Can any Darwinist in this Forum....
Aerion
From: "Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Can any Darwinist in the forum produce an argument showing
Date: Friday, September 12, 2008 1:29 PM
On Sep 12, 11:50 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> wf3h wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 5:50 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Andre Lieven wrote:
> >>> You jumped in to call me wrong: So, pony up your evidence for your
> >>> claims, first.
> >>> Until you do, I have nothing to rebut.
> >> If I claim "there is no evidence for X", and you claim "there is
> >> evidence for X", I can hardly provide my nonexistent evidence. You can.
> >> If I claim that wf3h offered no arguments, and you claim he did, you
> >> are
> >> the only one who can provide evidence. My evidence would be your
> >> inability to come up with any.
>
> > i'm not sure why you give creationists a pass when they assert there's
> > some type of conspiracy, or plan, or attitude, or whatever they call
> > it, among scientists to prevent evolution from being 'attacked' as
> > aerion said there was. it's a comment echoed by ben stein, david
> > klinghoffer, david berg, phillip johnson, etc., etc.
>
> > did you miss that in aerion's comment?
>
> I don't give creationists a pass. Nor do I know what that has to do with
> this silly argument I'm having with Andre Lieven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> It has to do with the fact that Aerion has shown many of the same
> arguments as creationists, as wf3h has well shown, and as I agree.
>
I do not believe this. Both you and wf3h makes the same alligation without
backing up this charge.
Can you reference any creationist _quotes_ or _statements _and then
draw a connection with anything I wrote. I would venture you cannot
because the charge is false.
I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this NG
has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
motivated by creationism".
>
> We're back to the evidence for that conclusion may not be enough for
> YOU, but in NO way does that make you "right", as YOU factlessly
> claimed.
Andre
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this NG
> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
> motivated by creationism".
>
OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
John Harshman
Well, you have used a number of the standard creationist arguments, and
I for one am dubious that you have invented them all on your own. None
of the books you have cited contain any of these arguments, as far as I
know.
You have said that evolution is "just a theory", not fact.
You have said that stasis suggests that species are unrelated.
You have said that gaps between transitional fossils suggest that
species are unrelated.
You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
You have said that scientists just connect fossils according to
preconceived notions of evolution.
You have said that Archaeopteryx is not evidence for evolution.
You have said that scientists make evolution unassailable and untestable
(whether it's supposed to be on purpose -- conspiracy -- or by accident
-- blinders -- I'm not sure).
All these are indeed common creationist claims. I think you could
probably find them in the index to creationist claims
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/), and if you really want I could
look them up for you. But I'd rather you just take my word that
creationists say this sort of thing all the time.
If you say you just invented all these ideas out of thin air, I'll
accept that provisionally just to be civil. But you should be aware that
the inference is a natural one based on what you've said so far.
wf3h
> From: "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca>
i don't care what other fanatics have written
YOU have written that scientists want to prevent criticism of darwin's
theory of evolution, and that is wrong. have no proof of a conspiracy.
you have no motive. you have no evidence of complicity.
you're like david berg, ben stein, etc., who, because they can't
believe creationism ISNT true have to manufacture a conspiracy among
scientists to prove them right.
>
> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this NG
> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
> motivated by creationism".
other than the fact you recycle ridiculous and scurrilous arguments
produced by creationists?
>
>
>
Ye Old One
Hard luck, I do.
> Both you and wf3h makes the same alligation without
>backing up this charge.
Your posts back up the charge.
>Can you reference any creationist _quotes_ or _statements _and then
>draw a connection with anything I wrote. I would venture you cannot
>because the charge is false.
Well..... You have tried to claim evolution is not a fact.
>
>I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this NG
>has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>motivated by creationism".
Because, clearly, you are. We see it in the way you constantly try to
avoid facing up to the arguments in favour of evolution, while at the
same time offering not one single counter argument.
>
>>
>> We're back to the evidence for that conclusion may not be enough for
>> YOU, but in NO way does that make you "right", as YOU factlessly
>> claimed.
>
>Andre
--
Bob.
er...@swva.net
> From: "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca>
There aren't any Darwinists on this forum, just pro- and ant-science
(the latter known as creationists) people.
Eric Root
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net>:
<snip>
>I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this NG
>has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>motivated by creationism".
Sorry, but I missed this the first time through. Can you
state exactly what your different viewpoint is, and a brief
synopsis of (or a cite to) the evidence you believe supports
it?
Thanks.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Aerion
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ANCyk.148$fD...@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
is a fact. There obviously could be agreement on this point, I would
bet it is for different reasons.
I was careful to explain my reasoning for opposing the pronouncement
of "evolution as a fact" which you ignore.
The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they refuse question
the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_ hense no need
to question or doubt.
>
> You have said that stasis suggests that species are unrelated.
>
fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species
within the earth's strata, then long periods of _stasis_ followed
by abrupt disapparance from the record with species looking
much the same when they disappear as when they first appeared.
It's one cause for doubt. Stasis is the absence of change.
So, what empirical evidence suggest that static fossilized species
are related to any other? Theory doesn't count.
>
> You have said that gaps between transitional fossils suggest that species
> are unrelated.
>
itself is recognization of an intermediate form by creationist.
>
I've spoken of transitional fossil species as separate and isolated
forms in the strats. The "gaps" here are extroardinary broad both
before and after the tenure of the "transitional" form on the planet
according the data from the fossil record.
There is no empirical evidence that transitional fossils occupied
any link of any supposed chain between any two species.
According to Eldridge all life is descended from just a measly 4
percent of the species that ever lived. given "transitional" fossil
species isolated in the strata could have fallen victim to any of the
many major and minor extinctions. How can anyone say with
any degree of certainity that this did not happen?
Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
of all species that ever lived?
> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
>
You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
"Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
>
> You have said that scientists just connect fossils according to
> preconceived notions of evolution.
>
Not as an accusation of under-handedness, but rather as a result
of commitment the theory as real and arranging the "best in the field"
according to the order as dictated by theory, and then viewing the
ordered sequence as evidence of evolution.
>
> You have said that Archaeopteryx is not evidence for evolution.
>
Creationist reject evolution both theory and fact, so under what
circumstance would you expect any creationist to accept archie
as evidence for evolution?
As far as I am concerned Archie fall into the catagory as other
"transitional" fossils. I discussed this above.
>
> You have said that scientists make evolution unassailable and untestable
> (whether it's supposed to be on purpose -- conspiracy -- or by accident --
> blinders -- I'm not sure).
>
It isn't so simple as you seem to be indicating. And I am not at all
confortable with any of your characterizations here. I believe
people who study and prepare for a career in the sciences especially
paleontology, genetics etc. are almost, if not always have a deep
dedication and a strong committment to evolution. They have a
heavy investment in evolution being true, And this would hold
true from Darwin to the present. But I do not see any dishonesty
in this.
>
> All these are indeed common creationist claims. I think you could probably
> find them in the index to creationist claims
> (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/), and if you really want I could look
> them up for you. But I'd rather you just take my word that creationists
> say this sort of thing all the time.
>
As I understand it, creationist use the Bible for support of their views.
IOW if something is contrary to their understanding of the Bible they
reject it as false such as a 4.5 billion year old earth. The Bible is used
as a "proof" text.
>
> If you say you just invented all these ideas out of thin air, I'll accept
> that provisionally just to be civil.
>
Any similarity between my reasons and creationist arguments is either
coincidence or else creationist and myself both became cognizant
of the same facts and patterns that are characterize by the fossil record
which were presented by scientist, such as Eldredge, Gould, Stanley etc.
If their arguments, as you say, are the same as mine. It might behoove
me to take a look.
>
But you should be aware that the
> inference is a natural one based on what you've said so far.
>
I came to my conclusions based upon discoveries, research
and publications by scientist which I personally read and studied.
The books and articles by scientist, rather than religion
influenced my current thoughts on the matter.
Free Lunch
"Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<Ejdzk.29693$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
Your claim is incorrect, though. Evolution was demonstrated to occur in
many differing way. Your unwillingness to accept that evidence does not
change the evidence.
>The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
>on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
>valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they refuse question
>the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_ hense no need
>to question or doubt.
Theories are always subject to criticism or newly found evidence. The
evidence about evolution, on the other hand, cannot be dismissed just
because it is inconvenient for you or your creationist buddies.
>> You have said that stasis suggests that species are unrelated.
>>
>Are Creationist aware of "stasis"? When the pattern of the
>fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species
>within the earth's strata, then long periods of _stasis_ followed
>by abrupt disapparance from the record with species looking
>much the same when they disappear as when they first appeared.
>It's one cause for doubt. Stasis is the absence of change.
>So, what empirical evidence suggest that static fossilized species
>are related to any other? Theory doesn't count.
The 'stasis' that you claim exists is superficial and your argument was
discovered to be wrong half a century ago when we discovered how genes
work.
>> You have said that gaps between transitional fossils suggest that species
>> are unrelated.
>>
>If creationist see "transitional fossils" as real, this in and of
>itself is recognization of an intermediate form by creationist.
Creationists find excuses for all of the evidence or they lie about it.
What they don't do is make an effort to learn why their religious
doctrine is contrary to physical reality.
>I've spoken of transitional fossil species as separate and isolated
>forms in the strats. The "gaps" here are extroardinary broad both
>before and after the tenure of the "transitional" form on the planet
>according the data from the fossil record.
Again, you are arguing that holes that you don't understand are proof
that your lack of understanding is correct. Ignorance is defensible only
if you are trying to rid yourself of the condition.
>There is no empirical evidence that transitional fossils occupied
>any link of any supposed chain between any two species.
Sure there is, there is evidence that every single organism on earth is
related to every other one. It is really too bad that you jumped to your
mistaken conclusions without having any idea what has been learned about
genetics.
>According to Eldridge all life is descended from just a measly 4
>percent of the species that ever lived. given "transitional" fossil
>species isolated in the strata could have fallen victim to any of the
>many major and minor extinctions. How can anyone say with
>any degree of certainity that this did not happen?
Fossils are transitional or terminal. So what?
>Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
>the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
>is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
>isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
>of all species that ever lived?
Why do you keep citing Eldredge without having any context? He clearly
shows that your claims are wrong.
>> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
Genetic similarity does.
>You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
>does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
>discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
>"Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
>Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
And, as I have to repeat for you again, you are looking at only one line
of evidence and misinterpreting it. You would not be able to do this if
you weren't ignoring the rest of the evidence about evolution. Go learn
some genetics before posting more of your silliness.
>> You have said that scientists just connect fossils according to
>> preconceived notions of evolution.
>>
>Not as an accusation of under-handedness, but rather as a result
>of commitment the theory as real and arranging the "best in the field"
>according to the order as dictated by theory, and then viewing the
>ordered sequence as evidence of evolution.
You have two serious problems that you aren't even attempting to
address: the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection is
consistent with the evidence gathered to date and you have no hypothesis
available that is as good as or better than the variation and natural
selection.
>> You have said that Archaeopteryx is not evidence for evolution.
>>
>Creationist reject evolution both theory and fact, so under what
>circumstance would you expect any creationist to accept archie
>as evidence for evolution?
Aside from the serious political problems of their foolishness, who
cares what people who reject science as a method of learning think?
>As far as I am concerned Archie fall into the catagory as other
>"transitional" fossils. I discussed this above.
>>
>> You have said that scientists make evolution unassailable and untestable
>> (whether it's supposed to be on purpose -- conspiracy -- or by accident --
>> blinders -- I'm not sure).
>>
>It isn't so simple as you seem to be indicating. And I am not at all
>confortable with any of your characterizations here. I believe
>people who study and prepare for a career in the sciences especially
>paleontology, genetics etc. are almost, if not always have a deep
>dedication and a strong committment to evolution. They have a
>heavy investment in evolution being true, And this would hold
>true from Darwin to the present. But I do not see any dishonesty
>in this.
More importantly, less than a handful of people who are religious
deniers of evolution have bothered to learn about it and each of them
have chosen to resort to lies when the facts became inconvenient for
their religious doctrines.
Still, despite your implication, the conspiracy is learn and to teach,
something you refuse to participate in. Every scientist is open to the
evidence and will be willing to be persuaded by the evidence. You never
bother to look at the evidence, so your opinion will never persuade
scientists that they are wrong.
>> All these are indeed common creationist claims. I think you could probably
>> find them in the index to creationist claims
>> (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/), and if you really want I could look
>> them up for you. But I'd rather you just take my word that creationists
>> say this sort of thing all the time.
>>
>As I understand it, creationist use the Bible for support of their views.
>IOW if something is contrary to their understanding of the Bible they
>reject it as false such as a 4.5 billion year old earth. The Bible is used
>as a "proof" text.
Yes.
>> If you say you just invented all these ideas out of thin air, I'll accept
>> that provisionally just to be civil.
>>
>Any similarity between my reasons and creationist arguments is either
>coincidence or else creationist and myself both became cognizant
>of the same facts and patterns that are characterize by the fossil record
>which were presented by scientist, such as Eldredge, Gould, Stanley etc.
>If their arguments, as you say, are the same as mine. It might behoove
>me to take a look.
Given your total disrespect for science, I have a hard time accepting
your claim that you are not motivated by religious considerations. Now,
you may be an elronian or a Moslem or some other religiously motivated
enemy of knowledge and science, but you are acting just like the
classical anti-science Christian creationists.
>But you should be aware that the
>> inference is a natural one based on what you've said so far.
>>
>I came to my conclusions based upon discoveries, research
>and publications by scientist which I personally read and studied.
I hope you understand that the Watchtower Society and Discovery
Institute have absolutely no scientists working for them.
>The books and articles by scientist, rather than religion
>influenced my current thoughts on the matter.
I don't believe you.
Ernest Major
<Aer...@bellsouth.net> writes
You're continuing to ignore the contradiction between this justification
for not recognising evolution as a fact, and your willingness to
recognise gravity (including the orbit of Pluto), atoms, the causation
of disease by germs, etc as facts.
And apart from that, your "justification" is basically an excuse for an
ad-hominem attack on those who accept the factuality of common descent
with modification
>>
>> You have said that stasis suggests that species are unrelated.
>>
>Are Creationist aware of "stasis"? When the pattern of the
>fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species
>within the earth's strata, then long periods of _stasis_ followed
>by abrupt disapparance from the record with species looking
>much the same when they disappear as when they first appeared.
>It's one cause for doubt. Stasis is the absence of change.
>So, what empirical evidence suggest that static fossilized species
>are related to any other? Theory doesn't count.
The existence of non-static fossilized species that intergrade into each
other, for a start. It's rather unfortunate that amount the books by
Gould and Eldredge you missed the ones were they describe examples of
such.
Palaeobiogeography, for a continuation. (In my opinion biogeography was
the most important of the lines of evidence that Darwin adduced for
common descent. DNA sequence data has of recent years overtaken it.)
Patterns of distribution of organisms in the past is as much evidence
for relationships as patterns of distribution in the present. And these
patterns continue over time; for example South America had its own
unique suite of mammals, with turnover among species, which continued
until the great faunal interchanged that occurred after it contact with
North America via the Panama Isthmus and preceding island chains
eventuated.
>>
>> You have said that gaps between transitional fossils suggest that species
>> are unrelated.
>>
>If creationist see "transitional fossils" as real, this in and of
>itself is recognization of an intermediate form by creationist.
>>
>I've spoken of transitional fossil species as separate and isolated
>forms in the strats. The "gaps" here are extroardinary broad both
>before and after the tenure of the "transitional" form on the planet
>according the data from the fossil record.
>There is no empirical evidence that transitional fossils occupied
>any link of any supposed chain between any two species.
>According to Eldridge all life is descended from just a measly 4
>percent of the species that ever lived. given "transitional" fossil
>species isolated in the strata could have fallen victim to any of the
>many major and minor extinctions. How can anyone say with
>any degree of certainity that this did not happen?
So what. We can't tell whether any particular *morphologically*
intermediate fossil was *phylogenetically* intermediate, or whether it
represented a "side branch". It doesn't matter; they're still evidence
for the factuality of common descent with modification through the
agency of natural selection and other processes.
>
>Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
>the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
>is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
>isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
>of all species that ever lived?
>
>
>> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
>>
>You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
>does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
>discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
>"Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
>Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
We could we equal (i.e. very little) or perhaps more truth say that you
have only theory to suggest that Pluto orbits the Sun.
Part of your problem is that you're trying to treat the fossil record in
isolation. You should have realised by now, from your participation in
this newsgroup, if not from the books you say that you have read, that
the fossil record is a small and non-essential part of the evidence for
the factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
>>
>> You have said that scientists just connect fossils according to
>> preconceived notions of evolution.
>>
>Not as an accusation of under-handedness, but rather as a result
>of commitment the theory as real and arranging the "best in the field"
>according to the order as dictated by theory, and then viewing the
>ordered sequence as evidence of evolution.
>>
>> You have said that Archaeopteryx is not evidence for evolution.
>>
>Creationist reject evolution both theory and fact, so under what
>circumstance would you expect any creationist to accept archie
>as evidence for evolution?
>As far as I am concerned Archie fall into the catagory as other
>"transitional" fossils. I discussed this above.
>>
>> You have said that scientists make evolution unassailable and untestable
>> (whether it's supposed to be on purpose -- conspiracy -- or by accident --
>> blinders -- I'm not sure).
>>
>It isn't so simple as you seem to be indicating. And I am not at all
>confortable with any of your characterizations here. I believe
>people who study and prepare for a career in the sciences especially
>paleontology, genetics etc. are almost, if not always have a deep
>dedication and a strong committment to evolution. They have a
>heavy investment in evolution being true, And this would hold
>true from Darwin to the present. But I do not see any dishonesty
>in this.
>
On the other hand, if they could show that evolution was not true, their
careers would be made.
>>
>> All these are indeed common creationist claims. I think you could probably
>> find them in the index to creationist claims
>> (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/), and if you really want I could look
>> them up for you. But I'd rather you just take my word that creationists
>> say this sort of thing all the time.
>>
>As I understand it, creationist use the Bible for support of their views.
>IOW if something is contrary to their understanding of the Bible they
>reject it as false such as a 4.5 billion year old earth. The Bible is used
>as a "proof" text.
>>
>> If you say you just invented all these ideas out of thin air, I'll accept
>> that provisionally just to be civil.
>>
>Any similarity between my reasons and creationist arguments is either
>coincidence or else creationist and myself both became cognizant
>of the same facts and patterns that are characterize by the fossil record
>which were presented by scientist, such as Eldredge, Gould, Stanley etc.
>If their arguments, as you say, are the same as mine. It might behoove
>me to take a look.
>>
>But you should be aware that the
>> inference is a natural one based on what you've said so far.
>>
>I came to my conclusions based upon discoveries, research
>and publications by scientist which I personally read and studied.
>
>The books and articles by scientist, rather than religion
>influenced my current thoughts on the matter.
You started your participation in this thread with a complaint that you
nephew was failed in a biology course for a gratuitous statement that he
believed that evolution was false. Why did he believe this?
--
alias Ernest Mjaor
wf3h
>
> Right, but I cannot imagine creationist of any stripe claiming evolution
> is a fact.
as they claim the existence of god is a fact?
There obviously could be agreement on this point, I would
> bet it is for different reasons.
> I was careful to explain my reasoning for opposing the pronouncement
> of "evolution as a fact" which you ignore.
> The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
> on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
> valid criticism can even exist.
since evolution, like the existence of atoms, is a fact, do you think
chemists should criticize the exitence of atoms?
>
> Are Creationist aware of "stasis"? When the pattern of the
> fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species
> within the earth's strata, then long periods of _stasis_ followed
> by abrupt disapparance from the record with species looking
> much the same when they disappear as when they first appeared.
> It's one cause for doubt. Stasis is the absence of change.
> So, what empirical evidence suggest that static fossilized species
> are related to any other? Theory doesn't count.
wrong. we see, for example, hundreds of millions of years of evolution
of diatoms in the carribbean, showing gradual change...evolution...of
diatoms.
you know, you guys really should learn not to use data selectively.
it's too easy to call you on it.
> There is no empirical evidence that transitional fossils occupied
> any link of any supposed chain between any two species.
now THIS i don't understand since it seems simply wrong. we have
evidence of what darwin predicted we should see if evolution were
fact. we see, for example, evolutionary intermediates in the evolution
of the horse and whale. we can see, in the fossil record, the
development of features that contemporary forms have
what we have NEVER seen is any record of a supernatural influence like
creationists say should be present. and that is true across ALL of
science. creationism is bankrupt.
RAM
Big Snip
> I came to my conclusions based upon discoveries, research
> and publications by scientist which I personally read and studied.
>
Yet you seem to be devoid of any understanding of the empirical
strategies scientists employ to avoid "affirming the consequent." And
why science always views their theories as problematic. All the
bloviation (cut for uselessness) above never once gave science credit
for changing their theoretical orientations as a result of more and
better empirical data. So your conclusions drawn from scientist is
inadequate in the extreme.
You need to demonstrate empirically why for "stasis" e.g. is always
the case and not assert it theoretically(?). Thus you must take many
(10 to 20) empirical scientific studies that reveal evolution and show
why they are wrong empirically and how the data support "stasis."
Since you are so well read in science but not Creation science this
should not be an overwhelming task. Clearly antievolution neutral to
religion types have as yet to do this task, you and Berlinski come to
mind. You both assert your theoretical misgivings using key words
like "stasis," "transitional fossils," the billions of "gaps," and
"naive" scientists becoming ideologically committed to science by
finding evidence to support the evolutionary theory (but a doctrine
according to the informed science novice.) The latte is a view which
suggest overwhelmingly most scientists aren't capable of seeing this
contradiction or are afraid to point it out for fear of loss of job
see .e.g Expelled. This is a remarkably uninformed understanding of
scientists for someone who claims to have read so much about
evolution.
> The books and articles by scientist, rather than religion
> influenced my current thoughts on the matter.
Then tell us what religious practices you engage in and what religious
values you adhere to and what religion means to you. Then I will make
an independent judgment of whether religion makes a difference in your
view of science. At present your assertions is all the evidence I
have. They are not good enough.
RAM
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net>:
<snip>
>I was careful to explain my reasoning for opposing the pronouncement
>of "evolution as a fact" which you ignore.
As he should; opposing the existence of something which has
been observed many times in real time is eminently
ignorable.
>The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
>on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
>valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they refuse question
>the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_ hense no need
>to question or doubt.
Since evolution, in the form of speciation, has been
observed multiple times, both in the lab and in nature, it
is undeniably a fact. You seem to be confusing the observed
fact of evolution with the theory attempting to explain that
observed fact. The first is fact; the second is well-tested
scientific theory.
John Harshman
No, I just see that your reasons are not consistent. You place different
demands for evolution to be a fact than for other phenomena to be facts.
> The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
> on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
> valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they refuse question
> the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_ hense no need
> to question or doubt.
Why is evolution different in this respect from any other fact? If we
consider the existence of atoms to be a fact, does that remove any
willingness on the part of the followers of atomic theory to consider
criticism, etc.? Do they refuse to question the validity of atoms?
Should they?
>> You have said that stasis suggests that species are unrelated.
>>
> Are Creationist aware of "stasis"? When the pattern of the
> fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species
> within the earth's strata, then long periods of _stasis_ followed
> by abrupt disapparance from the record with species looking
> much the same when they disappear as when they first appeared.
> It's one cause for doubt. Stasis is the absence of change.
> So, what empirical evidence suggest that static fossilized species
> are related to any other? Theory doesn't count.
Creationists are sort of aware of stasis, though they prefer a strawman
version. I think you may also, though it's not clear. The empirical
evidence suggesting relationships of morphotypes (not species, really,
as I've pointed out) is the nested hierarchy to which they all belong.
>> You have said that gaps between transitional fossils suggest that species
>> are unrelated.
>>
> If creationist see "transitional fossils" as real, this in and of
> itself is recognization of an intermediate form by creationist.
No idea what that means.
> I've spoken of transitional fossil species as separate and isolated
> forms in the strats. The "gaps" here are extroardinary broad both
> before and after the tenure of the "transitional" form on the planet
> according the data from the fossil record.
> There is no empirical evidence that transitional fossils occupied
> any link of any supposed chain between any two species.
> According to Eldridge all life is descended from just a measly 4
> percent of the species that ever lived. given "transitional" fossil
> species isolated in the strata could have fallen victim to any of the
> many major and minor extinctions. How can anyone say with
> any degree of certainity that this did not happen?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Nobody is saying that
transitional fossils are ancestral to living groups. I'm saying in fact
that if they are we can't know that. But they are nevertheless valid
evidence for evolutionary transitions. We could assemble a fair family
tree for you just by looking at your various collateral relatives: your
uncle, your grandmother's sister, your great-grandfather's nephew, etc.
We could, with enough samples, infer the nature of missing ancestors.
But transitional fossils are transitional; they connect groups. And
that's evidence for evolution. What makes you think it isn't?
> Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
> the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
> is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
> isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
> of all species that ever lived?
No, I would say it's likely. But I would also say it's no reason to
doubt evolution.
>> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
>>
> You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
> does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
> discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
> "Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
> Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
Stasis is a real phenomenon, though it's not documented as well as you
might imagine. Whether that has anything to do with species is another
question, and we could discuss that if you like. But this has nothing to
do with whether evolution happens. Why would you think it did?
>> You have said that scientists just connect fossils according to
>> preconceived notions of evolution.
>>
> Not as an accusation of under-handedness, but rather as a result
> of commitment the theory as real and arranging the "best in the field"
> according to the order as dictated by theory, and then viewing the
> ordered sequence as evidence of evolution.
Yes, and this is a common creationist claim, which is false. If you knew
anything about phylogenetic analysis you would know that.
>> You have said that Archaeopteryx is not evidence for evolution.
>>
> Creationist reject evolution both theory and fact, so under what
> circumstance would you expect any creationist to accept archie
> as evidence for evolution?
I don't understand your point. Unless you're saying that you're a
creationist, what does it matter what a creationist would accept?
Archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution. Anyone who's not a committed
creationist should be able to realize that.
> As far as I am concerned Archie fall into the catagory as other
> "transitional" fossils. I discussed this above.
>> You have said that scientists make evolution unassailable and untestable
>> (whether it's supposed to be on purpose -- conspiracy -- or by accident --
>> blinders -- I'm not sure).
>>
> It isn't so simple as you seem to be indicating. And I am not at all
> confortable with any of your characterizations here. I believe
> people who study and prepare for a career in the sciences especially
> paleontology, genetics etc. are almost, if not always have a deep
> dedication and a strong committment to evolution. They have a
> heavy investment in evolution being true, And this would hold
> true from Darwin to the present. But I do not see any dishonesty
> in this.
That would be the second option, then: blinders. If you're not saying
that scientists have a bias that prevents them from seeing the truth,
what are you saying?
>> All these are indeed common creationist claims. I think you could probably
>> find them in the index to creationist claims
>> (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/), and if you really want I could look
>> them up for you. But I'd rather you just take my word that creationists
>> say this sort of thing all the time.
>>
> As I understand it, creationist use the Bible for support of their views.
> IOW if something is contrary to their understanding of the Bible they
> reject it as false such as a 4.5 billion year old earth. The Bible is used
> as a "proof" text.
Yes, though many creationists pretend not to use the bible so, and
pretend that their ideas are just scientific interpretation of the
evidence. It just happens to fit Genesis. I'm not sure of your point here.
>> If you say you just invented all these ideas out of thin air, I'll accept
>> that provisionally just to be civil.
>>
> Any similarity between my reasons and creationist arguments is either
> coincidence or else creationist and myself both became cognizant
> of the same facts and patterns that are characterize by the fossil record
> which were presented by scientist, such as Eldredge, Gould, Stanley etc.
> If their arguments, as you say, are the same as mine. It might behoove
> me to take a look.
Great minds think alike?
>> But you should be aware that the
>> inference is a natural one based on what you've said so far.
>>
> I came to my conclusions based upon discoveries, research
> and publications by scientist which I personally read and studied.
Nonsense. None of those scientists would agree with anything you've
claimed here. You are misinterpreting their writings.
> The books and articles by scientist, rather than religion
> influenced my current thoughts on the matter.
Then why do you come to such different conclusions from the scientists
you have referenced?
Why do you also ignore my frequent statements that the fossil record is
a tiny portion of the evidence for evolution?
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> Aerion wrote:
> > Not as an accusation of under-handedness, but rather as a result
> > of commitment the theory as real and arranging the "best in the field"
> > according to the order as dictated by theory, and then viewing the
> > ordered sequence as evidence of evolution.
>
> Yes, and this is a common creationist claim, which is false. If you knew
> anything about phylogenetic analysis you would know that.
Aerion can find a more detailed explanation by John Harshman here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eeaee6e4e0acbe95
if he scrolls down to this question:
> 3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to
> common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence or common ancestry — a
> circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
Aerion
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Gz8W06RK...@meden.invalid...
doubt that "evolution is a fact". This I have, in small part, done.
It was never my purpose to go beyond explaining my reasoning
at the persistance of some people. I do not solicit agreement.
>>
>>Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
>>the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
>>is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
>>isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
>>of all species that ever lived?
>>
>>
>>> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
>>>
>>You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
>>does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
>>discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
>>"Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
>>Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
>
> We could we equal (i.e. very little) or perhaps more truth say that you
> have only theory to suggest that Pluto orbits the Sun.
>
> Part of your problem is that you're trying to treat the fossil record in
> isolation. You should have realised by now, from your participation in
> this newsgroup, if not from the books you say that you have read, that the
> fossil record is a small and non-essential part of the evidence for the
> factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
> natural selection and other processes.
>
of relationship. This is strictly a dogma.
that any researcher would be willing to even consider looking into evidence
which could possibably challenge the "fact" of evolution.
He was that. But whatever, I almost cost him. Which really upset
his mother.
> --
> alias Ernest Mjaor
>
Free Lunch
"Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<bYjzk.27652$IB6....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
...
>> And apart from that, your "justification" is basically an excuse for an
>> ad-hominem attack on those who accept the factuality of common descent
>> with modification
>>
>I haven't attacked anyone. I was challenged to explain why I
>doubt that "evolution is a fact". This I have, in small part, done.
>It was never my purpose to go beyond explaining my reasoning
>at the persistance of some people. I do not solicit agreement.
Nor, apparently, do you care what criticisms are leveled against your
explanations.
...
>> So what. We can't tell whether any particular *morphologically*
>> intermediate fossil was *phylogenetically* intermediate, or whether it
>> represented a "side branch". It doesn't matter; they're still evidence for
>> the factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
>> natural selection and other processes.
>>
>That is simply and intrepretation, based upon theory.
You say this as if you are free to simply disgard theories that are
strongly congruent with the evidence. What alternative do you propose
that does as good a job or better?
>> We could we equal (i.e. very little) or perhaps more truth say that you
>> have only theory to suggest that Pluto orbits the Sun.
>>
>> Part of your problem is that you're trying to treat the fossil record in
>> isolation. You should have realised by now, from your participation in
>> this newsgroup, if not from the books you say that you have read, that the
>> fossil record is a small and non-essential part of the evidence for the
>> factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
>> natural selection and other processes.
>>
>The underlying bed rock theory is that _similarity_ is evidence
>of relationship. This is strictly a dogma.
No, that is not the case. Apparently you don't actually understand
science at all.
...
>> On the other hand, if they could show that evolution was not true, their
>> careers would be made.
>>
>Given that evolution is pronounced a "fact". There is a slim to no chance
>that any researcher would be willing to even consider looking into evidence
>which could possibably challenge the "fact" of evolution.
The fact that there is variation in alleles in populations over time is
clearly established. The question is whether one could make their career
by offering a better explanation than the theory of evolution by
variation and natural selection.
...
>> You started your participation in this thread with a complaint that you
>> nephew was failed in a biology course for a gratuitous statement that he
>> believed that evolution was false. Why did he believe this?
>>
>He was just a kid, I don't know that he wasn't just being a smart ass.
>He was that. But whatever, I almost cost him. Which really upset
>his mother.
So you are now making trouble here because your sister is mad at you and
you cannot admit to her that you are at fault because you were being
silly?
Aerion
or gern theory, for example. I've been challenged to present some of
my reasons for my position. I've give you a couple reason I came
accross which causes me to question "evolution as fact". I'm not
seeking any assurance, nor do I care to change your thinking.
>
>> The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
>> on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
>> valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they refuse question
>> the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_ hense no need
>> to question or doubt.
>
> Why is evolution different in this respect from any other fact? If we
> consider the existence of atoms to be a fact, does that remove any
> willingness on the part of the followers of atomic theory to consider
> criticism, etc.? Do they refuse to question the validity of atoms? Should
> they?
fact. Whether or not it is, it's reality is _not_ questioned.
>
>>> You have said that stasis suggests that species are unrelated.
>>>
>> Are Creationist aware of "stasis"? When the pattern of the
>> fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species
>> within the earth's strata, then long periods of _stasis_ followed
>> by abrupt disapparance from the record with species looking
>> much the same when they disappear as when they first appeared.
>> It's one cause for doubt. Stasis is the absence of change.
>> So, what empirical evidence suggest that static fossilized species
>> are related to any other? Theory doesn't count.
>
> Creationists are sort of aware of stasis, though they prefer a strawman
> version. I think you may also, though it's not clear. The empirical
> evidence suggesting relationships of morphotypes (not species, really, as
> I've pointed out) is the nested hierarchy to which they all belong.
>
>>> You have said that gaps between transitional fossils suggest that
>>> species
>>> are unrelated.
>>>
>> If creationist see "transitional fossils" as real, this in and of
>> itself is recognization of an intermediate form by creationist.
>
> No idea what that means.
>
recognize transitional fossils.
>
>> I've spoken of transitional fossil species as separate and isolated
>> forms in the strats. The "gaps" here are extroardinary broad both
>> before and after the tenure of the "transitional" form on the planet
>> according the data from the fossil record.
>> There is no empirical evidence that transitional fossils occupied
>> any link of any supposed chain between any two species.
>> According to Eldridge all life is descended from just a measly 4
>> percent of the species that ever lived. given "transitional" fossil
>> species isolated in the strata could have fallen victim to any of the
>> many major and minor extinctions. How can anyone say with
>> any degree of certainity that this did not happen?
>
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Nobody is saying that
> transitional fossils are ancestral to living groups. I'm saying in fact
> that if they are we can't know that. But they are nevertheless valid
> evidence for evolutionary transitions. We could assemble a fair family
> tree for you just by looking at your various collateral relatives: your
> uncle, your grandmother's sister, your great-grandfather's nephew, etc. We
> could, with enough samples, infer the nature of missing ancestors.
>
> But transitional fossils are transitional; they connect groups. And that's
> evidence for evolution. What makes you think it isn't?
>
in quotation marks " ". My mistake. I can see how this confused
you.
>
>> Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
>> the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
>> is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
>> isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
>> of all species that ever lived?
>
> No, I would say it's likely. But I would also say it's no reason to doubt
> evolution.
>
>>> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
>>>
>> You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
>> does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
>> discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
>> "Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
>> Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
>
> Stasis is a real phenomenon, though it's not documented as well as you
> might imagine. Whether that has anything to do with species is another
> question, and we could discuss that if you like. But this has nothing to
> do with whether evolution happens. Why would you think it did?
>
centerpiece of evolution. Species transforming into a
different species. Stasis is not change. Stasis is absence
of change or miniminal change.
wf3h
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:Gz8W06RK...@meden.invalid...
>
>
>
> > In message <Ejdzk.29693$kh2.23...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Aerion
> > <Aer...@bellsouth.net> writes
>
> >>"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >>news:ANCyk.148$fD...@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
> >>> Aerion wrote:
> >>>> From: "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca>
the same can be said of atomic theory. we chemists take the existence
of atoms as factual.
not that aerion knows what an 'atom' is....
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>The atom is accepted as
>fact. Whether or not it is, it's reality is _not_ questioned.
Evolution is accepted as fact in EXACTLY the same way.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Very small part - nowhere near enough.
No, evolution is a fact. Please stop confusing the fact of evolution
with the ToE.
>>>
>>>Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
>>>the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
>>>is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
>>>isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
>>>of all species that ever lived?
>>>
>>>
>>>> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
>>>>
>>>You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
>>>does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
>>>discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
>>>"Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
>>>Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
>>
>> We could we equal (i.e. very little) or perhaps more truth say that you
>> have only theory to suggest that Pluto orbits the Sun.
>>
>> Part of your problem is that you're trying to treat the fossil record in
>> isolation. You should have realised by now, from your participation in
>> this newsgroup, if not from the books you say that you have read, that the
>> fossil record is a small and non-essential part of the evidence for the
>> factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
>> natural selection and other processes.
>>
>The underlying bed rock theory is that _similarity_ is evidence
>of relationship. This is strictly a dogma.
It is just one of a long list of evidences.
They all work hard to find even a scrap of evidence that would
overthrow the ToE, because in so doing they would make a name for
themselves and almost certainly win a Nobel Prize.
It should have cost him, he should have been made to take the course
again as he clearly had not learned the facts.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Mjaor
>>
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
<Aer...@bellsouth.net> writes
Very recently you wrote "The word "fact" effectively removes evolution
from any willingness on the part of its followers to consider criticism
or even admit that valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they
refuse question the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_
hense no need to question or doubt". That's an attack.
That statement is a non-sequitur.
>>>
>>>Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
>>>the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
>>>is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
>>>isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
>>>of all species that ever lived?
>>>
>>>
>>>> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
>>>>
>>>You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
>>>does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
>>>discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
>>>"Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
>>>Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
>>
>> We could we equal (i.e. very little) or perhaps more truth say that you
>> have only theory to suggest that Pluto orbits the Sun.
>>
>> Part of your problem is that you're trying to treat the fossil record in
>> isolation. You should have realised by now, from your participation in
>> this newsgroup, if not from the books you say that you have read, that the
>> fossil record is a small and non-essential part of the evidence for the
>> factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
>> natural selection and other processes.
>>
>The underlying bed rock theory is that _similarity_ is evidence
>of relationship. This is strictly a dogma.
Unless you want to call "evidence means something" a dogma this is not a
dogma. You're flirting with epistemological nihilism again.
Hoyle? Senepathy? Schwartz? Denton? Behe?
You almost cost him?
In your initial contribution to this thread you wrote
"At this point I took an interest in the subject of evolution. I
came to some definate positions on the subject. I think that when one
reads countless times that science is not in the business of proof, yet
insist that evolution is a fact. Something is amiss. How can something
be proclaimed a fact without absolute, incontrovertable proof?"
How come you could have led him to this position when you didn't take an
interest in the subject of evolution before the incident?
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<Aer...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>> The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
>>> on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
>>> valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they refuse question
>>> the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_ hense no need
>>> to question or doubt.
>>
>> Why is evolution different in this respect from any other fact? If we
>> consider the existence of atoms to be a fact, does that remove any
>> willingness on the part of the followers of atomic theory to consider
>> criticism, etc.? Do they refuse to question the validity of atoms? Should
>> they?
>Is your query about the reality of the atom? The atom is accepted as
>fact. Whether or not it is, it's reality is _not_ questioned.
His query is a request a justification of your double standard (or a
concession that you are adopting a double standard). You object to
describing evolution as factual on the spurious grounds that it
eliminates questioning of the factuality of evolution, but don't object
to describing atoms as factual.
Your position on this point appears unprincipled, and an attempt at
making an end-run around supporting your objections to evolution with
reason and/or evidence.
--
alias Ernest Major
JTEM
> I haven't attacked anyone. I was challenged to explain why I
> doubt that "evolution is a fact". This I have, in small part, done.
> It was never my purpose to go beyond explaining my reasoning
> at the persistance of some people. I do not solicit agreement.
> [snip the rest of it]
If you had argued that too many people here argue dogma -- the
unquestioning acceptance of whatever the prevailing/popular
scientific view happens to be right now -- I'd be the first to agree
with you. But, instead, it really does seem like you're just trying
to get as close as you can to creationism/I.D. without actually
invoking it.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
What's your alternative viewpoint, and what evidence do you have for
it, whatever it turns out to be?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
What's your alternative viewpoint, and what evidence do you have for
it, whatever it is?
wf3h
> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >
> > demands for evolution to be a fact than for other phenomena to be facts.
>
> Not true. I have found nothing that causes _me_ to question gravity
> or gern theory, for example. I've been challenged to present some of
> my reasons for my position. I've give you a couple reason I came
> accross which causes me to question "evolution as fact". I'm not
> seeking any assurance, nor do I care to change your thinking.
well, we have astrologers, 'christian scientists', snake handling
christians, etc., all of whom question some basic concepts of science.
that you do so does not, in and of itself, prove that those concepts
are either exempt from examination, or are wrong.
until you present your evidence, your case is unfounded. and so far,
creationists have been batting 0.
>
> > Why is evolution different in this respect from any other fact? If we
> > consider the existence of atoms to be a fact, does that remove any
> > willingness on the part of the followers of atomic theory to consider
> > criticism, etc.? Do they refuse to question the validity of atoms? Should
> > they?
>
> Is your query about the reality of the atom? The atom is accepted as
> fact. Whether or not it is, it's reality is _not_ questioned.
does that mean we chemists should start questioning the existence of
atoms? that somehow we're involved in a 'conspiracy' to prevent others
from seeing whether or not atoms exist?
you make that same argument about evolution, yet fail to apply it
consistently.
> > Stasis is a real phenomenon, though it's not documented as well as you
> > might imagine. Whether that has anything to do with species is another
> > question, and we could discuss that if you like. But this has nothing to
> > do with whether evolution happens. Why would you think it did?
>
> This is crucial to my questioning. Change over time is the
> centerpiece of evolution. Species transforming into a
> different species. Stasis is not change. Stasis is absence
> of change or miniminal change.
and yet change is in the fossil record. i have given you an example of
it: the evolution of diatoms in the carribbean.
yet you, again, ignore it.
it's a poor argument to say that folks don't have evidence for their
theories when you simply ignore the evidence.
>
>
John Harshman
But for some reason, I care to change your thinking, or at least force
you to defend it rationally. I find no rational difference between
evolution, gravity, and the germ theory in terms of their justifications
as fact. You have provided no rational difference. I suspect that your
reasons for rejecting one and accepting the others are not rational, and
relate to some prejudice on your part. The usual reason for such
prejudice is religious. Look at yourself and see if that might be true.
>>> The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
>>> on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
>>> valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they refuse question
>>> the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_ hense no need
>>> to question or doubt.
>> Why is evolution different in this respect from any other fact? If we
>> consider the existence of atoms to be a fact, does that remove any
>> willingness on the part of the followers of atomic theory to consider
>> criticism, etc.? Do they refuse to question the validity of atoms? Should
>> they?
> Is your query about the reality of the atom? The atom is accepted as
> fact. Whether or not it is, it's reality is _not_ questioned.
Should it be? I'm asking whether there's a difference between
evolutionary theory and atomic theory that makes you accept the second
but not the first as fact. So far I see no such difference, and you have
suggested none.
>>>> You have said that stasis suggests that species are unrelated.
>>>>
>>> Are Creationist aware of "stasis"? When the pattern of the
>>> fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species
>>> within the earth's strata, then long periods of _stasis_ followed
>>> by abrupt disapparance from the record with species looking
>>> much the same when they disappear as when they first appeared.
>>> It's one cause for doubt. Stasis is the absence of change.
>>> So, what empirical evidence suggest that static fossilized species
>>> are related to any other? Theory doesn't count.
>> Creationists are sort of aware of stasis, though they prefer a strawman
>> version. I think you may also, though it's not clear. The empirical
>> evidence suggesting relationships of morphotypes (not species, really, as
>> I've pointed out) is the nested hierarchy to which they all belong.
>>
>>>> You have said that gaps between transitional fossils suggest that
>>>> species
>>>> are unrelated.
>>>>
>>> If creationist see "transitional fossils" as real, this in and of
>>> itself is recognization of an intermediate form by creationist.
>> No idea what that means.
>>
> If what you wrote, correctly represents creationist, then they must
> recognize transitional fossils.
This is playing with words. Creationist recognize that we call certain
fossils transitional. They don't agree that they are transitional.
Archaeopteryx is "just a bird" or "just a dinosaur", depending on which
creationist writings you like.
>>> I've spoken of transitional fossil species as separate and isolated
>>> forms in the strats. The "gaps" here are extroardinary broad both
>>> before and after the tenure of the "transitional" form on the planet
>>> according the data from the fossil record.
>>> There is no empirical evidence that transitional fossils occupied
>>> any link of any supposed chain between any two species.
>>> According to Eldridge all life is descended from just a measly 4
>>> percent of the species that ever lived. given "transitional" fossil
>>> species isolated in the strata could have fallen victim to any of the
>>> many major and minor extinctions. How can anyone say with
>>> any degree of certainity that this did not happen?
>> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Nobody is saying that
>> transitional fossils are ancestral to living groups. I'm saying in fact
>> that if they are we can't know that. But they are nevertheless valid
>> evidence for evolutionary transitions. We could assemble a fair family
>> tree for you just by looking at your various collateral relatives: your
>> uncle, your grandmother's sister, your great-grandfather's nephew, etc. We
>> could, with enough samples, infer the nature of missing ancestors.
>>
>> But transitional fossils are transitional; they connect groups. And that's
>> evidence for evolution. What makes you think it isn't?
>>
> I was using your term. I should have put the word transitional
> in quotation marks " ". My mistake. I can see how this confused
> you.
I wasn't confused. I was pointing out that we call them "transitional"
for a good reason. You didn't answer my question.
>>> Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
>>> the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
>>> is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
>>> isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
>>> of all species that ever lived?
>> No, I would say it's likely. But I would also say it's no reason to doubt
>> evolution.
>>
>>>> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
>>>>
>>> You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
>>> does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
>>> discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
>>> "Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
>>> Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
>> Stasis is a real phenomenon, though it's not documented as well as you
>> might imagine. Whether that has anything to do with species is another
>> question, and we could discuss that if you like. But this has nothing to
>> do with whether evolution happens. Why would you think it did?
>>
> This is crucial to my questioning. Change over time is the
> centerpiece of evolution. Species transforming into a
> different species. Stasis is not change. Stasis is absence
> of change or miniminal change.
I will mention again that we can't identify species in the fossil
record. What we have is morphotypes changing into different morphotypes.
Whether speciation is involved is another question. However, we know
that this transformation happens, and we also know that speciation
happens. We know that both from observations of these things occurring
in the present day and from the inescapable evidence of nested
hierarchy, which has no other explanation than common descent. Common
descent requires transformation to happen. Stasis merely shows us that
transformation is not proceeding at a constant rate. If happens
episodically. And this would be expected if the main mechanism of
transformation were natural selection, by the way.
Do you get tired part way through a post? I encourage you to keep
reading through to the end, because there are sometimes important ideas
hidden there.
Aerion
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:93bafbd7-4581-4139...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
to the belief intelligent design. I don't know enought about it at
this point, to have an opinion. But I do not cater to those who feel
anamosity towards this philosophy.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
That's nice. (yawn)
One more time --- what is your "alternative viewpoint" and what is the
evidence and data that support it?
Don't be shy. Speak right up.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
But I do not cater to those who feel
> anamosity towards this philosophy.
By the way, why should science give a flying fuck about anyone's
"philosophy"?
Aerion
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf4e645e-139f-416e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this
>> NG
>> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>> motivated by creationism".
>
>OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
>your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
>
Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact", for the reason
that whatever is accepted as fact becomes in a very real sense
sacrosanct, "protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
questioning. In the case of evolution, it possible to question
wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
the _fact_ of evolution itself. If it became a broad based spectrum
across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.
heekster
wrote:
>
>"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:93bafbd7-4581-4139...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't attacked anyone. I was challenged to explain why I
>>> doubt that "evolution is a fact". This I have, in small part, done.
>>> It was never my purpose to go beyond explaining my reasoning
>>> at the persistance of some people. I do not solicit agreement.
>>> [snip the rest of it]
>>
>> If you had argued that too many people here argue dogma -- the
>> unquestioning acceptance of whatever the prevailing/popular
>> scientific view happens to be right now -- I'd be the first to agree
>> with you. But, instead, it really does seem like you're just trying
>> to get as close as you can to creationism/I.D. without actually
>> invoking it.
>>
>I have no antipathy towards anyone who prescribes to creation/ID
"Prescribes"?
Is that like, "Take two imbecilities, and call me in the morning."?
>to the belief intelligent design. I don't know enought about it at
>this point, to have an opinion. But I do not cater to those who feel
>anamosity towards this philosophy.
Anamosity, that's in Iowa, eh Malapropman?
Mark VandeWettering
>
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cf4e645e-139f-416e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this
>>> NG
>>> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>>> motivated by creationism".
>>
>
>>OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
>>your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
>>
> Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
> believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact", for the reason
> that whatever is accepted as fact becomes in a very real sense
> sacrosanct,
Only to those who don't understand what a fact actually is.
As Gould famously said:
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I
suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
Evolution is a fact. That doesn't mean that it's sacrosanct, it simply
means that it's confirmed to a degree that makes it perverse not to
accept it.
> "protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
> questioning. In the case of evolution, it possible to question
> wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
> the _fact_ of evolution itself.
You actually haven't been able to express any reason for your own doubts
about evolution. You seem to have some vague misgivings about it,
but when pressed can't actually elucidate them beyond the idea that
something about it might be wrong. That's not really very convincing.
> If it became a broad based spectrum
> across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
> theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.
Perhaps you should go ask some physicists to look for apples which
aren't affected by gravitation. After all, if such caution is good for
biology, it must be good for physics as well. For instance, we _know_
that we can't explain the interaction between quantum mechanics and
gravitation, so something about our understanding of the two is _clearly_
and _unequivocally_ wrong. Perhaps we should stop teaching physics while
we sort this conundrum out.
I'll join you on top of the Tower of Pisa so we can start dropping balls
again.
Mark
RAM
This assumes you know what the prevailing scientific views are in the
various disciplines represented on TO. I think you don't. If I'm
wrong demonstrate it.
RAM
Aerion
on their own. There is no need for one person to "educate" another
about this, it's blatantly obvious. But this is not true of evolution.
Evolution has to be taught, studied and one has to be persuaded by
the evidence once presented by the teacher or books or TV etc.
>
> I suspect that your reasons for rejecting one and accepting the others are
> not rational, and relate to some prejudice on your part. The usual reason
> for such prejudice is religious. Look at yourself and see if that might be
> true.
>
or against.
>
>>>> The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
>>>> on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
>>>> valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they refuse question
>>>> the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_ hense no need
>>>> to question or doubt.
>>> Why is evolution different in this respect from any other fact? If we
>>> consider the existence of atoms to be a fact, does that remove any
>>> willingness on the part of the followers of atomic theory to consider
>>> criticism, etc.? Do they refuse to question the validity of atoms?
>>> Should they?
>> Is your query about the reality of the atom? The atom is accepted as
>> fact. Whether or not it is, it's reality is _not_ questioned.
>
> Should it be? I'm asking whether there's a difference between evolutionary
> theory and atomic theory that makes you accept the second but not the
> first as fact. So far I see no such difference, and you have suggested
> none.
>
noted that it is called atomic _theory_. But I'm sure it is a well
established
as a fact as anything can be. Since we receive power from atomic reactors,
the power subs has been used by scientist to create the atomic bomb.
I accept atomic theory because I have seen it in action and read nothing
which I consider contrary to the theory. It's interesting that as well as
atomic theory is established it is still remains theory. It's better
established as a fact, than is evolution imho.
>
>>>>> You have said that stasis suggests that species are unrelated.
>>>>>
>>>> Are Creationist aware of "stasis"? When the pattern of the
>>>> fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species
>>>> within the earth's strata, then long periods of _stasis_ followed
>>>> by abrupt disapparance from the record with species looking
>>>> much the same when they disappear as when they first appeared.
>>>> It's one cause for doubt. Stasis is the absence of change.
>>>> So, what empirical evidence suggest that static fossilized species
>>>> are related to any other? Theory doesn't count.
>>> Creationists are sort of aware of stasis, though they prefer a strawman
>>> version. I think you may also, though it's not clear. The empirical
>>> evidence suggesting relationships of morphotypes (not species, really,
>>> as I've pointed out) is the nested hierarchy to which they all belong.
>>>
>>>>> You have said that gaps between transitional fossils suggest that
>>>>> species
>>>>> are unrelated.
>>>>>
>>>> If creationist see "transitional fossils" as real, this in and of
>>>> itself is recognization of an intermediate form by creationist.
>>> No idea what that means.
>>>
>> If what you wrote, correctly represents creationist, then they must
>> recognize transitional fossils.
>
> This is playing with words.
>
>
Creationist recognize that we call certain fossils transitional. They don't
> agree that they are transitional. Archaeopteryx is "just a bird" or "just
> a dinosaur", depending on which creationist writings you like.
>
the case. A "transitional" fossil organism is a proxy.
>
>>>> Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
>>>> the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
>>>> is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
>>>> isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
>>>> of all species that ever lived?
>>> No, I would say it's likely. But I would also say it's no reason to
>>> doubt evolution.
>>>
>>>>> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
>>>>>
>>>> You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
>>>> does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
>>>> discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
>>>> "Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
>>>> Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
>>> Stasis is a real phenomenon, though it's not documented as well as you
>>> might imagine. Whether that has anything to do with species is another
>>> question, and we could discuss that if you like. But this has nothing to
>>> do with whether evolution happens. Why would you think it did?
>>>
>> This is crucial to my questioning. Change over time is the
>> centerpiece of evolution. Species transforming into a
>> different species. Stasis is not change. Stasis is absence
>> of change or miniminal change.
>
> I will mention again that we can't identify species in the fossil record.
> What we have is morphotypes changing into different morphotypes.
>
everyone,
unfortunately.
Ernest Major
<Aer...@bellsouth.net> writes
>
>"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cf4e645e-139f-416e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this
>>> NG
>>> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>>> motivated by creationism".
>>
>
>>OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
>>your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
>>
>Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
>believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact", for the reason
>that whatever is accepted as fact becomes in a very real sense
>sacrosanct, "protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
>questioning. In the case of evolution, it possible to question
>wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
>the _fact_ of evolution itself. If it became a broad based spectrum
>across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
>theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.
>
atoms, gravity, the germ theory of disease, etc., as facts, and are
adopting a position of epistemological nihilism?
If not, we're going to continue to point out your double standards every
time you use the spurious argument to deny evolution the status of fact.
>
>
>
>================================================
>Lenny Flank
>"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
>Editor, Red and Black Publishers
>http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
>
Please take more care with your replies. You've made it appear as if
Lenny Flank wrote your material. That is libellous.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<Aer...@bellsouth.net> writes
>> Should it be? I'm asking whether there's a difference between evolutionary
>> theory and atomic theory that makes you accept the second but not the
>> first as fact. So far I see no such difference, and you have suggested
>> none.
>>
>Well this one is not as silly as gravity, it's probably true, but I
>have noted that it is called atomic _theory_. But I'm sure it is a well
>established as a fact as anything can be. Since we receive power from
>atomic reactors, the power subs has been used by scientist to create
>the atomic bomb. I accept atomic theory because I have seen it in
>action and read nothing which I consider contrary to the theory. It's
>interesting that as well as atomic theory is established it is still
>remains theory. It's better established as a fact, than is evolution imho.
For you information you seem to ignorant about what atomic theory is.
Atomic theory is to do with things like chemistry, spectra (physics
textbooks on Atomic Theory are mostly about spectra) and the kinetic
theory of gases. Nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors have to do with
Nuclear Physics, not Atomic Physics.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
>> to defend it rationally. I find no rational difference between evolution,
>> gravity, and the germ theory in terms of their justifications as fact. You
>> have provided no rational difference.
>>
>I think it is a silly corollary. Everyone discovers the effects of
>gravity on their own. There is no need for one person to "educate"
>another about this, it's blatantly obvious. But this is not true of
>evolution. Evolution has to be taught, studied and one has to be
>persuaded by the evidence once presented by the teacher or books or TV
>etc.
I think this is a silly distinction. You wouldn't deny the factuality of
mathematical theorems because their demonstration is difficult, would
you?
It's also based in an incorrect premise. Gravity isn't blatantly obvious
- it took a genius like Isaac Newton to recognise it. What is obvious is
that locally, unsupported, non-buoyant, objects, fall. That gravity also
causes the cyclical motion of solar system bodies escaped the notion of
his predecessors for thousands of years.
It's based on another incorrect premise. What is obvious is not
necessarily true. It was obvious to many people that the Earth was flat,
and that Sun revolved round the Earth.
--
Alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
======================================
>> You started your participation in this thread with a complaint that
>> your nephew was failed in a biology course for a gratuitous statement
>> that he believed that evolution was false. Why did he believe this?
>He was just a kid, I don't know that he wasn't just being a smart ass.
>He was that. But whatever, I almost cost him. Which really upset
>his mother.
You almost cost him?
In your initial contribution to this thread you wrote
"At this point I took an interest in the subject of evolution. I
came to some definate positions on the subject. I think that when one
reads countless times that science is not in the business of proof, yet
insist that evolution is a fact. Something is amiss. How can something
be proclaimed a fact without absolute, incontrovertable proof?"
How come you could have led him to this position when you didn't take an
interest in the subject of evolution before the incident?
========================================
Could you address this please.
--
alias Ernest Major
JTEM
RAM <rmath...@macomb.com> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you had argued that too many people here argue dogma -- the
> > unquestioning acceptance of whatever the prevailing/popular
> > scientific view happens to be right now -- I'd be the first to agree
> > with you. But, instead, it really does seem like you're just trying
> > to get as close as you can to creationism/I.D. without actually
> > invoking it.
>
> This assumes you know what the prevailing scientific views are
> in the various disciplines represented on TO.
Does it? Explain.
> I think you don't. If I'm wrong demonstrate it.
This doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, "demonstrate"... what?
Knowledge of the prevailing scientific views within all the
disciplines
supposedly represented on talk.origins?
You actually think you're being reasonable?
Shit, you ate a lot of stupid cake....
Say, listen up: Nobody in this life is going to jump through hoops
for you. Honest. And if advancing unreasonable tests is what it
takes to make you comfy in whatever position it is you presently
hold, then you need to seriously consider finding yourself a new
position... one you don't feel so insecure about.
Good luck with that.
John Harshman
Several problems with your statement here, all of which have been
mentioned before:
1. Nobody discovers gravity; they discover that things fall. I was
referring to Newton's theory of universal gravitation, which nobody knew
about until Newton came up with it.
2. I notice you ignored the germ theory. I could have brought up others,
like the atomic theory. You have dodged the question.
3. I have asked before why having to be taught is relevant, and you have
ignored the question.
>> I suspect that your reasons for rejecting one and accepting the others are
>> not rational, and relate to some prejudice on your part. The usual reason
>> for such prejudice is religious. Look at yourself and see if that might be
>> true.
>>
> I'm sure you do. But bias is a two edge sword. Bias can be in favor
> or against.
Where would my bias, if any, come from? What makes you suspect I'm biased?
We've already discovered that you don't know much about evolution, so
your ho doesn't count for all that much. I see you're still hung up on
the word "theory", but it should be obvious from "atomic theory", "germ
theory", and "theory of universal gravitation" that a theory can be a
fact too. So what's the difference? You haven't read any objections to
atomic theory. There's a good reason for that: atomic theory doesn't
conflict with anyone's religion. And what objctions to evolutionary
theory have you read? You claim never to have seen any creationist
literature.
>>>>>> You have said that stasis suggests that species are unrelated.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are Creationist aware of "stasis"? When the pattern of the
>>>>> fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species
>>>>> within the earth's strata, then long periods of _stasis_ followed
>>>>> by abrupt disapparance from the record with species looking
>>>>> much the same when they disappear as when they first appeared.
>>>>> It's one cause for doubt. Stasis is the absence of change.
>>>>> So, what empirical evidence suggest that static fossilized species
>>>>> are related to any other? Theory doesn't count.
>>>> Creationists are sort of aware of stasis, though they prefer a strawman
>>>> version. I think you may also, though it's not clear. The empirical
>>>> evidence suggesting relationships of morphotypes (not species, really,
>>>> as I've pointed out) is the nested hierarchy to which they all belong.
>>>>
>>>>>> You have said that gaps between transitional fossils suggest that
>>>>>> species
>>>>>> are unrelated.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If creationist see "transitional fossils" as real, this in and of
>>>>> itself is recognization of an intermediate form by creationist.
>>>> No idea what that means.
>>>>
>>> If what you wrote, correctly represents creationist, then they must
>>> recognize transitional fossils.
>> This is playing with words.
>>
> Yes, I guess it is. I'm sorry.
Thanks.
This is no different than the evidence for subatomic particles. We never
observe them directly. We only see lines of bubbles in liquid hydrogen.
In the case of neutrons, we don't even see their tracks, only the tracks
of their decay products. Yet you presumably believe that neutrons are
factual. You can think of transitional fossils as the decay products of
that continuous lineage you want.
>>>>> Given the pattern of the fossil record, will you consider that
>>>>> the sudden appearance wasn't recorded and the period of stasis
>>>>> is _all_ that was captured in the record? Can you say this
>>>>> isn't possible , given the 96% ( Eldredge's figure) extinction
>>>>> of all species that ever lived?
>>>> No, I would say it's likely. But I would also say it's no reason to
>>>> doubt evolution.
>>>>
>>>>>> You have said that similarity doesn't show relationship.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have only theory to suggest kinship, neither similarity nor
>>>>> does the fossil record. It does not and cannot. Eldredge
>>>>> discusses the discontinuity between species in his book
>>>>> "Reinventing Darwin". And Gould also in both the Panda's
>>>>> Thumb and Punctuated Equalibrium.
>>>> Stasis is a real phenomenon, though it's not documented as well as you
>>>> might imagine. Whether that has anything to do with species is another
>>>> question, and we could discuss that if you like. But this has nothing to
>>>> do with whether evolution happens. Why would you think it did?
>>>>
>>> This is crucial to my questioning. Change over time is the
>>> centerpiece of evolution. Species transforming into a
>>> different species. Stasis is not change. Stasis is absence
>>> of change or miniminal change.
>> I will mention again that we can't identify species in the fossil record.
>> What we have is morphotypes changing into different morphotypes.
>>
> This is about moths changing color, bird beaks etc changing.
Yes, and all the other sorts of changes we see. What was your point?
Hey, I do you the courtesy of responding to your whole posts. I don't
think I go on much longer than you do.
RAM
A very well reasoned response! I'm convinced. You clearly know how to
respond dogmatically.
RAM
Mark VandeWettering
Which must be why we have no need for physics classes.
> But this is not true of evolution. Evolution has to be taught,
> studied and one has to be persuaded by the evidence once presented by
> the teacher or books or TV etc.
Does it seem obvious to you that the same force which causes apples to fall
to earth also governs the motions of the heavenly bodies you see, like the
sun, moon and stars? Really? It seems to me like you are taking a lot on
faith. Orbits? Nobody has even seen Pluto complete one. Seems to me like
it could just be your Newtonist bias that is clouding your judgement.
>> I suspect that your reasons for rejecting one and accepting the others are
>> not rational, and relate to some prejudice on your part. The usual reason
>> for such prejudice is religious. Look at yourself and see if that might be
>> true.
>>
> I'm sure you do. But bias is a two edge sword. Bias can be in favor
> or against.
Yes, which is why we need to actually look at the evidence: to decide who
is biased, and who is not. Are you willing to honestly do so?
>>>>> The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
>>>>> on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
>>>>> valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they refuse question
>>>>> the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_ hense no need
>>>>> to question or doubt.
>>>> Why is evolution different in this respect from any other fact? If we
>>>> consider the existence of atoms to be a fact, does that remove any
>>>> willingness on the part of the followers of atomic theory to consider
>>>> criticism, etc.? Do they refuse to question the validity of atoms?
>>>> Should they?
>>> Is your query about the reality of the atom? The atom is accepted as
>>> fact. Whether or not it is, it's reality is _not_ questioned.
>>
>> Should it be? I'm asking whether there's a difference between evolutionary
>> theory and atomic theory that makes you accept the second but not the
>> first as fact. So far I see no such difference, and you have suggested
>> none.
>>
> Well this one is not as silly as gravity, it's probably true, but I
> have noted that it is called atomic _theory_. But I'm sure it is a
> well established as a fact as anything can be.
As is evolution.
> Since we receive power from atomic reactors,
> the power subs has been used by scientist to create the atomic bomb.
> I accept atomic theory because I have seen it in action and read nothing
> which I consider contrary to the theory. It's interesting that as well as
> atomic theory is established it is still remains theory. It's better
> established as a fact, than is evolution imho.
Yes, but _why_, beyond your own subjective evaluation of it?
You say you accept atomic theory because you have read nothing contrary to it.
Doesn't that seem like an odd way to evaluate it? After all, most of us are
essentially ignorant of the vast majority of what is known to science.
Mark
TomS
<FXOzk.425$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>Aerion wrote:
[...snip...]
>> I think it is a silly corollary. Everyone discovers the effects of gravity
>> on their own. There is no need for one person to "educate" another
>> about this, it's blatantly obvious. But this is not true of evolution.
>> Evolution has to be taught, studied and one has to be persuaded by
>> the evidence once presented by the teacher or books or TV etc.
>
>Several problems with your statement here, all of which have been
>mentioned before:
>
>1. Nobody discovers gravity; they discover that things fall. I was
>referring to Newton's theory of universal gravitation, which nobody knew
>about until Newton came up with it.
And, I may point out, "everybody discovers" that tetrapods are
very much like people. Four limbs, with a head. That's why
we can tell fables in which these animals are like people, and
why we can draw cartoons of them behaving like people. And, to
narrow it down a little more, why people are amused and upset
by monkeys - they are so much like us.
I dare say, that discovery is the real reason for dislike of
evolution. Evolution, as thought of as "we descended from
monkeys". It's just so obvious that we are somehow or other
related to other animals that it is uncomfortable to accept
that reality. Writers have often remarked on how uncomfortable
it is, long before there was a theory of evolution to explain
how it came about that we are so much like monkeys.
So, there is indeed a parallel with Newton, isn't there?
Everybody knows that "heavy things fall"/"we're a lot like
monkeys" - and "Newton's theory of universal gravitation"/
"Darwin's theory of variation and selection" explains that.
And I won't go on any more, tediously, about the parallels,
except that I can't leave out that in Newton's day it was
impossible to directly observe heavy things falling except
near the surface of the earth. Nobody had been to the
moon to see if things fell there, too.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Aerion
called
by my very upset sister a day after this development. I recomended
she talk the principle. If this failed get an lawyer.
Ernest Major
<Aer...@bellsouth.net> writes
So what did you mean when you wrote "He was just a kid, I don't know
that he wasn't just being a smart ass. He was that. But whatever, I
almost cost him. Which really upset his mother.", particularly the "I
almost cost him" bit?
That seems to bear a strong implication that you were at least partly
responsible.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cf4e645e-139f-416e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this
>>> NG
>>> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>>> motivated by creationism".
>>
>
>>OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
>>your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
>>
>Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
>believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact", for the reason
>that whatever is accepted as fact becomes in a very real sense
>sacrosanct, "protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
>questioning. In the case of evolution, it possible to question
>wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
>the _fact_ of evolution itself. If it became a broad based spectrum
>across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
>theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.
Fine. Just answer one simple question: Is gravity a fact?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Aerion, are you going to address this or ignore it?
>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:11:40 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net>:
>>I was careful to explain my reasoning for opposing the pronouncement
>>of "evolution as a fact" which you ignore.
>>The word "fact" effectively removes evolution from any willingness
>>on the part of its followers to consider criticism or even admit that
>>valid criticism can even exist. And certainly they refuse question
>>the validity of evolution itself. Evolution's a _fact_ hense no need
>>to question or doubt.
>Since evolution, in the form of speciation, has been
>observed multiple times, both in the lab and in nature, it
>is undeniably a fact. You seem to be confusing the observed
>fact of evolution with the theory attempting to explain that
>observed fact. The first is fact; the second is well-tested
>scientific theory.
RAM
Don't confuse him with facts.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> I
> > came to some definate positions on the subject.
I'll ask again:
What is your alternative, and what evidence or data do you have to
support it.
Show me your "definite positions on the subject".
I'm still waiting . . . . . . .
Aerion
to do anything.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>
Aerion
On Sep 15, 4:39 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:93bafbd7-4581-4139...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...>
> "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> I haven't attacked anyone. I was challenged to explain why I
> >> doubt that "evolution is a fact". This I have, in small part, done.
> >> It was never my purpose to go beyond explaining my reasoning
> >> at the persistance of some people. I do not solicit agreement.
> >> [snip the rest of it]
>
> > If you had argued that too many people here argue dogma -- the
> > unquestioning acceptance of whatever the prevailing/popular
> > scientific view happens to be right now -- I'd be the first to agree
> > with you. But, instead, it really does seem like you're just trying
> > to get as close as you can to creationism/I.D. without actually
> > invoking it.
>
> I have no antipathy towards anyone who prescribes to creation/ID
> to the belief intelligent design. I don't know enought about it at
> this point, to have an opinion. But I do not cater to those who feel
> anamosity towards this philosophy.
That's nice. (yawn)
One more time --- what is your "alternative viewpoint" and what is the
evidence and data that support it?
>
I don't accept the Genesis account, I question "evolution as a fact",
but as a theory, it is not a problem. There is nothing wrong in
saying, "I don't know".
Aerion
"heekster" <heek...@iwxt.net> wrote in message
news:hm2uc4lco7o3fnn3t...@4ax.com...
Aerion
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrngcu4uf.d...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
> On 2008-09-16, Aerion <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:cf4e645e-139f-416e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on
>>>> this
>>>> NG
>>>> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>>>> motivated by creationism".
>>>
>>
>>>OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
>>>your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
>>>
>> Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
>> believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact", for the reason
>> that whatever is accepted as fact becomes in a very real sense
>> sacrosanct,
>
> Only to those who don't understand what a fact actually is.
>
> As Gould famously said:
>
> "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
> that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I
> suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
> possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
>
> Evolution is a fact. That doesn't mean that it's sacrosanct, it simply
> means that it's confirmed to a degree that makes it perverse not to
> accept it.
>
yet they are not labeled a "fact". Atomic theory, and Germ theory
to mention but two that others have already discussed. They continue
to be called theories. In view of this fact, I suspect calling evolution
a "fact" is for propaganda purposes.
>
>> "protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
>> questioning. In the case of evolution, it possible to question
>> wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
>> the _fact_ of evolution itself.
>
> You actually haven't been able to express any reason for your own doubts
> about evolution. You seem to have some vague misgivings about it,
> but when pressed can't actually elucidate them beyond the idea that
> something about it might be wrong. That's not really very convincing.
>
anything. I was challenged to present some of the reasons for my doubts,
which I have given.
>
>> If it became a broad based spectrum
>> across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
>> theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.
>
> Perhaps you should go ask some physicists to look for apples which
> aren't affected by gravitation. After all, if such caution is good for
> biology, it must be good for physics as well. For instance, we _know_
> that we can't explain the interaction between quantum mechanics and
> gravitation, so something about our understanding of the two is _clearly_
> and _unequivocally_ wrong. Perhaps we should stop teaching physics while
> we sort this conundrum out.
>
because
my nephew informed the teacher that he didn't _believe_ in evolution.
Where have I advocated any such action, rather lack of?
And a further extreme extention of my doubt, is the following comment
made by you.
John Harshman
There is if you actually do know. Wouldn't you agree? Now you may not
know, but the people who have actually studied this sort of thing do
know. If you think we don't really know, you must come up with some
argument to invalidate our knowledge. So far you have not managed such a
thing.
But to clarify. Is it your position that evolution probably gives the
best account we have of earth history? And that you are merely doubting
the degree of certainty in that account?
Even if so, you should be able to consider what the alternative might
be. If not evolution, then what? What is another conceivable explanation
for the data we have? If you can't think of one (and that's probable,
since nobody has ever been able to think of one), isn't that a problem?
[Please try to figure out why you have this intermittent quoting
problem. It makes some of your posts hard to read.]
John Harshman
This is playing with words again. You didn't start out criticizing any
attempt to call evolution a fact. You complained about teaching
evolution as fact. You didn't complain about teaching the nature and
existence of atoms or of pathogenic organisms as fact. But we do.
Despite the names, we teach both atoms and germs as facts. Presumably
you agree with this. So what's wrong with doing the same for evolution?
Again, you seem to be making a distinction for no rational reason.
>>> "protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
>>> questioning. In the case of evolution, it possible to question
>>> wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
>>> the _fact_ of evolution itself.
>> You actually haven't been able to express any reason for your own doubts
>> about evolution. You seem to have some vague misgivings about it,
>> but when pressed can't actually elucidate them beyond the idea that
>> something about it might be wrong. That's not really very convincing.
>>
> I don't mean to be audacious, but I have no interesting convincing you of
> anything. I was challenged to present some of the reasons for my doubts,
> which I have given.
I don't think you've presented your actual reasons, because your actual
reasons would have to make some kind of sense, even if they were wrong.
Instead you've been giving what seem to be excuses.
>>> If it became a broad based spectrum
>>> across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
>>> theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.
>> Perhaps you should go ask some physicists to look for apples which
>> aren't affected by gravitation. After all, if such caution is good for
>> biology, it must be good for physics as well. For instance, we _know_
>> that we can't explain the interaction between quantum mechanics and
>> gravitation, so something about our understanding of the two is _clearly_
>> and _unequivocally_ wrong. Perhaps we should stop teaching physics while
>> we sort this conundrum out.
>>
> Talk about going to the extreme. My initial issue was a failing
> grade, because my nephew informed the teacher that he didn't
> _believe_ in evolution. Where have I advocated any such action,
> rather lack of?
Nowhere. Nobody (almost nobody) takes exception to the idea that your
nephew shouldn't have received a failing grade for failing to believe.
What we don't like is your pronouncement that evolution shouldn't be
taught as fact.
And speaking of overreaction, your notion that calling evolution a fact
would inhibit science is pure hysteria.
Free Lunch
"Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<BJZzk.30688$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
>
>"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:slrngcu4uf.d...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
...
>> Evolution is a fact. That doesn't mean that it's sacrosanct, it simply
>> means that it's confirmed to a degree that makes it perverse not to
>> accept it.
>>
>Ther are scientific that are as well supported as anything is possible,
>yet they are not labeled a "fact". Atomic theory, and Germ theory
>to mention but two that others have already discussed. They continue
>to be called theories. In view of this fact, I suspect calling evolution
>a "fact" is for propaganda purposes.
How amazingly dishonest and/or ignorant can you be? Don't you know there
atoms and germs are real? They are facts?
Mark VandeWettering
Atomic theory is in fact a theory. And Germ theory is a theory too.
And yet the existance of atoms? Yep, facts. Germs? Yep, facts.
Evolutionary theory is still a theory too. And evolution, in precisely
the same way, is a fact.
I'm curious: just who do you think is behind this "evolutionary
propaganda" campaign that you are fantasizing exists? What purpose does
it fufill? What benefit does it bestow on its proponents?
>>> "protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
>>> questioning. In the case of evolution, it possible to question
>>> wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
>>> the _fact_ of evolution itself.
>>
>> You actually haven't been able to express any reason for your own doubts
>> about evolution. You seem to have some vague misgivings about it,
>> but when pressed can't actually elucidate them beyond the idea that
>> something about it might be wrong. That's not really very convincing.
>>
> I don't mean to be audacious, but I have no interesting convincing you of
> anything. I was challenged to present some of the reasons for my doubts,
> which I have given.
No. You haven't given even a single reason. You've given your
rationalizations, but they are ignorant fantasies which have nothing
whatsoever to do with reason.
>>> If it became a broad based spectrum
>>> across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
>>> theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.
>>
>> Perhaps you should go ask some physicists to look for apples which
>> aren't affected by gravitation. After all, if such caution is good for
>> biology, it must be good for physics as well. For instance, we _know_
>> that we can't explain the interaction between quantum mechanics and
>> gravitation, so something about our understanding of the two is _clearly_
>> and _unequivocally_ wrong. Perhaps we should stop teaching physics while
>> we sort this conundrum out.
>>
> Talk about going to the extreme.
This isn't extreme. As I said, we _know_ that something deeply
mysterious remains in physics. We simply don't understand how
gravitation and quantum mechanics can be unified. There isn't
any question about that: everyone in physics knows this. Given
that these basic facts about physics are currently absolutely
inexplicable, perhaps we should just consider that apples
might float away from the earth tomorrow.
> My initial issue was a failing grade, because my nephew informed the
> teacher that he didn't _believe_ in evolution. Where have I advocated
> any such action, rather lack of?
If your newphew's science teacher did that, his teacher was an ass. But
that doesn't mean that evolution isn't a fact.
> And a further extreme extention of my doubt, is the following comment
> made by you.
>>
>> I'll join you on top of the Tower of Pisa so we can start dropping balls
>> again.
>>
>> Mark
Mark
Steven L.
There is a distinction between the fact of germs vs. the "germ theory"
[of disease].
The fact of germs was known since at least van Leeuwenhoek first looked
through a microscope and said "Hey, look at those!"
The germ theory of disease, that some of these germs multiplied and were
the causative agent of infectious disease, is a theory. Because we
usually don't sit and watch the infection spreading by direct
observation of the germs leaping from host to host. Instead, it's
confirmed through hypothesis and experiment by Pasteur, Koch, etc.
Likewise, there is a distinction between the fact of evolution and
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
The fact of evolution, that ancient species change into less ancient
species, was known before Darwin. That's a fact, unless you can find
living dromeaosaurs somewhere on Earth today.
The theory of evolution by natural selection, that there is a mechanism
by which evolution occurs, is a theory.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Aerion
fact; only to learn later this was wrong. So, how can one distinguish
between really knowing and thinking he knows something to be factual?
>
> But to clarify. Is it your position that evolution probably gives the best
> account we have of earth history? And that you are merely doubting the
> degree of certainty in that account?
>
possible, maybe even likely, it's that I do not think it rises to the level
of a law, i.e. fact.
>
> Even if so, you should be able to consider what the alternative might be.
> If not evolution, then what?
of life, unknowable.
>
What is another conceivable explanation
> for the data we have? If you can't think of one (and that's probable,
> since nobody has ever been able to think of one), isn't that a problem?
>
have attempted in different ways to explain to me where I'm
wrong, discredit the problem or explain it away.
Some have suggested that my writers would not agree with my
conclusions. I'm sure this is true, but I believe my conclusions are
more in keeping with the evidence if _taken _at_face_ value_.
Others have tried to discredit me, by charges of ignorant, bias,
uneducated etc.
My doubts are, in a way, like bad dreams, they it keep coming back.
>
> [Please try to figure out why you have this intermittent quoting problem.
> It makes some of your posts hard to read.]
>
>
[snip]
AC
Change in gene frequency is observed. Unless you're now going to declare
that observations (and the numerous times it has been repeated) the product
of either mistakes or of dishonesty, then I would suggest that evolution is
indeed a fact.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
John Harshman
By the quality of the evidence and arguments favoring that fact? If your
claim is that we can never know what's true, you are an intellectual
nihilist, and there's no point in talking about facts with you. If you
think we can know what's true, well, how would *you* go about it?
>> But to clarify. Is it your position that evolution probably gives the best
>> account we have of earth history? And that you are merely doubting the
>> degree of certainty in that account?
>>
> I haven't denied the possibility that it may have happened: I think it is
> possible, maybe even likely,
Not quite an answer to my questions. Why don't you ever quite answer my
questions?
> it's that I do not think it rises to the level
> of a law, i.e. fact.
Why don't you think so? (Ditch the "law" language. Laws and facts are
not the same, and it just muddies the discussion.)
>> Even if so, you should be able to consider what the alternative might be.
>> If not evolution, then what?
> I haven't a clue. Maybe it's like before the big bang or the exact origin
> of life, unknowable.
Or maybe it isn't. Perhaps if you looked at the evidence you might be
able to reach a conclusion. Do you think that's possible?
>> What is another conceivable explanation
>> for the data we have? If you can't think of one (and that's probable,
>> since nobody has ever been able to think of one), isn't that a problem?
>>
> I pointed out before, a primary problem I have. You and others
> have attempted in different ways to explain to me where I'm
> wrong, discredit the problem or explain it away.
> Some have suggested that my writers would not agree with my
> conclusions. I'm sure this is true, but I believe my conclusions are
> more in keeping with the evidence if _taken _at_face_ value_.
> Others have tried to discredit me, by charges of ignorant, bias,
> uneducated etc.
> My doubts are, in a way, like bad dreams, they it keep coming back.
You're talking, I suppose, about the gaps in the fossil record. What's
wrong with the arguments that refute that? Let me recap:
1. The fossil record is fragmentary and episodic. That means that most
of the time and space of earth history, hence most of the potential
fossils, was not preserved. That's enough to account for the gaps.
2. Stasis is apparently common, but that just means that transformations
are also episodic. We know from observing modern populations that
natural selection causes changes that may be slow in humans terms but
would be instantaneous in terms of the geologic record. That is, gradual
change looks abrupt if you're looking at fossils.
3. Regardless of gaps, the temporal pattern of intermediate fossils and,
more generally, changes in the biota from one era to another, are
inexplicable without evolution.
4. Fossils are *not* the major evidence for common descent. That
evidence comes from the nested hierarchy of extant species, especially
visible in their genomes. You have ignored this evidence every time it's
been brought up.
You apparently want to see a continuous movie of a fish changing into a
frog before you are willing to accept common descent as fact. That's not
going to happen. But this is a standard of evidence far beyond what
you're willing to accept in other areas. Why force evolution, and
nothing else, to adhere to this impossible standard? We still don't know
the reason for that.
>> [Please try to figure out why you have this intermittent quoting problem.
>> It makes some of your posts hard to read.]
>>
> I'm not sure I know what you mean by "intermittent quoting".
I mean the intermittent -- not in every post -- problem you have with
what you write being indistinguishable from the previous post. Notice,
above that my sentence beginning "One more time..." is set off by >>>,
and that your sentence below it beginning "I don't accept..." is set off
the same way. That's because your newsreader should have put a > in to
separate my post from yours, and it didn't.
Ernest Major
<Aer...@bellsouth.net> writes
but intermittent (quoting problem). A significant proportion of you
posts don't distinguish between your material and the previous poster's
material.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Stockwell
> "Mark VandeWettering" <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote in message
We have only your word that your nephew was failed because
he said he didn't "believe in evolution". Usually grades are
determined
by answers on quizzes and on homework problems. If your
nephew was using his disbelief in evolution as the basis for incorrect
answers on a test or a homework problem, then basically he
is failing because he gave the wrong anwsers and not because
of his belief. I can conceive of two scenarios. One, he is a self-
appointed
religious "martyr" quoting creationists babble as his responses on
a test or on homework. In that case, he should go down in flames
gracefully and accept his failing grade as the martyr he wants to
be, or two, he is a crappy student who is trying to play the
religion card as a way of saving his bacon.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
And another scientific illiterate bites the dust...
hersheyh
wrote:
> Aerion wrote:
> > "Mark VandeWettering" <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Hell. I don't "believe" in evolution eiher. I think that the
evidence so strongly supports evolution that it is foolish not to
accept that evidence unless someone has an idea better supported by
empirical evidence than evolution. That someone has a gut distrust or
dislike of evolution is not evidence.
Earle Jones
<7a066c4d-74af-4d59...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
John Stockwell <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
"Workers of the world, unite.
You have nothing to lose but your balls...
...and chains."
earle
*
Cory Albrecht
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cf4e645e-139f-416e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this
>>> NG
>>> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>>> motivated by creationism".
>
>> OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
>> your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
>>
> Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
> believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact", for the reason
You never responded to me before, so I am going to ask you again.
When you hold a book out an let it go, it drops to the floor. That is
one of the facts of gravity, yes? That the Earth orbits the Sun is
another fact of gravity, yes?
Physicists and cosmologists have a model which describes those facts
(and many others!) and explains why they happen. It's call the Theory of
General Relativity, but it could just as easily be called the Theory of
Gravity because that's what it deals with. The theory also predicts
other facts which, when confirmed/discovered, become yet more supporting
facts of the theory. One successful prediction of this theory was the
the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury.
So we have the facts of gravity and the theory of gravity and they are
obviously different (though related) things, yes?
Evolution is similar.
We have the facts of evolution, like the speciation events that have
been observed, transitional fossils like Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx or
Morganucodon, how the human #2 chromosome is a fusion of two other
chromosomes and correlates exactly to two separate chimpanzee
chromosomes, or the corroborating dual nested hierarchies of morphology
and genetic analysis.
Have a model which describes those facts (and many others!) and explains
how they happen. It's called the Theory of Evolution. The theory also
predicts other facts which, when confirmed/discovered, become yet more
supporting facts of the theory. One successful prediction of this theory
was that transitional fossils would be found.
So we have the facts of evolution and the theory of evolution. Do you
see the difference between the two?
Now, wwhat, exactly, are your objections to the theory of evolution?
> that whatever is accepted as fact becomes in a very real sense
> sacrosanct, "protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
Individual scientists certainly have their favourite personal theories
in biology just as they do in physics or cosmology, but that does not
mean those theories become protected and above questioning.
If that's the only reason that you don't like the theory of evolution,
then I hope that you also don't like general relativity because I am
sure that a lot of physicists would laugh at someone for questioning it
because of all the evidence behind it.
Oh, and did you know that there is more evidence behind the theory of
evolution than there is behind general relativity? The modern synthesis
of Darwin's natural selection and common descent plus Mendel's genetics
has become one of of not the most strong supported theory in modern science.
> questioning. In the case of evolution, it possible to question
> wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
> the _fact_ of evolution itself. If it became a broad based spectrum
> across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
> theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.
Theories never become facts. They become so strongly supported by the
facts that it would be simple stubbornness to not accept the theory -
"beyond a reasonable doubt" as one might say in a court of law.
That you think that a theory becomes a fact shows that perhaps you don't
really understand how science works as well as you think you do.
What is your beef with the theory of evolution?
John Harshman
[snip]
> Theories never become facts. They become so strongly supported by the
> facts that it would be simple stubbornness to not accept the theory -
> "beyond a reasonable doubt" as one might say in a court of law.
>
> That you think that a theory becomes a fact shows that perhaps you don't
> really understand how science works as well as you think you do.
Me too. I don't understand how science works as well as I think I do,
nor did S. J. Gould. Because we both think/thought that facts are
particularly well supported theories.
Aerion
much we can know for an absolute fact.
>
>>> But to clarify. Is it your position that evolution probably gives the
>>> best account we have of earth history? And that you are merely doubting
>>> the degree of certainty in that account?
>>>
>> I haven't denied the possibility that it may have happened: I think it is
>> possible, maybe even likely,
>
> Not quite an answer to my questions. Why don't you ever quite answer my
> questions?
>
>
>> it's that I do not think it rises to the level
>> of a law, i.e. fact.
>
> Why don't you think so? (Ditch the "law" language. Laws and facts are not
> the same, and it just muddies the discussion.)
>
>>> Even if so, you should be able to consider what the alternative might
>>> be. If not evolution, then what?
>> I haven't a clue. Maybe it's like before the big bang or the exact origin
>> of life, unknowable.
>
> Or maybe it isn't. Perhaps if you looked at the evidence you might be able
> to reach a conclusion. Do you think that's possible?
>
neither mentioned stasis.
>
>>> What is another conceivable explanation
>>> for the data we have? If you can't think of one (and that's probable,
>>> since nobody has ever been able to think of one), isn't that a problem?
>>>
>> I pointed out before, a primary problem I have. You and others
>> have attempted in different ways to explain to me where I'm
>> wrong, discredit the problem or explain it away.
>> Some have suggested that my writers would not agree with my
>> conclusions. I'm sure this is true, but I believe my conclusions are
>> more in keeping with the evidence if _taken _at_face_ value_.
>> Others have tried to discredit me, by charges of ignorant, bias,
>> uneducated etc.
>> My doubts are, in a way, like bad dreams, they it keep coming back.
>
> You're talking, I suppose, about the gaps in the fossil record.
>
>
What's
> wrong with the arguments that refute that? Let me recap:
>
> 1. The fossil record is fragmentary and episodic. That means that most of
> the time and space of earth history, hence most of the potential fossils,
> was not preserved. That's enough to account for the gaps.
>
stasis, over long periods then sudden disappearance from the record
is the norm.
>
> 2. Stasis is apparently common, but that just means that transformations
> are also episodic. We know from observing modern populations that natural
> selection causes changes that may be slow in humans terms but would be
> instantaneous in terms of the geologic record. That is, gradual change
> looks abrupt if you're looking at fossils.
>
they become extinct as when they are first seen in the record.
>
> 3. Regardless of gaps, the temporal pattern of intermediate fossils and,
> more generally, changes in the biota from one era to another, are
> inexplicable without evolution.
>
>
> 4. Fossils are *not* the major evidence for common descent. That evidence
> comes from the nested hierarchy of extant species, especially visible in
> their genomes. You have ignored this evidence every time it's been brought
> up.
>
evidence _must_ be documented from over the past, covering 4 billion
years. If this cannot be done, then other evidences are subject to
intrepretation within the overarching paradigm.
>
> You apparently want to see a continuous movie of a fish changing into a
> frog before you are willing to accept common descent as fact. That's not
> going to happen. But this is a standard of evidence far beyond what you're
> willing to accept in other areas. Why force evolution, and nothing else,
> to adhere to this impossible standard? We still don't know the reason for
> that.
>
theory and the big bang. With evolution, which is about change, we have
the universal pattern of sudden appearance, stasis and extinction and I
have not mentioned "living fossils", which is stasis.
>
>>> [Please try to figure out why you have this intermittent quoting
>>> problem. It makes some of your posts hard to read.]
>>>
>> I'm not sure I know what you mean by "intermittent quoting".
>
> I mean the intermittent -- not in every post -- problem you have with what
> you write being indistinguishable from the previous post. Notice, above
> that my sentence beginning "One more time..." is set off by >>>, and that
> your sentence below it beginning "I don't accept..." is set off the same
> way. That's because your newsreader should have put a > in to separate my
> post from yours, and it didn't.
>
John Harshman
I believe the sticking point here is "absolute". I would say there's
nothing we can know for an absolute fact, other than "cogito ergo sum".
So we must be content with facts that are not quite absolute, but are
close enough for all practical purposes.
>>>> But to clarify. Is it your position that evolution probably gives the
>>>> best account we have of earth history? And that you are merely doubting
>>>> the degree of certainty in that account?
>>>>
>>> I haven't denied the possibility that it may have happened: I think it is
>>> possible, maybe even likely,
>> Not quite an answer to my questions. Why don't you ever quite answer my
>> questions?
>>
> Yes it is a matter of degree of certainity.
Thank you.
>>> it's that I do not think it rises to the level
>>> of a law, i.e. fact.
>> Why don't you think so? (Ditch the "law" language. Laws and facts are not
>> the same, and it just muddies the discussion.)
>>
>>>> Even if so, you should be able to consider what the alternative might
>>>> be. If not evolution, then what?
>>> I haven't a clue. Maybe it's like before the big bang or the exact origin
>>> of life, unknowable.
>> Or maybe it isn't. Perhaps if you looked at the evidence you might be able
>> to reach a conclusion. Do you think that's possible?
>>
> I have looked at the evidence. I just searched through two biology textbooks
> neither mentioned stasis.
Is there supposed to be some logical connection between those two
sentences? Are you perhaps proposing some conspiracy among textbook
writers to hide the true shakiness of evolution? Stasis has little to do
with the evidence for common descent.
>>>> What is another conceivable explanation
>>>> for the data we have? If you can't think of one (and that's probable,
>>>> since nobody has ever been able to think of one), isn't that a problem?
>>>>
>>> I pointed out before, a primary problem I have. You and others
>>> have attempted in different ways to explain to me where I'm
>>> wrong, discredit the problem or explain it away.
>>> Some have suggested that my writers would not agree with my
>>> conclusions. I'm sure this is true, but I believe my conclusions are
>>> more in keeping with the evidence if _taken _at_face_ value_.
>>> Others have tried to discredit me, by charges of ignorant, bias,
>>> uneducated etc.
>>> My doubts are, in a way, like bad dreams, they it keep coming back.
>> You're talking, I suppose, about the gaps in the fossil record.
>>
> I have not mentioned anything about gaps.
Yes you have. You said that the average gap between transitional fossils
between dinosaurs and birds was 5+ million years, and that this was
too large to convince you it was a transitional sequence. Now do you
remember?
>> What's
>> wrong with the arguments that refute that? Let me recap:
>>
>> 1. The fossil record is fragmentary and episodic. That means that most of
>> the time and space of earth history, hence most of the potential fossils,
>> was not preserved. That's enough to account for the gaps.
>>
> The fossil record is sufficently compelete to show that abrupt appearance,
> stasis, over long periods then sudden disappearance from the record
> is the norm.
No, in fact it isn't. Over half of all dinosaur genera are known from a
single specimen only. Try showing stasis, abrupt appearance, etc. with a
single specimen. Very few vertebrate species are known from enough time
horizons to present a good demonstration of stasis. You generally have
to go to some marine invertebrate, like a snail, to investigate stasis,
and even there fossil sequences of the requisite completeness are not
all that common. And even there, geographic sampling is always a big
question.
>> 2. Stasis is apparently common, but that just means that transformations
>> are also episodic. We know from observing modern populations that natural
>> selection causes changes that may be slow in humans terms but would be
>> instantaneous in terms of the geologic record. That is, gradual change
>> looks abrupt if you're looking at fossils.
>>
> The problem is the fossil forms usually look much the same when
> they become extinct as when they are first seen in the record.
Yes, that's because transformations are too fast to be visible. After
the transformation happens we call it a new species, which has abruptly
appeared.
>> 3. Regardless of gaps, the temporal pattern of intermediate fossils and,
>> more generally, changes in the biota from one era to another, are
>> inexplicable without evolution.
>>
> I'm hard pressed to recognize intermediate fossils as ancestory.
As has been pointed out to you several times, it's impossible to
recognize them as ancestral, even if they are. And it doesn't matter
whether they're directly ancestral, only that they make that pattern.
>> 4. Fossils are *not* the major evidence for common descent. That evidence
>> comes from the nested hierarchy of extant species, especially visible in
>> their genomes. You have ignored this evidence every time it's been brought
>> up.
>>
> If all life evolved from bacteria or bacteria like organisms, the empirical
> evidence _must_ be documented from over the past, covering 4 billion
> years. If this cannot be done, then other evidences are subject to
> intrepretation within the overarching paradigm.
Why would that be? Why pick one sort of evidence and elevate it to
primacy when we can get much better information from another sort? And
of course the fossil evidence is there, just not as completely as you
would like.
>> You apparently want to see a continuous movie of a fish changing into a
>> frog before you are willing to accept common descent as fact. That's not
>> going to happen. But this is a standard of evidence far beyond what you're
>> willing to accept in other areas. Why force evolution, and nothing else,
>> to adhere to this impossible standard? We still don't know the reason for
>> that.
>>
> As I've stated before, I have no reason to doubt the laws of gravity, atomic
> theory and the big bang. With evolution, which is about change, we have
> the universal pattern of sudden appearance, stasis and extinction and I
> have not mentioned "living fossils", which is stasis.
Actually, "living fossils" aren't stasis, which is a condition involving
species, not higher groups, but never mind. Your reasons to doubt
evolution are not rational. You might as well say that if atoms
acctually existed we should be able to see them bouncing around, and
their lack of visibility is enough reason to doubt them. You're asking
for data that we can't reasonably be expected to have, and counting its
absence as an objection, while ignoring all the data we do have.
This is what makes me suspect you have reasons for rejecting evolution
that you have not expressed so far. You are predisposed to reject
evolution, but not to reject the atomic theory, germ theory, etc. Now
the usual reason for this is religious. People want reality to conform
to Genesis, or they think evolution denies God, or they dislike the idea
of being related to apes or slime mold. Are you sure you don't have any
of those reasons?
>>>> [Please try to figure out why you have this intermittent quoting
>>>> problem. It makes some of your posts hard to read.]
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure I know what you mean by "intermittent quoting".
>> I mean the intermittent -- not in every post -- problem you have with what
>> you write being indistinguishable from the previous post. Notice, above
>> that my sentence beginning "One more time..." is set off by >>>, and that
>> your sentence below it beginning "I don't accept..." is set off the same
>> way. That's because your newsreader should have put a > in to separate my
>> post from yours, and it didn't.
>>
> I've watched for this. I think I correted it.
If you have, it's only within the past two days.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
So evolution is a fact supported by facts, and there's no
"Theory of Evolution"? Sorry, but that's why I dislike this
interpretation, and prefer to restrict "fact" to observed
reality and "theory" to the tested explanation of that
observation, a distinction which seems to crop up here quite
frequently, with damn near everyone telling the fundies who
complain that "evolution is only a theory" that evolution is
both a fact (the observations) and a theory (the
explanation). No matter how well-tested, a theory is
*always* subject to modification; I'd argue that if a fact
needs to be modified it was never a fact in the first place.
Just my 20 mills, and IMHO...
John Harshman
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:09:30 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
>
>> Cory Albrecht wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Theories never become facts. They become so strongly supported by the
>>> facts that it would be simple stubbornness to not accept the theory -
>>> "beyond a reasonable doubt" as one might say in a court of law.
>>>
>>> That you think that a theory becomes a fact shows that perhaps you don't
>>> really understand how science works as well as you think you do.
>> Me too. I don't understand how science works as well as I think I do,
>> nor did S. J. Gould. Because we both think/thought that facts are
>> particularly well supported theories.
>
> So evolution is a fact supported by facts, and there's no
> "Theory of Evolution"?
Of course there's a theory of evolution. In fact (!) there are many of
them. If a fact is a well-supported theory, it doesn't stop being a
theory when it becomes a fact. In fact, it's a better theory.
> Sorry, but that's why I dislike this
> interpretation, and prefer to restrict "fact" to observed
> reality and "theory" to the tested explanation of that
> observation, a distinction which seems to crop up here quite
> frequently, with damn near everyone telling the fundies who
> complain that "evolution is only a theory" that evolution is
> both a fact (the observations) and a theory (the
> explanation).
Yes, I know people say that. But I don't think it makes sense. The
difference between "observations" and "theories" is imaginary. Every
observation is a sort of theory. Some observations are very complex
theories; DNA sequences, for example. Huge amounts of theory behind
every sequenced base, including physics, chemistry, and biology.
> No matter how well-tested, a theory is
> *always* subject to modification; I'd argue that if a fact
> needs to be modified it was never a fact in the first place.
So a fact can never be known to be a fact, in your world. All we know is
that it hasn't needed to be modified *so far*. Of course I would claim
that the stronger the support a theory has, the less likely it will turn
out not to be a fact.
Aerion
> Aerion wrote:
>> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:K1dAk.463$pr6...@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> Aerion wrote:
>>>> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:2LZzk.373$Ei5...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>>> Aerion wrote:>>>
>>>>> Even if so, you should be able to consider what the alternative might
>>>>> be. If not evolution, then what?
>>>> I haven't a clue. Maybe it's like before the big bang or the exact
>>>> origin
>>>> of life, unknowable.
>>> Or maybe it isn't. Perhaps if you looked at the evidence you might be
>>> able
>>> to reach a conclusion. Do you think that's possible?
>>>
>> I have looked at the evidence. I just searched through two biology
>> textbooks
>> neither mentioned stasis.
>
> Is there supposed to be some logical connection between those two
> sentences? Are you perhaps proposing some conspiracy among textbook
> writers to hide the true shakiness of evolution? Stasis has little to do
> with the evidence for common descent.
>
form was probematical for Darwin. But Darwin blamed an imperfect
fossil record. But the appearance of stasis is well represented in the
record. My problem is the fact that stasis means stable, constant
This is the exact opposite of change. This was the world Darwin
found himself, therefore, he found it necessary to mitigate the
reality of stasis. Darwin's theory advocated shange.
>
>
>>>>> What is another conceivable explanation
>>>>> for the data we have? If you can't think of one (and that's probable,
>>>>> since nobody has ever been able to think of one), isn't that a
>>>>> problem?
>>>>>
>>>> I pointed out before, a primary problem I have. You and others
>>>> have attempted in different ways to explain to me where I'm
>>>> wrong, discredit the problem or explain it away.
>>>> Some have suggested that my writers would not agree with my
>>>> conclusions. I'm sure this is true, but I believe my conclusions are
>>>> more in keeping with the evidence if _taken _at_face_ value_.
>>>> Others have tried to discredit me, by charges of ignorant, bias,
>>>> uneducated etc.
>>>> My doubts are, in a way, like bad dreams, they it keep coming back.
>>> You're talking, I suppose, about the gaps in the fossil record.
>>>
>> I have not mentioned anything about gaps.
>
> Yes you have. You said that the average gap between transitional fossils
> between dinosaurs and birds was 5+ million years, and that this was too
> large to convince you it was a transitional sequence. Now do you remember?
>
of years. I thought of gaps more or less as absence of a chain of forms
between species, not necessarily in terms of years. I suppose it is the same
thing.
>
>>> What's
>>> wrong with the arguments that refute that? Let me recap:
>>>
>>> 1. The fossil record is fragmentary and episodic. That means that most
>>> of
>>> the time and space of earth history, hence most of the potential
>>> fossils,
>>> was not preserved. That's enough to account for the gaps.
>>>
>> stasis, over long periods then sudden disappearance from the record
>> is the norm.
>
> No, in fact it isn't.
>
his sixth edition, and then to ussuage the criticism of Huxley and
paleontoloigist
of his time.
>
Over half of all dinosaur genera are known from a
> single specimen only. Try showing stasis, abrupt appearance, etc. with a
> single specimen. Very few vertebrate species are known from enough time
> horizons to present a good demonstration of stasis. You generally have to
> go to some marine invertebrate, like a snail, to investigate stasis, and
> even there fossil sequences of the requisite completeness are not all that
> common. And even there, geographic sampling is always a big question.
>
>>> 2. Stasis is apparently common, but that just means that transformations
>>> are also episodic. We know from observing modern populations that
>>> natural
>>> selection causes changes that may be slow in humans terms but would be
>>> instantaneous in terms of the geologic record. That is, gradual change
>>> looks abrupt if you're looking at fossils.
>>>
>> The problem is the fossil forms usually look much the same when
>> they become extinct as when they are first seen in the record.
>
> Yes, that's because transformations are too fast to be visible. After the
> transformation happens we call it a new species, which has abruptly
> appeared.
>
>
>>> 3. Regardless of gaps, the temporal pattern of intermediate fossils and,
>>> more generally, changes in the biota from one era to another, are
>>> inexplicable without evolution.
>>>
>> I'm hard pressed to recognize intermediate fossils as ancestory.
>
> As has been pointed out to you several times, it's impossible to recognize
> them as ancestral, even if they are. And it doesn't matter whether they're
> directly ancestral, only that they make that pattern.
>
>
>>> 4. Fossils are *not* the major evidence for common descent. That
>>> evidence
>>> comes from the nested hierarchy of extant species, especially visible in
>>> their genomes. You have ignored this evidence every time it's been
>>> brought
>>> up.
>>>
>> If all life evolved from bacteria or bacteria like organisms, the
>> empirical
>> evidence _must_ be documented from over the past, covering 4 billion
>> years. If this cannot be done, then other evidences are subject to
>> intrepretation within the overarching paradigm.
>
> Why would that be? Why pick one sort of evidence and elevate it to primacy
> when we can get much better information from another sort? And of course
> the fossil evidence is there, just not as completely as you would like.
>
fossil record. If it isn't, whatever evidence, real or imagionary is without
a foundation.
Whether or not you agree, my reasons are derived from scientific
pronouncments solely. No where have I appealed to Genesis, God
or anything else. You may suspect my motives, but that's besides the
point. My discussion has been strictly based upon the works of
reputable scientist.
Aerion
"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a066c4d-74af-4d59...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
5 questions and still make 100. He ended up answering 94 questions
correctly.
Aerion
"Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49gbq5x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
> Aerion wrote, on 2008-09-15 21:25:
>> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:cf4e645e-139f-416e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on
>>>> this
>>>> NG
>>>> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>>>> motivated by creationism".
>>
>>> OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
>>> your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
>>>
>> Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
>> believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact", for the reason
>
> You never responded to me before, so I am going to ask you again.
>
I've replied to several people several times. Where do you all get these
same questions? Is there a store of questions somewhere, that everyone
has access?
>
> When you hold a book out an let it go, it drops to the floor. That is
> one of the facts of gravity, yes? That the Earth orbits the Sun is
> another fact of gravity, yes?
>
doubt gravity is a fact.
Stuart
> "Cory Albrecht" <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:49gbq5x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
>
> > Aerion wrote, on 2008-09-15 21:25:
> >> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:cf4e645e-139f-416e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on
> >>>> this
> >>>> NG
> >>>> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
> >>>> motivated by creationism".
>
> >>> OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
> >>> your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
>
> >> Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
> >> believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact", for the reason
>
> > You never responded to me before, so I am going to ask you again.
>
> This same question has been asked several times by different respondants.
> I've replied to several people several times. Where do you all get these
> same questions? Is there a store of questions somewhere, that everyone
> has access?
>
> > When you hold a book out an let it go, it drops to the floor. That is
> > one of the facts of gravity, yes? That the Earth orbits the Sun is
> > another fact of gravity, yes?
>
> As I've pointed out, unlike "evolution as a fact", I have no reason to
> doubt gravity is a fact.
>
I have no reason to doubt evolution is a fact.
Life on Earth was far different in the Cambrian than it is today.
Evolution happened.
How it happened is the subject of a scientific theory. Likewise, when
I drop something it falls.
How it falls is the subject of a scientific theory.
Once again, you have failed to buttress your skepticism with a
scientific theory.
>
>
>
> > What is your beef with the theory of evolution?
>
> Stasis
We've already established that you really don't understand the
biological
context of that term.
If that is the basis of your skepticism, you have no basis.
Stuart
chris thompson
And on top of this, the theory of evolution seems, if not stronger, at
least more applicable than germ theory. We now know of diseases not
caused by microorganisms (most lung cancers, atherosclerosis, insulin-
dependent diabetes mellitus) but we have not yet found any organism
that didn't evolve.
Chris
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
TomS
<AnWAk.872$Ws1...@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:09:30 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
>>
>>> Cory Albrecht wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Theories never become facts. They become so strongly supported by the
>>>> facts that it would be simple stubbornness to not accept the theory -
>>>> "beyond a reasonable doubt" as one might say in a court of law.
>>>>
>>>> That you think that a theory becomes a fact shows that perhaps you don't
>>>> really understand how science works as well as you think you do.
>>> Me too. I don't understand how science works as well as I think I do,
>>> nor did S. J. Gould. Because we both think/thought that facts are
>>> particularly well supported theories.
>>
>> So evolution is a fact supported by facts, and there's no
>> "Theory of Evolution"?
>
>Of course there's a theory of evolution. In fact (!) there are many of
>them. If a fact is a well-supported theory, it doesn't stop being a
>theory when it becomes a fact. In fact, it's a better theory.
I know that I am going against the view of many well-informed
people, but ...
To speak of a "theory of X" is *not* to say that X is a theory.
For example: The theory of flight, the theory of the earth, the
theory of music, the theory of everything.
Evolution is something that happens in the world of life. It is
a fact that evolution happens. I wouldn't complain too much about
saying that "evolution is a fact". (It does sound strange to me,
though, to say that "flight is a fact", "the earth is a fact", ...)
A theory of evolution is a theory which involves evolution as a
factor, or a theory which is about evolution.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cf4e645e-139f-416e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on this
>>> NG
>>> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>>> motivated by creationism".
>>
>
>>OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
>>your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
>>
>Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
>believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact",
when will you get it? Evolution is a fact, the ToE is the scientific
theory that explains it.
> for the reason
>that whatever is accepted as fact becomes in a very real sense
>sacrosanct, "protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
>questioning.
By all means question the ToE, that is what science does all the time.
But questioning evolution itself is like questioning gravity.
> In the case of evolution, it possible to question
>wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
>the _fact_ of evolution itself. If it became a broad based spectrum
>across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
>theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.
It hasn't done over the last 150 years.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:slrngcu4uf.d...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
>> On 2008-09-16, Aerion <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cf4e645e-139f-416e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 12, 7:04 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I find it dfficult to understand this utter obsession many people on
>>>>> this
>>>>> NG
>>>>> has with labeling anyone who has a different viewpoint "as being
>>>>> motivated by creationism".
>>>>
>>>
>>>>OK, I'll play along. What's your "different viewpoint", and what's
>>>>your evidence in favor of it, whatever it might be.
>>>>
>>> Evolution is a theory a logical, reasonable theory, but I do not
>>> believe it legimate to pronounce "evolution a fact", for the reason
>>> that whatever is accepted as fact becomes in a very real sense
>>> sacrosanct,
>>
>> Only to those who don't understand what a fact actually is.
>>
>> As Gould famously said:
>>
>> "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
>> that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I
>> suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
>> possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
>>
>> Evolution is a fact. That doesn't mean that it's sacrosanct, it simply
>> means that it's confirmed to a degree that makes it perverse not to
>> accept it.
>>
>Ther are scientific that are as well supported as anything is possible,
>yet they are not labeled a "fact". Atomic theory, and Germ theory
>to mention but two that others have already discussed. They continue
>to be called theories. In view of this fact, I suspect calling evolution
>a "fact" is for propaganda purposes.
I suggest you take the time to learn exactly what the word "theory"
means in science. At the moment your ignorance of its meaning leads to
you making foolish statements like the one above.
> >
>>> "protected", will not lend itself to be subjected to
>>> questioning. In the case of evolution, it possible to question
>>> wheather or not some ancillary feature of evolution, but not
>>> the _fact_ of evolution itself.
>>
>> You actually haven't been able to express any reason for your own doubts
>> about evolution. You seem to have some vague misgivings about it,
>> but when pressed can't actually elucidate them beyond the idea that
>> something about it might be wrong. That's not really very convincing.
>>
>I don't mean to be audacious, but I have no interesting convincing you of
>anything. I was challenged to present some of the reasons for my doubts,
>which I have given.
But you haven't. That is the problem. You just keep playing with
words.
>>
>>> If it became a broad based spectrum
>>> across all science, to pronounce every broadly supported
>>> theorys a fact, it would inhibit further development is science.
>>
>> Perhaps you should go ask some physicists to look for apples which
>> aren't affected by gravitation. After all, if such caution is good for
>> biology, it must be good for physics as well. For instance, we _know_
>> that we can't explain the interaction between quantum mechanics and
>> gravitation, so something about our understanding of the two is _clearly_
>> and _unequivocally_ wrong. Perhaps we should stop teaching physics while
>> we sort this conundrum out.
>>
>Talk about going to the extreme. My initial issue was a failing grade,
>because
>my nephew informed the teacher that he didn't _believe_ in evolution.
And is so doing showed that he had not learnt from his teacher.
>Where have I advocated any such action, rather lack of?
>
>And a further extreme extention of my doubt, is the following comment
>made by you.
>>
>> I'll join you on top of the Tower of Pisa so we can start dropping balls
>> again.
>>
>> Mark
>>
What is your problem with that?
--
Bob.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
You have no reason to doubt that evolution is a fact. You have a
religious prejudice against it, nothing else.
...
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>
A question from 150 years ago that has been looked into and understood
by scientists.
> But Darwin blamed an imperfect
>fossil record. But the appearance of stasis is well represented in the
>record. My problem is the fact that stasis means stable, constant
Not exactly. Yes, there is environmental pressure for stability at
times, but there is also environmental pressure for change at times.
Genes, on the other hand tend to continue their imperfect replication,
allowing for the chance that either environmental pressure will be met
by the population.
>This is the exact opposite of change. This was the world Darwin
>found himself, therefore, he found it necessary to mitigate the
>reality of stasis. Darwin's theory advocated shange.
Not necessarily. Unneeded change will be filtered out by natural
selection.
...
>>> I have not mentioned anything about gaps.
>>
>> Yes you have. You said that the average gap between transitional fossils
>> between dinosaurs and birds was 5+ million years, and that this was too
>> large to convince you it was a transitional sequence. Now do you remember?
>>
>Yes, you are right. I did forget. But, above, I was thinking more in terms
>of years. I thought of gaps more or less as absence of a chain of forms
>between species, not necessarily in terms of years. I suppose it is the same
>thing.
But you need to bring in other threads of evidence. If we didn't have
any genetic or other evidence, if we had only fossils, your criticism
might be worth following up, which is what scientists did -- they
discovered other evidence that filled in the blanks, primarily genetic
evidence.
>>>> What's
>>>> wrong with the arguments that refute that? Let me recap:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The fossil record is fragmentary and episodic. That means that most
>>>> of
>>>> the time and space of earth history, hence most of the potential
>>>> fossils,
>>>> was not preserved. That's enough to account for the gaps.
>>>>
>>> The fossil record is sufficently complete to show that abrupt appearance,
>>> stasis, over long periods then sudden disappearance from the record
>>> is the norm.
>>
>> No, in fact it isn't.
>>
>What do you mean? Stasis, is the norm, Darwin did not mention stasis until
>his sixth edition, and then to ussuage the criticism of Huxley and
>paleontoloigist of his time.
It turns out that it isn't really static. It may appear that way when
looking at the fossils, but not when looking at genetic information.
>> Over half of all dinosaur genera are known from a
>> single specimen only. Try showing stasis, abrupt appearance, etc. with a
>> single specimen. Very few vertebrate species are known from enough time
>> horizons to present a good demonstration of stasis. You generally have to
>> go to some marine invertebrate, like a snail, to investigate stasis, and
>> even there fossil sequences of the requisite completeness are not all that
>> common. And even there, geographic sampling is always a big question.
>>
>>>> 2. Stasis is apparently common, but that just means that transformations
>>>> are also episodic. We know from observing modern populations that
>>>> natural
>>>> selection causes changes that may be slow in humans terms but would be
>>>> instantaneous in terms of the geologic record. That is, gradual change
>>>> looks abrupt if you're looking at fossils.
>>>>
>>> The problem is the fossil forms usually look much the same when
>>> they become extinct as when they are first seen in the record.
>>
>> Yes, that's because transformations are too fast to be visible. After the
>> transformation happens we call it a new species, which has abruptly
>> appeared.
>>
>Is slow or fast?
Does it matter? We have only selected views from the fossils.
>>
>>>> 3. Regardless of gaps, the temporal pattern of intermediate fossils and,
>>>> more generally, changes in the biota from one era to another, are
>>>> inexplicable without evolution.
>>>>
>>> I'm hard pressed to recognize intermediate fossils as ancestory.
>>
>> As has been pointed out to you several times, it's impossible to recognize
>> them as ancestral, even if they are. And it doesn't matter whether they're
>> directly ancestral, only that they make that pattern.
>>
>And this satisfies you.
What alternative do you offer to explain all of the evidence. Again, the
fossils are a tantalizing piece of information about evolution, but
hardly the primary piece. As was posted here long ago, here are some of
the lines of evidence that force scientists to conclude that evolution
has happened and continues to happen:
- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies
- Radiometric dating
- Radically different collection of flora and fauna
during progressive eras
- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation
Attacking the lack of fossil evidence while ignoring 99% of all of the
evidence shows either a complete misunderstanding of the scientific
basis of our understanding of evolution or an intentional dishonesty in
approaching it.
>>>> 4. Fossils are *not* the major evidence for common descent. That
>>>> evidence
>>>> comes from the nested hierarchy of extant species, especially visible in
>>>> their genomes. You have ignored this evidence every time it's been
>>>> brought
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>> If all life evolved from bacteria or bacteria like organisms, the
>>> empirical
>>> evidence _must_ be documented from over the past, covering 4 billion
>>> years. If this cannot be done, then other evidences are subject to
>>> intrepretation within the overarching paradigm.
>>
>> Why would that be? Why pick one sort of evidence and elevate it to primacy
>> when we can get much better information from another sort? And of course
>> the fossil evidence is there, just not as completely as you would like.
>>
>If evolution occured in the past the history should be recorded in the
>fossil record. If it isn't, whatever evidence, real or imagionary is without
>a foundation.
Why do you insist that every organism should be in the fossil record?
What evidence backs up your presumption?
...
>> Actually, "living fossils" aren't stasis, which is a condition involving
>> species, not higher groups, but never mind. Your reasons to doubt
>> evolution are not rational. You might as well say that if atoms acctually
>> existed we should be able to see them bouncing around, and their lack of
>> visibility is enough reason to doubt them. You're asking for data that we
>> can't reasonably be expected to have, and counting its absence as an
>> objection, while ignoring all the data we do have.
>>
>> This is what makes me suspect you have reasons for rejecting evolution
>> that you have not expressed so far. You are predisposed to reject
>> evolution, but not to reject the atomic theory, germ theory, etc. Now the
>> usual reason for this is religious. People want reality to conform to
>> Genesis, or they think evolution denies God, or they dislike the idea of
>> being related to apes or slime mold. Are you sure you don't have any of
>> those reasons?
>>
>I hope you don't receive some confort from this curious assumption.
>Whether or not you agree, my reasons are derived from scientific
>pronouncments solely.
Bull. At best, you are cherry-picking from popularizations about
science. You haven't demonstrated any clear understanding of evolution
let alone a comprehensive grasp of the material.
> No where have I appealed to Genesis, God
>or anything else. You may suspect my motives, but that's besides the
>point. My discussion has been strictly based upon the works of
>reputable scientist.
No, they have not. Don't try to con us.
...
John Harshman
Nevertheless, everything people are calling "the fact of evolution" is
also a theory. Most commonly when people say that, they mean universal
common descent. Common descent is a theory. It's a very, very well
supported theory, and so we call it a fact. (Though sometimes they mean
just that allele frequencies change in populations. Doesn't matter,
that's a theory too.) No matter how you slice it, evolution is not some
kind of raw, unfiltered observation of simple reality. If there is any
such thing, which I doubt.
John Harshman
Why do you find Darwin's explanation unsatisfying? Do you think it's
false? And why do you need to see every stage of a transition before
you'll believe it happened? This is a standard of evidence you don't
apply to anything else. You believe that planets go around the sun, but
you've never watched one do it. Nobody has, though we've all seen
planets in different positions from time to time.
>>>>>> What is another conceivable explanation
>>>>>> for the data we have? If you can't think of one (and that's probable,
>>>>>> since nobody has ever been able to think of one), isn't that a
>>>>>> problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I pointed out before, a primary problem I have. You and others
>>>>> have attempted in different ways to explain to me where I'm
>>>>> wrong, discredit the problem or explain it away.
>>>>> Some have suggested that my writers would not agree with my
>>>>> conclusions. I'm sure this is true, but I believe my conclusions are
>>>>> more in keeping with the evidence if _taken _at_face_ value_.
>>>>> Others have tried to discredit me, by charges of ignorant, bias,
>>>>> uneducated etc.
>>>>> My doubts are, in a way, like bad dreams, they it keep coming back.
>>>> You're talking, I suppose, about the gaps in the fossil record.
>>>>
>>> I have not mentioned anything about gaps.
>> Yes you have. You said that the average gap between transitional fossils
>> between dinosaurs and birds was 5+ million years, and that this was too
>> large to convince you it was a transitional sequence. Now do you remember?
>>
> Yes, you are right. I did forget. But, above, I was thinking more in terms
> of years. I thought of gaps more or less as absence of a chain of forms
> between species, not necessarily in terms of years. I suppose it is the same
> thing.
It's not the same thing, but the one can easily result in the other. So
why is this a problem? Unless you really do want to see that continuous
movie of a fish changing into a frog.
>>>> What's
>>>> wrong with the arguments that refute that? Let me recap:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The fossil record is fragmentary and episodic. That means that most
>>>> of
>>>> the time and space of earth history, hence most of the potential
>>>> fossils,
>>>> was not preserved. That's enough to account for the gaps.
>>>>
>>> The fossil record is sufficently complete to show that abrupt appearance,
>>> stasis, over long periods then sudden disappearance from the record
>>> is the norm.
>> No, in fact it isn't.
>>
> What do you mean? Stasis, is the norm, Darwin did not mention stasis until
> his sixth edition, and then to ussuage the criticism of Huxley and
> paleontoloigist
> of his time.
I mean that the fossil record isn't actually good enough to show us that
stasis is the norm, at least for vertebrates. This is how paragraphs
work, by the way. One starts with a general statement, and then one goes
on to expand on it and explain it. If you take my first sentence in
isolation, you are ignoring the explanation, below:
>> Over half of all dinosaur genera are known from a
>> single specimen only. Try showing stasis, abrupt appearance, etc. with a
>> single specimen. Very few vertebrate species are known from enough time
>> horizons to present a good demonstration of stasis. You generally have to
>> go to some marine invertebrate, like a snail, to investigate stasis, and
>> even there fossil sequences of the requisite completeness are not all that
>> common. And even there, geographic sampling is always a big question.
Did you read that?
>>>> 2. Stasis is apparently common, but that just means that transformations
>>>> are also episodic. We know from observing modern populations that
>>>> natural
>>>> selection causes changes that may be slow in humans terms but would be
>>>> instantaneous in terms of the geologic record. That is, gradual change
>>>> looks abrupt if you're looking at fossils.
>>>>
>>> The problem is the fossil forms usually look much the same when
>>> they become extinct as when they are first seen in the record.
>> Yes, that's because transformations are too fast to be visible. After the
>> transformation happens we call it a new species, which has abruptly
>> appeared.
>>
> Is slow or fast?
That wasn't even a sentence. If I can guess at your attempted meaning,
it depends on the time scale you're thinking of. It's slow in terms of
human lifetimes, but fast in terms of the resolution of the geological
record. Something that takes several thousand years is slow for you,
fast for geology.
>>>> 3. Regardless of gaps, the temporal pattern of intermediate fossils and,
>>>> more generally, changes in the biota from one era to another, are
>>>> inexplicable without evolution.
>>>>
>>> I'm hard pressed to recognize intermediate fossils as ancestory.
>> As has been pointed out to you several times, it's impossible to recognize
>> them as ancestral, even if they are. And it doesn't matter whether they're
>> directly ancestral, only that they make that pattern.
>>
> And this satisfies you.
Yes, because it's enough to show the outlines of what happened, and
because there is no other explanation for the pattern other than common
descent. If you think there's another, try coming up with it.
>>>> 4. Fossils are *not* the major evidence for common descent. That
>>>> evidence
>>>> comes from the nested hierarchy of extant species, especially visible in
>>>> their genomes. You have ignored this evidence every time it's been
>>>> brought
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>> If all life evolved from bacteria or bacteria like organisms, the
>>> empirical
>>> evidence _must_ be documented from over the past, covering 4 billion
>>> years. If this cannot be done, then other evidences are subject to
>>> intrepretation within the overarching paradigm.
>> Why would that be? Why pick one sort of evidence and elevate it to primacy
>> when we can get much better information from another sort? And of course
>> the fossil evidence is there, just not as completely as you would like.
>>
> If evolution occured in the past the history should be recorded in the
> fossil record. If it isn't, whatever evidence, real or imagionary is without
> a foundation.
But the history is recorded, to some degree. You are claiming that we
would expect it to be recorded more continuously than we do. But what is
your justification for that claim?
And again, you feel free to ignore all the other data just because the
fossils don't fit your preconceptions. That's not sensible. We have a
much more complete record in genomes than we do in fossils.
It's merely an increasingly strong inference from what you say.
> Whether or not you agree, my reasons are derived from scientific
> pronouncments solely. No where have I appealed to Genesis, God
> or anything else. You may suspect my motives, but that's besides the
> point. My discussion has been strictly based upon the works of
> reputable scientist.
No, your discussions have been picking and choosing from reputable
scientists to tell a story none of them intended. On what basis do you
accept certain pieces of information from them and reject the rest of
what they say? There must be some filter through which you're putting
information. That much is clear. We just don't know what that filter is.
Who knows? Perhaps you don't know yourself. Now there are other possible
explanations than fundamentalism. Perhaps you are vaguely uneasy at the
prospect of a meaningless universe, and imagine that evolution requires
or promotes such a thing. Maybe you don't like the idea of being related
to "animals". But there has to be something, because you are clearly
filtering. You take stasis from Gould, and you believe it purely because
he says it exists, but reject his evolutionary explanation. Why?
Tony G.
> "John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7a066c4d-74af-4d59...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 16, 8:16 pm, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Talk about going to the extreme. My initial issue was a failing grade,
>>> because
>>> my nephew informed the teacher that he didn't _believe_ in evolution.
>>> Where have I advocated any such action, rather lack of?
>> We have only your word that your nephew was failed because
>> he said he didn't "believe in evolution". Usually grades are
>> determined
>> by answers on quizzes and on homework problems. If your
>> nephew was using his disbelief in evolution as the basis for incorrect
>> answers on a test or a homework problem, then basically he
>> is failing because he gave the wrong anwsers and not because
>> of his belief. I can conceive of two scenarios. One, he is a self-
>> appointed
>> religious "martyr" quoting creationists babble as his responses on
>> a test or on homework. In that case, he should go down in flames
>> gracefully and accept his failing grade as the martyr he wants to
>> be, or two, he is a crappy student who is trying to play the
>> religion card as a way of saving his bacon.
> The final biology test was 105 questions. So, a student could miss
> 5 questions and still make 100. He ended up answering 94 questions
> correctly.
94/105 = 89.524%
In what fairytale world is 89.5% a failing grade?
--
I thought you said that you'd come find me, I thought you said you'd be
home by now.
John Harshman
given a failing grade in the course just for saying he didn't believe in
evolution, despite his grades on tests. Is it too much to ask for people
just to pay attention here?
Free Lunch
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
After dealing with Aerion, do you believe his story?
John Harshman
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
But the evidence of evolution is just as clear as the evidence for
gravity.
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
How about the observation that at sea level water freezes
when the temperature gets low enough (no numbers, just "at
some point as temperature decreases") and boils when it gets
high enough (same caveat). No theory seems to be needed for
these facts to be observed, other than the most general one
regarding the consistency of nature. And I wouldn't put the
most well-supported theory in the same class.
>> No matter how well-tested, a theory is
>> *always* subject to modification; I'd argue that if a fact
>> needs to be modified it was never a fact in the first place.
>So a fact can never be known to be a fact, in your world.
That would be true only if theories were treated as facts.
Observations, at least those which are available for public
view (the above, or "if an object is released above ground
level it will fall if unsupported") don't tend to change.
Granted that these are somewhat trivial, but there are
others which require only observation.
> All we know is
>that it hasn't needed to be modified *so far*. Of course I would claim
>that the stronger the support a theory has, the less likely it will turn
>out not to be a fact.
>
>> Just my 20 mills, and IMHO...
Aerion
"Tony G." <nos...@eatmy.org> wrote in message
news:%KaBk.910$Ws1...@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> --
> I thought you said that you'd come find me, I thought you said you'd be
> home by now.
>
I have limited time to devote to this NG. Unfortunately, I cannot
respond to everyone. But everyone who offers a new argument
or a new thought, I do attempt to address it. I see no reason to
rehash the same dscussions.
Aerion
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:dTbBk.810$x%.147@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
feed-back. So, yes it was true. And the feed back and opinions was
very pleasing. and I'm satisfied with the response I received.
John Harshman
What exactly is this "temperature" you're talking about?
>>> No matter how well-tested, a theory is
>>> *always* subject to modification; I'd argue that if a fact
>>> needs to be modified it was never a fact in the first place.
>
>> So a fact can never be known to be a fact, in your world.
>
> That would be true only if theories were treated as facts.
> Observations, at least those which are available for public
> view (the above, or "if an object is released above ground
> level it will fall if unsupported") don't tend to change.
> Granted that these are somewhat trivial, but there are
> others which require only observation.
But every observation is a theory. Anything you see is a theory your
brain makes to explain the firings of various neurons. "Falling" is a
theory that behaviors of lots of objects at different times are due to
some common cause. And are you claiming that it isn't a fact that the
phenomenon responsible for an apple falling from a tree is also
responsible for the motions of planets? Because I would consider the
theory of universal gravitation to be a fact.
Augray
>"Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:49gbq5x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
[snip]
>> What is your beef with the theory of evolution?
>>
>Stasis
Why is stasis a problem? I know that this would seem to be pretty much
the opposite of evolution, but similarly, just because gravity exists
doesn't mean that everything *must* fall all the time.
Aerion
"Augray" <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:u53fd4h7587vo8fgm...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:40:20 -0400, "Aerion" <Aer...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote in <fU0Bk.30824$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net> :
>
>>"Cory Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:49gbq5x...@xanadu.fenris.cjb.net...
>
> [snip]
>
>>> What is your beef with the theory of evolution?
>>>
>>Stasis
>
> Why is stasis a problem? I know that this would seem to be pretty much
> the opposite of evolution,
>
>
but similarly, just because gravity exists
> doesn't mean that everything *must* fall all the time.
>
John Stockwell
> "John Stockwell" <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ok. So he did well on the final. What did he do for the other exams
and homework? A person can ace a final, and still fail a class if
they were tanking all along.
chris thompson
I note that 94/105=89.5. Not flunking by any means, but not the
assured 'A' he seems to think it is. The rest of this student's
scores had better be 90% or better.
Also, in some schools it is acceptable to flunk students based on
attendance, punctuality, behavior in class, and participation. There
may also be (almost certainly is, in fact) a lab component that was
not mentioned. Where I teach, if you flunk the lab you flunk the
class. Biology is a lab science and labs are integral to final grades.
Chris