Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
> > > > > hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
> > > > > presented the weakness in his theory.
> > > >
> > > > In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
> > > > his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
> > > > would the presentation get published?
> > >
> > > If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
> > > to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
> > > seriously by the scientific community.
> >
> > That's very nice.
>
> I don't think Christian Taliban are very nice. They are just
> terrorists.
[m]"Christian Taliban.... are just terrorists." How so?
What is the meaning of [m]"Christian Taliban"?
> > If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
> > natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
> > presentation get published?
>
> Of course but then Christian Taliban historian, David Ford is not well
> for his intellect or contribution to science.
I don't follow. Perhaps a word is missing.
> > What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
> > presentation was approved for publication?
>
> How eould you know one way or the other, Christian Taliban historian,
> David Ford?
Do you have an answer to the question? If so, please present it.
david ford
Like "adaptation," the word "evolution" is very slippery-- it has
multiple meanings, and with some regularity individuals will switch in
and out different meanings in their discussions. Asking someone that
uses the word "evolution" to state what exactly they mean by that word
is an important first step toward understanding their position, and
spotting any equivocation on the meaning of the word they might
attempt.
david ford
Why would you do what? Agree with the proposition that the theory of
evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life? (Do
you agree with that proposition?)
Agree with the proposition that the theory of evolution can
accommodate the possibility that an intelligence(s) made the first
lifeform with the genetic instructions for every single kind of
organism that the earth has ever seen? (Do you agree with that
proposition?)
Thomas P.
ford) wrote:
snip
>> >I agree that the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with
>> >the origin of life. Suppose an intelligence(s) made the first
>> >lifeform with the genetic instructions for every single kind of
>> >organism that the earth has ever seen.
>>
>> Why would I do that?
>
>Why would you do what? Agree with the proposition that the theory of
>evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life? (Do
>you agree with that proposition?)
I am glad that you now admit that you were making false claims, since
it was your claim that that was included in the theory.
>Agree with the proposition that the theory of evolution can
>accommodate the possibility that an intelligence(s) made the first
>lifeform with the genetic instructions for every single kind of
>organism that the earth has ever seen? (Do you agree with that
>proposition?)
There is nothing about the theory that requires such a possibility. I
thought we had gotten past that point, since such a possibility would
be concerned with the origin of life not evolution. As far as the
origin of life is concerned, there is no evidence of any intelligence
behind it; so, once again, why make such a supposition?
>
>> That first lifeform then gave
>> >rise to all plants and animals. In this situation, the origin of life
>> >has utterly no bearing on the theory-- or should I say fact-- of
>> >evolution: all of biology is the product of
>> >totally-mindless-at-every-level processes.
>>
>> Do you have a point other than admitting that your claim that the
>> theory of eveolution included the origin of life was false?
I guess you don't.
snip
AC
What's wrong with the definitions here?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
david ford
> On Thu, 6 May 2004 17:18:39 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> ford) wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> >I agree that the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with
> >> >the origin of life. Suppose an intelligence(s) made the first
> >> >lifeform with the genetic instructions for every single kind of
> >> >organism that the earth has ever seen.
> >>
> >> Why would I do that?
> >
> >Why would you do what? Agree with the proposition that the theory of
> >evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life? (Do
> >you agree with that proposition?)
>
> I am glad that you now admit that you were making false claims, since
> it was your claim that that was included in the theory.
I don't understand this.
[TP]"you now admit that you were making false claims" What words of
mine make you think that I made such an admission?
[TP]"it was your claim that that was included in the theory" Remind
me, what was it that you believe I said that was included in what
theory? (Note that my scenario about an intelligently-designed first
lifeform was offered as a possibility, a situation that could
possibly/conceivably have existed.)
[TP]"it was your claim": what claim of mine are you talking about?
> >Agree with the proposition that the theory of evolution can
> >accommodate the possibility that an intelligence(s) made the first
> >lifeform with the genetic instructions for every single kind of
> >organism that the earth has ever seen? (Do you agree with that
> >proposition?)
>
> There is nothing about the theory that requires such a possibility. I
> thought we had gotten past that point, since such a possibility would
> be concerned with the origin of life not evolution. As far as the
> origin of life is concerned, there is no evidence of any intelligence
> behind it; so, once again, why make such a supposition?
In this present discussion, I'm not concerned with whether or not
there is any evidence for the first lifeform having been the product
of intelligence and containing the genetic instructions for every
single kind of organism that has existed. Rather, I am attempting to
make the point that even if the first lifeform was 1) the product of
intelligent design and 2) contained the genetic instructions for every
single kind of organism that has existed, that situation could be
correct at the same time that the theory of evolution is correct.
Thomas P.
ford) wrote:
>"Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<380l90l4t3s2cj6eq...@4ax.com>...
>> On Thu, 6 May 2004 17:18:39 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
>> ford) wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> >I agree that the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with
>> >> >the origin of life. Suppose an intelligence(s) made the first
>> >> >lifeform with the genetic instructions for every single kind of
>> >> >organism that the earth has ever seen.
>> >>
>> >> Why would I do that?
>> >
>> >Why would you do what? Agree with the proposition that the theory of
>> >evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life? (Do
>> >you agree with that proposition?)
>>
>> I am glad that you now admit that you were making false claims, since
>> it was your claim that that was included in the theory.
>
>I don't understand this.
I suppose that is possible.
>[TP]"you now admit that you were making false claims" What words of
>mine make you think that I made such an admission?
>[TP]"it was your claim that that was included in the theory" Remind
>me, what was it that you believe I said that was included in what
>theory? (Note that my scenario about an intelligently-designed first
>lifeform was offered as a possibility, a situation that could
>possibly/conceivably have existed.)
>[TP]"it was your claim": what claim of mine are you talking about?
You wrote in an earlier post:
>Once again we have an example of misrepresentation. Upon what basis
>do you imply above that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of
>life? You must be aware by now that it does.
Obviously you are playing silly games. I am not interested. Bye.
maff
It isn't Einstein or Hsu who determines science. It's scientists in
the relevant fields all over the world who come to a consensenus or
not based on the evidence and evaluation. Hsu isn't going to get the
Nobel Prize for his apologetics.
>
> about Hsu
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
But assertions by Christian Talban historian, David Ford, are
worthless.
>
> > > > > > Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
> > > > > > hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
> > > > > > presented the weakness in his theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
> > > > > his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
> > > > > would the presentation get published?
> > > >
> > > > If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
> > > > to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
> > > > seriously by the scientific community.
> > >
> > > That's very nice.
> >
> > I don't think Christian Taliban are very nice. They are just
> > terrorists.
>
> [m]"Christian Taliban.... are just terrorists." How so?
> What is the meaning of [m]"Christian Taliban"?
They're the same as the Islamic Taliban. You're one of them.
>
> > > If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
> > > natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
> > > presentation get published?
> >
> > Of course but then Christian Taliban historian, David Ford is not well
> > for his intellect or contribution to science.
>
> I don't follow. Perhaps a word is missing.
So Christian Taliban historian, David Ford, is well known for his
contributions to science?
>
> > > What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
> > > presentation was approved for publication?
> >
> > How eould you know one way or the other, Christian Taliban historian,
> > David Ford?
>
> Do you have an answer to the question? If so, please present it.
You have to present it to the courts, Christian Taliban historian,
David Ford. Have yon been taking lessons in Confederate and Bible Belt
fundamentalist bombast and bluster, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford?
>
david ford
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 03:20:04 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> ford) wrote:
> >"Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<380l90l4t3s2cj6eq...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Thu, 6 May 2004 17:18:39 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> >> ford) wrote:
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >> >> >I agree that the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with
> >> >> >the origin of life. Suppose an intelligence(s) made the first
> >> >> >lifeform with the genetic instructions for every single kind of
> >> >> >organism that the earth has ever seen.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why would I do that?
> >> >
> >> >Why would you do what? Agree with the proposition that the theory of
> >> >evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life? (Do
> >> >you agree with that proposition?)
> >>
> >> I am glad that you now admit that you were making false claims, since
> >> it was your claim that that was included in the theory.
> >
> >I don't understand this.
>
> I suppose that is possible.
With me, it is always a given that it [TP]"is possible" that [df]"I
don't understand" something.
> >[TP]"you now admit that you were making false claims" What words of
> >mine make you think that I made such an admission?
> >[TP]"it was your claim that that was included in the theory" Remind
> >me, what was it that you believe I said that was included in what
> >theory? (Note that my scenario about an intelligently-designed first
> >lifeform was offered as a possibility, a situation that could
> >possibly/conceivably have existed.)
> >[TP]"it was your claim": what claim of mine are you talking about?
>
> You wrote in an earlier post:
>
> >Once again we have an example of misrepresentation. Upon what basis
> >do you imply above that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of
> >life? You must be aware by now that it does.
>
> Obviously you are playing silly games. I am not interested. Bye.
>
> snip
I concede that I have been [TP]"playing silly games" with the concepts
of "theory of evolution" and "evolution." Inspiration for
[TP]"playing silly games" with these concepts is inspired by some
individuals that consider themselves "evolutionists" in the "creation
versus evolution" controversy.
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990704214620.893193A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
You snipped this paragraph, which I will present again with this
slight modification: I replaced "theory of evolution" with
"hypothesis of common descent":
In this present discussion, I'm not concerned with whether or not
there is any evidence for the first lifeform having been the product
of intelligence and containing the genetic instructions for every
single kind of organism that has existed. Rather, I am attempting to
make the point that even if the first lifeform was 1) the product of
intelligent design and 2) contained the genetic instructions for every
single kind of organism that has existed, that situation could be
correct at the same time that the hypothesis of common descent is
correct.
See also
ID + CD: A Proposal
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404181835.d59cf7d%40posting.google.com
religious faith and common descent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405051933.522f5d0e%40posting.google.com
"theory of evolution" as conceived by Stebbins, Simpson, Sagan,
Dawkins, Julian and Thomas Henry Huxley, Futuyma, Gould, Wald, and
Haeckel
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405050529.eeb2100%40posting.google.com
david ford
Dawkins isn't going to get the Nobel Prize for his apologetics.
Neither is Dennett or Futuyma.
> > about Hsu
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
>
> But assertions by Christian Talban historian, David Ford, are
> worthless.
Are [m]"assertions" by Hsu similarly [m]"worthless"?
> > > > > > > Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
> > > > > > > hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
> > > > > > > presented the weakness in his theory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
> > > > > > his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
> > > > > > would the presentation get published?
> > > > >
> > > > > If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
> > > > > to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
> > > > > seriously by the scientific community.
> > > >
> > > > That's very nice.
> > >
> > > I don't think Christian Taliban are very nice. They are just
> > > terrorists.
> >
> > [m]"Christian Taliban.... are just terrorists." How so?
> > What is the meaning of [m]"Christian Taliban"?
>
> They're the same as the Islamic Taliban. You're one of them.
I've been exposed. Perhaps someone ratted. Perhaps you figured that
out from my numerous trips to and from Afghanistan, to meet with
individuals that would go on to become members of the Afghan Taliban.
Mujahideen: The Resistance in Afghanistan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0101011312370.615920-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
I hope it's not the case that you know what other societies I am
secretly a member of-- I hope that at least those memberships are
still hidden.
> > > > If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
> > > > natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
> > > > presentation get published?
> > >
> > > Of course but then Christian Taliban historian, David Ford is not well
> > > for his intellect or contribution to science.
> >
> > I don't follow. Perhaps a word is missing.
>
> So Christian Taliban historian, David Ford, is well known for his
> contributions to science?
Are you aware of any historian that is [m]"well known for his
contributions to science"?
> > > > What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
> > > > presentation was approved for publication?
> > >
> > > How eould you know one way or the other, Christian Taliban historian,
> > > David Ford?
> >
> > Do you have an answer to the question? If so, please present it.
>
> You have to present it to the courts, Christian Taliban historian,
In that case, perhaps I'll see you at some basketball or tennis court.
Thank you for your suggestion.
> David Ford. Have yon been taking lessons in Confederate and Bible Belt
> fundamentalist bombast and bluster, Christian Taliban historian, David
> Ford?
The aliens I have encountered have provided excellent [m]"lessons
in... bombast and bluster." They claimed to have been designated
representatives of "The Great Maff," a claim that was moderately
plausible. Their ray gun shots just barely missed my feet as they
shouted, "Go to the courts, you historian!"
david ford
> david ford wrote:
> > Hank <Ha...@application.com> wrote in message news:<40925547...@Company.com>...
> > david ford wrote:
> > > > Hank <Ha...@application.com> wrote in message news:<408FC071...@Company.com>...
> > > > > david ford wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > You don't know what you're talking about.
> > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
> > > > _Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
> > > > imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
> > > > record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
> > > > then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
> > > > of natural selection.
> > >
> > > imperfect - but it still gives us *plenty* of evidence for natural
> > > selection.
> > > Any reason you chose to leave that detail out of your allegation?
> >
> > Note that I'm talking about the theory of natural selection. I was
> > unaware that the fossil record provides a lot of evidence for the
> > theory of NS. If you would, please briefly describe 2 lines of fossil
> > record evidence supporting the theory of natural selection.
>
> 1 - The horse.
the fraud known as the fossil horse series
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980816003836.28616B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
> 2 - Diatom fossils (Rhizosolenia) - show a continuous record of almost 2 million years.
In this [H]"continuous record of almost 2 million years," what
structure(s) or organ(s) did these [H]"Diatom fossils (Rhizosolenia)"
acquire?
> 3 - Whales (you have heard about the whale fossils that had legs, haven't you?)
Yes, I have:
_Basilosaurus_'s purported vestigial leg
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Bogus 'Vestigial Leg' Claims
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910142302001.6397-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
> Now - will you do the same and answer the the question I asked you
> a couple of posts ago?
[H]"Which major organ would you expect to evolve in only 150 years?"
None: the variability observed in breeding and laboratory experiments
is not of a nature as to plausibly constitute raw material for the
appearance of new organs.
> > > > > > The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
> > > > > > from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
> > > > > > enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
> > > > > > and new body structures having new functions would appear.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like fins developing into legs? Scales into feathers? Both are well
> > > > > documented.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
> > > > > > to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bunk. Fruit fly experiments alone confirmed it long ago.
> > > >
> > > > You don't know what you're talking about.
> > > > fruit flies
> > > > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
> > > >
> > > > Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
> > > > Selection
> > > > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
> > >
> > > Too funny. Yes, I tried the links. The first one was from a *religious* web site dedicated to combating evolution. (And
> > > the reason you would think this is objective would be ... ?) Quite a number of out-of context quotes there.
> >
> > I didn't say that site was objective. In fact, I have only cursorily
> > looked at that site.
>
> That's interesting. You list it as supporting your opinion, but now say
> you have "only cursorily looked at that site"?
I listed my post as supporting my opinion. My post happened to
contain a URL to which a fruit fly individual replied; my post then
replied to that fruit fly individual's comments. As far as I know,
the fruit fly individual had nothing to say in response to my post.
> Funny - I remember someone
> claiming that _I_ didn't know what I was talking about. And you haven't
> even read *your own* references?
>
> > > The second link was to a page (http://www.hartnell.cc.ca.us/faculty/jhodin/superfly.htm) that thoroughly refuted each of
> > > those claims. Well, at least you had the honesty to illuminate both sides (unless it was accidental). Did you not even
> > > read this link???
> >
> > Yes, I read that link closely. And then proceeded to supply 7 links
> > of my own for readers to compare with that link. Did you take a look
> > at the 7 links I supplied? Did you take a look at the Macbeth on
> > Faulty Extrapolation link?
>
> From that link:
> "NORMAN MACBETH, a Harvard-trained lawyer, has made the study of Darwinian
> theory his avocation for many years."
>
> Surely you jest! You take a *lawyer's* word over that of the entire
> scientific community??? (What's wrong with this picture?)
In which instances do you believe that I have taken [H]"a *lawyer's*
word over that of the entire scientific community???"
> He goes on about the same old micro/macro fallacy we've seen before.
[H]"micro/macro fallacy"
If you would, please briefly describe this fallacy.
Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
[H]"over that of the entire scientific community"
Macbeth on the illusion of the monolith
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981115234755.21390A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> Would you also take your plumber's opinion on medical issues?
I might, depending upon what he had to say and his basis for saying
it.
> > > > > > Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
> > > > > > the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which major organ would you expect to evolve in only 150 years?
> > >
> > > I notice you avoided this question. An oversight perhaps? Care to
> > > address it now? Certainly you're not honesty-challenged?
>
> Now are *you* going to answer the question I asked above?
maff
But Christian Taiban historian, David Ford, is not well known for his
contribution to science.
>
> > > about Hsu
> > > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> >
> > But assertions by Christian Talban historian, David Ford, are
> > worthless.
>
> Are [m]"assertions" by Hsu similarly [m]"worthless"?
That's what biologists world wide say. That's why you should refer to
peer reviewed Biology journals, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford.
>
> > > > > > > > Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
> > > > > > > > hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
> > > > > > > > presented the weakness in his theory.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
> > > > > > > his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
> > > > > > > would the presentation get published?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
> > > > > > to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
> > > > > > seriously by the scientific community.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's very nice.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think Christian Taliban are very nice. They are just
> > > > terrorists.
> > >
> > > [m]"Christian Taliban.... are just terrorists." How so?
> > > What is the meaning of [m]"Christian Taliban"?
> >
> > They're the same as the Islamic Taliban. You're one of them.
>
> I've been exposed. Perhaps someone ratted. Perhaps you figured that
> out from my numerous trips to and from Afghanistan, to meet with
> individuals that would go on to become members of the Afghan Taliban.
> Mujahideen: The Resistance in Afghanistan
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0101011312370.615920-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
> I hope it's not the case that you know what other societies I am
> secretly a member of-- I hope that at least those memberships are
> still hidden.
If you're willing to sacrifice your life and money for the Christian
Taliban cause then go for it.
>
> > > > > If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
> > > > > natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
> > > > > presentation get published?
> > > >
> > > > Of course but then Christian Taliban historian, David Ford is not well
> > > > for his intellect or contribution to science.
> > >
> > > I don't follow. Perhaps a word is missing.
> >
> > So Christian Taliban historian, David Ford, is well known for his
> > contributions to science?
>
> Are you aware of any historian that is [m]"well known for his
> contributions to science"?
Very unlikely. That's why Christian Taliban historian, David Ford will
never make any difference to science.
>
> > > > > What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
> > > > > presentation was approved for publication?
> > > >
> > > > How eould you know one way or the other, Christian Taliban historian,
> > > > David Ford?
> > >
> > > Do you have an answer to the question? If so, please present it.
> >
> > You have to present it to the courts, Christian Taliban historian,
>
> In that case, perhaps I'll see you at some basketball or tennis court.
> Thank you for your suggestion.
But Christian Taliban historian, David Ford will be indicted in
criminal and civil courts. Criminal and Civil Courts don't sit in
baseball and tennis courts.
>
> > David Ford. Have yon been taking lessons in Confederate and Bible Belt
> > fundamentalist bombast and bluster, Christian Taliban historian, David
> > Ford?
>
> The aliens I have encountered have provided excellent [m]"lessons
> in... bombast and bluster." They claimed to have been designated
> representatives of "The Great Maff," a claim that was moderately
> plausible. Their ray gun shots just barely missed my feet as they
> shouted, "Go to the courts, you historian!"
That's what Jefferson Davis also thought.
Constitution of the Confederate States of America
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/confederate_constitution.html
March 11,1861
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.