Redux: Should a Critique of Evolution be Allowed?
R.Dean
>
> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> I read the book in it's entirety.
> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
> Those who present only one view point do not allow
> this.
>
Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed
in public schools, but not on talk radio either.
A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this
past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's
something in your chest call in. You can talk about
science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After
deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane
topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School
board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both
evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and
_against_ both 'theories'".
The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution,
but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting
him off and going to a commercial.
It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something
I had posted earlier on this NG.
During this commercial, I called in and after telling the
screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing
in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this
was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any
other subject was ok, but not this)
After the commercial break ended, the host announced that
evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific
fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing
"anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't
appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
>
Himself
Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right
here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be
very sympathetic to your plight.
cassandra
I know exactly what you mean. Most radio talk shows encourage anti-
science bozos to call in. Next time, try Glenn or Rush.
Will in New Haven
Don't sweat it. We are all Bozos on this bus.
Now, YOU are also a moron.
--
Will in New Haven
Frank J
>
> > A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> > I read the book in it's entirety.
> > I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> > quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> > my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> > that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> > reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> > criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> > If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> > of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
> > minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
> > Those who present only one view point do not allow
> > this.
>
> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed
> in public schools, but not on talk radio either.
That may be the case on your local show.
What you call "criticism of evolution" (actually misrepresentation) is
*definitely* allowed on Medved's show. What is apparently not allowed,
at least in the ~5 years I have been a regular listener, is the full
range of criticism of those misrepresentations. E.g. he knows better
than to feature prominent *theist* critics like Ken Miller.
I would be surprised if the situation is not identical on shows hosted
by Limbaugh and Hannity.
> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this
> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's
> something in your chest call in. You can talk about
> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After
> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane
> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School
> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both
> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and
> _against_ both 'theories'".
>
> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution,
> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting
> him off and going to a commercial.
That's fair. Even people who agree with the host often only get a
minute or so.
So what did he present in that minute? As "Himself" said, you are free
to present it here, and add any more of your own. I especially want to
hear more about *your* "theory" - especially what it claims about the
age of life and common descent.
If you must present "arguments against evolution" try to come up with
an original one, not the same old long-refuted misrrepresentations.
>
> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something
> I had posted earlier on this NG.
>
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the
> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing
> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this
> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any
> other subject was ok, but not this)
>
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that
> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific
> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing
> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't
> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
>
The "anti-science" was appropriate, but the "bozo" was uncalled for,
as most "Darwinists" will tell you.
cassandra
<snip>
> If you must present "arguments against evolution" try to come up with
> an original one, not the same old long-refuted misrrepresentations.
Sometimes you can be sooooo demanding.
TheBicyclingGuitarist
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well I was just banned from the "evolution fairy tale forum." I lasted
about three or four days there, but quickly realized the insanity of
those who run that forum. They insist Tiktaalik is "just a fish" even
though it is one of the must stunning examples of the predictive power
of evolutonary theory. They insist I prove that the laws of nature we
observe now were always thus and so, putting the burden on me when
they are the ones with the extraordinary claims that the earth is only
six thousand years old and man is not biologically related to other
species. I am actually surprised I lasted as long as I did there. It
was an exercise in futility to try to reason with people who dismiss
the evidence and to whom faith is more important than evidence or
reasoning.
Nashton
>
> Don't sweat it. We are all Bozos on this bus.
>
> Now, YOU are also a moron.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
>
>
I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man on
the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and voila.
In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or any
discussion.
I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under your
rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
John Stockwell
Well, essentially, a lay person who proposes to "critique a scientific
theory" is demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of
science. Any tests of a scientific theory, or issues that may
result from such test or observations, are items that are published
in journals and are the issues of the day. The validity of the notions
of common descent, decent with modification, and the notion
of natural selection don't happen to be on that list.
A person who further believes that ID is some sort of competing
scientific theory doesn't really understand that science is about
processes, and not about correspondence principles, or theological
issues.
You could very well be an "anti-science bozo", though I would
say that "bozo" is an insult to the memory of Lou Jacobs.
-John
-John
John Stockwell
Pot, kettle, black.
cassandra
Get real. You of all people should complain about insults on Usenet.
Ron O
The ID perps would have likely urged his removal too. IDiots this
stupid just make it harder to run the switch scam. It has been about
a year since any school board or legislator claimed to want to teach
the science of intelligent design and made the news. This tells me
that enough people know what a scam intelligent design is that they
can step on the IDiot before he makes enough waves to cause the
Discovery Institute ID perps to run the bait and switch on the stupid
rube.
Just recently at the Panda's Thumb someone noticed that the Discovery
Institute had changed its claims about intelligent design and was no
longer claiming to have a scientific theory of intelligent design.
The ID perps are likely getting negative feedback on the bait and
switch scam that they have been running on any rube stupid enough to
fall for intelligent design. Their only hope to get anywhere with the
switch scam, that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed, is to get
the rubes to fall for the switch scam before they fall for the ID
scam. Once they come out and claim that they want to teach ID the
game is over. Just taking the switch would make it pretty hard for
anyone to believe that they had science education as their primary
goal. The worst thing that could happen would be for some rubes that
fell for the ID scam to get into court and have to testify as to why
they took the switch scam from the same guys that lied to them about
intelligent design.
Because it is the ID perps that have to keep running the bait and
switch on their own ignorant and or stupid supporters it is in the
best interest of the science side to keep intelligent design in public
discussions. The more the rubes hear about intelligent design the
more the ID perps will have to suppress their own junk. It isn't the
science side that runs the bait and switch on the creationist rubes.
It is the ID perps that sold them the ID scam.
Even Kalkidas can't deny that. He will just go into denial and try to
make believe that it all doesn't really exist. Sad, but true. The
only ones supporting the creationist ID scam at this time are the
ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest like Kalk. If anyone doesn't
believe that, just get your local schoolboard or legislator to try to
teach the science of intelligent design and see what you get from the
liars that sold you the bogus ID scam.
Ron Okimoto
>
> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something
> I had posted earlier on this NG.
>
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the
> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing
> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this
> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any
> other subject was ok, but not this)
>
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that
> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific
> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing
> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't
> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
>
>
>
raven1
If the caller was not actually an "anti-science bozo", he was at least
demonstrably ignorant of science: there is no evidence against
evolution, and there is no evidence supporting ID.
R.Dean
or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is
not reasonable. Do you have patience?
Robert Camp
Some do, some don't. But the forum's been here for quite some time, so
if you present a worthwhile case I can guarantee you it'll get
noticed.
Personally, I'd ask you to defend a more narrow contention - that it's
reasonable to present criticisms of evolution in public schools.
Granted this is an inference I've taken from what you said above, so
if it's not representative of your position I withdraw the request.
RLC
Scott Balneaves
Wait, you had the evidence when you phoned the call in show, but now you DON'T
have it? Or did you forget it already? Or...?
Take as much time as you need. I'm more that willing to see some evidence
against evolution.
Scott Balneaves
Oddly enough, though, you were completely unwilling to post your real name and
institution so that I could make a formal complaint about your unethical
behaviour. Then there was a lot of bluff and bluster about contacting the
RCMP, which, incidentally, have yet to contact me about anything.
Oh, and I checked with a lawyer whom I know, and showed him my (in your words)
"stalking" of you. His response was laughter.
Now here *you* are making menaces in the newsgroup. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.
Inadequacy problems? I think the term "Internet tough guy" fits you to a tee.
R.Dean
> R.Dean wrote:
>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>
>
>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. I read the book in
>>> it's entirety.
>
>
>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical quotes and
>>> references from Genesis onward. But to my amazement, there were no
>>> Biblical references anywhere that I could find. But there were what
>>> seemed to me to be reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? If not, why not?
>
> as they say, a thousand times already. It is all faith based sophistry
> with no bearing on reality. Accept the simple fact that evolution happens
> and the theory of evolution is the best explanation for this fact so far.
>
I can accept your opinion that it's the best so far. However, It may
still be flawed. I believe it is, but there is no logical reason to
demand a another explanation for the facts: facts which depend upon
theory to have meaning.
>
> [snippity]
>,
<snip>
falterer
It sounds as though the original radio caller was able to summarize
his reservations within a minute or so of airtime, stupefying the
host. I think it'd be fairly easy to squeeze what you can remember of
it into an email, especially since some of it may have been
plagiarized from your own words (or as you quite charitably put it,
borrowed.)
And hey, don't forget that you were ready to jump on air and continue
that caller's thought for him after he was rudely cut off! That sounds
like a "right here, right now" kind of situation to me!
Will in New Haven
You could find me very easily. I would say worse to you, you piece of
shit.
--
Will _in New Haven_ actually, Branford, two towns east of New Haven on
the shore.
Nashton
Usenet cowards like you are a dime a dozen. All you're able to
accomplish is to run off from at the mouth and post your threats from a
distance in order to satisfy your need to feel that you're in control,
safe from retribution, not to mention that you're one of the dumbest
humans to walk the face of the Earth, little man.
Will in New Haven
I don't know how much distance we are talking about, since you are
completely anonymous (as far as I know, I haven't investigated) and
don't say where you live. My name is Bill Reich. I have given you
where I live. You could find me, you nauseating asshole. But you don't
want to.
Now which of is the coward? When can I expect you?
Boikat
Odd. Usually, in today's talk radio market, radio talk hosts are
reich wing fundy suck-ups, and love to have anti-evolution callers
(since evilution is an anti-god, liberal pseudo-science that leads to
all sorts of liberal political views). How refreshing to hear that a
radio host actually stands for rational science.
But, I agree, in a way. The host should still have allowed anti-
science Bozo's the opportunity to air their stupidity, since it was
announced it was "Callers Day".
Boikat
R.Dean
with his justification for bring up the topic at a board meeting. But
the host implored him to get to the point. What is this evidence
you want students to know about? The caller, "to know that there is
evidence which cast doubts on Darwin's theory and the evidence as
presented by those scientist and popularizers who took up his quest".
The host, "get to your point". The caller, "if evolution is about
anything it's about change, change over time, but the paleontologist,
who were contemporaries of Darwin, critiqued his Origin of Species by
pointed out that the fossil record does not support change. Species
appear suddenly in the fossil record and disappear from the record with
little or no change, this was not what Darwin predicted......". - Host
"thank you." (commercial break).
This is the conversation almost verbatim. But my problem with the
caller was he started at the end if an argument which could easily
be challenged, IOW that was then this is now.
Jim Lovejoy
news:xhj4o.24083$Zp1....@newsfe15.iad:
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the
> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing
> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this
> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any
> other subject was ok, but not this)
>
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that
> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific
> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing
> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded.
Either that or actually knew some science.
> I didn't
> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
>
Insult or accurate description?
From what I've read from you so far, I'd go with door number 2.
Jim Lovejoy
799e87...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> The "anti-science" was appropriate, but the "bozo" was uncalled for,
> as most "Darwinists" will tell you.
>
Why inappropriate?
Remember "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Einstein, but they also
laughed at Bozo the Clown."
I'd say it fits right in. He thinks he's Einstein or Columbus but he's
not.
marks...@yahoo.com
> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing
> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this
> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any
> other subject was ok, but not this)
>
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that
> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific
> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing
> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>
> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
>
>
A teacher should of course attempt to answer a students question , but
should also avoid letting the discussion wander too far. A simple
"thats not what the current leading theory says" should be adequate ,
and maybe take the student aside after class if they still have
concerns.
chris thompson
We've been waiting for years to hear the evidence against evolution. A
few more days won't matter. Take your time and do it right.
Chris
falterer
Yeah; the caller's objection sounds a lot like this creationist claim:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html
Paleontologists generally understand that what we call "species"
appear discrete from one another to varying degrees as a result of the
spread of changes in populations over millions of years. The fossil
record offers scanty snapshots of these changes compared with the
billions of years in which life has been evolving on earth, but it's
enough information for us to recognize patterns in the fossils.
Paleontologists had realized there were patterns before Origin was
published, but Darwin and Wallace were the first to propose fully
satisfying explanations.
I'm going to admit I haven't read Darwin, I tend to read only current
material about evolution, but I don't think he predicted that we would
be able to recover fossils representing every variation of life on
earth, such that the fossil record might be followed like a smooth
river. The caller was wrong about that. Fossilization only occurs
under certain conditions, which must be preserved for millions of
years, and made available for discovery. Even then, that would be an
overwhelming record. I mean that literally; not awe-inspiringly
overwhelming, but actually beyond our ability to sort and categorize.
Darwin was certainly aware of the immense number of variations that
have lived on earth. Here's an excerpt from Origin:
"In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alteration,
generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection
will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process
go on for millions of years; and during each year on millions of
individuals of many kinds..."
The fact that we have so few fossils from these millions of variations
over millions of years, makes it much easier for us to categorize them
into things we call "species". But remember that what we call a
"species" is just a snapshot in time of the much more fluid process
that gave us the wonderful diversity of life on earth.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"R.Dean" <R.D...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xhj4o.24083$Zp1....@newsfe15.iad...
> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>
>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
>> this.
A book, written supporting I.D., NOT valid if it only presents lies and
warped accusations about Evolution.
I.D. IS religion, whenther they openly quote the bible or not.
If the bearded lady at the carnival, comes up with some fantastically insane
belief that green cheese eating moon creatures started life on Earth - sould
we also give THAT "opposing" viewpoint equal time?
In a science class, science gets equal time ...... not delusions,
fanatasies, invented NON-EXISTAND gods, NON-EXISTANT causes etc..
>>
> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed
> in public schools, but not on talk radio either.
> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this
> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's
> something in your chest call in. You can talk about
> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After
> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane
> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School
> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both
> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and
> _against_ both 'theories'".
There is no more evidence for I.D. that there is for "Never-Never-lanad",
asshole.
Trying to present it as an alternative to valid scienvce is nothing mnore
than religious ignorance and fanaticism at work.
Whatever a radio show talks about, has nothing to do with science.
I'm quite sure most radio talk shows have limits on the number, and topics,
of outrageous kooks they will air.
>
>
> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution,
> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting
> him off and going to a commercial.
>
> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something
> I had posted earlier on this NG.
>
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the
> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing
> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this
> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any
> other subject was ok, but not this)
>
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that
> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific
> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing
> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't
> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
The "alternative" to this - which has an equal right to be aired - is that
you ARE an anti-science BOZO!
In this nation, insane kooks have every right to speak ...... they do NOT
have a right to "be heard".
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
Do you realize the number of outrageously insane creationists/IDers and
religiously fanatic creationist web sites we have endured already?
No one will be the LEAST bit surprised if every piece of crap you post, has
NOT been cut and pasted (and rebutted) over and over again.
Do YOU have the honesty, intelligence and maturity to acknowledge it when
your crap gets thoroughly trounced by science and reality?
If you don't - that would put you in the same league as every other moronic,
fanatical, idiot, troll who comes in here claiming to HAVE such evidence -
only to run away and lie when shown the REAL facts.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't
> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
Assuming the story is even remotely true (more than questionable considering
it comes from a morontheist), whee too bad for you. Guess what? Actions
have consequences.
You want to babble science-denying crap debunked a gazillion times, that's
your right to do. It is other people's right, however, to slam you for it.
Unless of course you can offer evidence for your point of view, and it
would have to be damn good evidence to shake the foundations of one of the
most well-established scientific theories of all times.
The game of life is not called "make a wish", but "shuffle and deal with
it". You may start crying like a baby now. Keep in mind, though, that I
don't care a flying fuck.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Mike Dworetsky
That's where you are 100% wrong. In science, standing on the hilltop and
shouting, "Evolution is wrong!!" is not an acceptable or worthwhile
activity, not after more than a century of gathering increasingly detailed
evidence of a convergent nature that supports both the fact of evolution and
the theory of how it happens. There is every reason to demand a fully
worked-out theory from opponents of the Darwinian evolutionary model before
getting off one train and boarding another. I'd even settle for a decent
half-baked alternative theory, if only for discussion's sake, but that has
never been offered. (Behe came closest, but fell far short of the standard
required to be even "half-baked".)
So far, every claim that scientific mainstream evolutionary theory is
fundamentally flawed has come from one religious crank or another, however
sincerely held their beliefs may be. The predominant alternative model
always seems to boil down to "Suddenly a miracle occurred!" or "God did it,
the Bible says it, and that's good enough for me!" You also get arguments
along the lines, "We don't completely understand the details of phenomenon
X, therefore evolution, of which X is a part, must be wrong." The correct
response is to say, "Let's do some more research on X."
If you have something other than that, some actual science and an
alternative model that doesn't invoke miracles, let us know.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
harry k
> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>
> > A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> > I read the book in it's entirety.
> > quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> > my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> > that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> > reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> > criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, perhaps if you got an education it wouldn't apply to you.
Harry K
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
But you think a few seconds on minutes on a talk show would do it?
Strange.
Harry K
Nashton
> On Jul 29, 3:39 pm, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
>> Will in New Haven wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Don't sweat it. We are all Bozos on this bus.
>>
>>> Now, YOU are also a moron.
>>
>>> --
>>> Will in New Haven
>>
>> I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man on
>> the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and voila.
>> In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or any
>> discussion.
>> I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under your
>> rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
>
>
I've been trying to keep it civil for quite a while now but it's getting
more and more difficult I must admit.
I do not call people "piece of shit", I don't tell others to go f'
themselves. I can be abrasive just like the next guy, but I try not to
be another Ron O, Desertphile or Will.
Instead of doing the right thing and at least trying to be fair, instead
of lambasting the posters that use foul language, you're attacking me.
Thanks for being objective.
Nashton
Mr. tough guy from a distance strikes again.
Displaying your name and whereabouts on the Internet is very foolish and
says a lot about you.
As for the nauseating asshole part, you can't post anything without
demonstrating your bad habits that you picked up during your upbringing.
Did your mother yell at you and swear like a sailor or was it your dad
that abused you and used the foul language you're infamous for?
In any case, "debates" such as these never happen in a manner that is
planned. Life can be full of surprises. And I'm sorry for the fact that
you were brought up by people who should never have had children in the
first place.
Louann Miller
news:i2t4s8$k2i$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence
>> or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is
>> not reasonable. Do you have patience?
>
> Wait, you had the evidence when you phoned the call in show, but now
> you DON'T have it? Or did you forget it already? Or...?
>
> Take as much time as you need. I'm more that willing to see some
> evidence against evolution.
We've waited this long.
Louann, "Battle of New Orleans" lyrics on standby.
Richard Clayton
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't sweat it. We are all Bozos on this bus.
>>
>> Now, YOU are also a moron.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
> I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man on
> the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and voila.
> In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or any
> discussion.
> I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under your
> rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
Oooh, a bona fide Internet Tough Guy! And here I thought the species was
extinct.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
cassandra
Referencing cross-thread, when this is your idea of funny, there is
little value to keeping you entertained. You could try pulling wings
off flies, but I doubt you can focus on the task long enough to
accomplish it.
Flywatch
>On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
>> of the controversy,
If there were a scientific dispute on the subject, yes.
But since there isn't, it's not a matter for science lessons.
Should the chemistry/alchemistry controversy be discussed? The
astrology/astronomy dispute? Or in the history curriculum, should
holocaust denial be called 'one of "both" sides of "the" controversy'?
Not only is there no controversy, there also is no "both" sides, but
many more, once you start calling a pseudosciencific view a "side".
<SNIP>
>During this commercial, I called in and after telling the
>screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing
>in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this
>was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any
>other subject was ok, but not this)
Well, of course you don't know if any other subject _would_ have been
ok. Probably not. People are not always honest, and entertainment show
editors are no exception. Please feel free not to vote for him ;-)
R.Dean
masters degree in electrical engineering (MsEE). So, I have a
reasonably good education.
>
> Harry K
>
cassandra
> "R.Dean" <R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> >> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> >> I read the book in it's entirety.
> >> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> >> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> >> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> >> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> >> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> >> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> >> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> >> of the controversy,
>
> If there were a scientific dispute on the subject, yes.
> But since there isn't, it's not a matter for science lessons.
>
> Should the chemistry/alchemistry controversy be discussed? The
> astrology/astronomy dispute? Or in the history curriculum, should
> holocaust denial be called 'one of "both" sides of "the" controversy'?
> Not only is there no controversy, there also is no "both" sides, but
> many more, once you start calling a pseudosciencific view a "side".
Exactly. The only reason to mention ID in science classes is to
illustrate what science is not. Even as a matter of science history,
ID has less value than phlogiston and geocentrism.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
Maybe you can explain why strongly-religious people with an interest in
science and technology tend to become engineers rather than scientists.
R.Dean
time to make his case before he was unceremoniously and abruptly cut off.
This was unfair to the caller and his listeners. How many others tried
to get on the radio - I don't know, but I seriously doubt I was the only
potential caller who was not allowed to have a voice on his program. I
am curious as to why.
>
> Harry K
>
R.Dean
hearts that they've lost, they will resort to such tactics as you describe.
>
> Thanks for being objective.
>
R.Dean
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> about three or four days there, but quickly realized the insanity of
> those who run that forum. They insist Tiktaalik is "just a fish" even
> though it is one of the must stunning examples of the predictive power
> of evolutonary theory. They insist I prove that the laws of nature we
> observe now were always thus and so, putting the burden on me when
> they are the ones with the extraordinary claims that the earth is only
> six thousand years old and man is not biologically related to other
> species. I am actually surprised I lasted as long as I did there. It
> was an exercise in futility to try to reason with people who dismiss
> the evidence and to whom faith is more important than evidence or
> reasoning.
>
I take it from your title, that you are a guitarist. So am I. I've
played the guitar and the piano for about twenty years. The guitar
is my first love. My mother was a piano teacher, so, I didn't have
a choice I had to learn the piano.
TheBicyclingGuitarist
I've been playing guitar for about thirty years now, most of the time
while simultaneously riding a vintage Schwinn ten-speed (hence my
stage name of The Bicycling Guitarist by which I have been known since
the early 1980s and which is already arranged to be carved on my
tombstone). Check my official web site at http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/
or my YouTube channel "BicyclingGuitarist" if you want to hear what I
sound like. One of my favorites of the hundreds of songs I've written
is "Evolution" at http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/songs/evolutio.htm
My new band Rosetucky will re-record this song probably sometime this
year. I hope to make a video for it too.
TBG
gregwrld
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> > Don't sweat it. We are all Bozos on this bus.
>
> > Now, YOU are also a moron.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man on
> the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and voila.
> In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or any
> discussion.
> I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under your
> rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
I will gladly send you my address, moron.
I live in Rochester, NY not far from Canada.
Come and get it, moron.
gregwrld
Stuart
> >> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>
>
> >>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. I read the book in
> >>> it's entirety.
>
>
> >>> references from Genesis onward. But to my amazement, there were no
> >>> Biblical references anywhere that I could find. But there were what
> >>> seemed to me to be reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> >>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? If not, why not?
>
> > as they say, a thousand times already. It is all faith based sophistry
> > with no bearing on reality. Accept the simple fact that evolution happens
> > and the theory of evolution is the best explanation for this fact so far.
>
> still be flawed.
By definition a theory can be flawed.
> I believe it is
Science isn't a belief system. What is your evidence that it actually
has critical flaws?
You've been ask this already, but you have studiously avoided
mentioning them.
<snip>
Stuart
gregwrld
You are the coward. You are only talking
tough because you know it's unlikely you
will ever confront anyone here.
You have never backed up anything you've
said here. No one expects you to do it now.
Prove me wrong.
gregwrld
chris thompson
Salem! I call Salem!
Chris
>
>
>
> > Harry K
Inez
It seems rather like you're trying to create a tempest in a fairly
small teapot. Every call-in show turns away dozens of callers, that
is nothing new. A talk show host isn't required to let everyone
express their views. If you scan the radio dial you will find many
talk shows that present only one view to the exclusion of others.
The title of this thread sort of makes it look like you think that the
proper place for a critque of evolution is on radio talk shows, and if
it is not allowed to happen there then debate is cut off and evolution
stands unchallenged. In reality if the theory of evolution is going
to be overturned it will happen in the scientific community, as a
result of research. It will never happen by people who at best only
partially know what they're talking about asking questions of a talk
show host. You an other creationists personal incredulity is not
instructive or illuminating.
falterer
I agree that there's a lot of rudeness in this thread, more than I
recall last time I was in this NG (it's been several years). I'm a
little disappointed to see the quality of debate decline further, but
I doubt it's because Will and others feel they're on shaky ground.
More likely, they're simply tired of stating the obvious time and
again, and of rebutting the same fundamentalist japes and canards.
Most people turn away from the creation/evolution debate altogether,
in the same way that most people (religious or not) turn Mormons and
Jehovah's Witnesses away from their door. It's not that they aren't
sure about their own personal beliefs, it's just that they don't feel
like discussing it. They want to state their opinion and leave it as
that. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that your radio host felt just
the same way. He simply didn't want his show to become a platform for
this particular debate. And that's fine: it's his show; we have a
right to criticize it, but not (unless we own the network) to demand
he makes changes to it, except perhaps through a body like the FCC,
and then only if we have a complaint about some illegal or explicit
material he's broadcasting in breach of his network's license.
Public schools, being mandatory and publicly funded, are a slightly
different matter. We the people, through our elected school board
members and other representatives, decide what criteria our curricula
must meet. Even then, our decisions might effectively be vetoed in
court if they were found to be opposed by state or federal law, as in
the Dover Trial, where it was found that the Dover Area School
District had broken the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
deciding to teach creationism in the classroom.
Radio broadcast networks are not government organizations, and are
therefore not subject to the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment, as evidenced by the number of religious radio and
television broadcasts and networks across the United States. If these
networks wish, it is quite alright for them to broadcast discussions
of creationism and criticisms of evolution.
In this message is an example of what I mean by stating the obvious;
the kind of thing that drives Will and others to cross words. It is, I
think, obvious that the radio show's host made a personal decision not
to further the discussion of evolution, and that his decision does not
reflect a broader policy (dare I say conspiracy) among talk radio
broadcasters to ban your opinions from the airwaves. If you had
already come to this conclusion, why did you say otherwise?
cassandra
Your definition of objective is entirely subjective. You make
provocative statements, and then cry foul when you elicit provocative
replies. That is a common and obvious troll tactic to fool the
choir. I don't sing.
raven1
You might wish to do so before posting again.
Rusty Sites
If you or the caller had been wanting to express his view that the sun
revolved around the earth, would you have expected to have gotten much
if any air time?
John Stockwell
The caller made a false claim.
>
>
>
> > Harry K
John Stockwell
Basically folks like Nashton, start whining about other people being
rude as a smokescreen for not having an argument.
John Stockwell
Another data point for the Salem Hypothesis.
>
>
>
> > Harry K
macaddicted
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>>> Don't sweat it. We are all Bozos on this bus.
>>> Now, YOU are also a moron.
>>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>>>
> I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man
> on the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and
> voila.
> In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or
> any discussion.
> I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under
> your rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
Ah, a duel.
May I suggest, per Niven, champagne corks at two paces?
Desertphile
wrote:
> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> >
> > A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> > I read the book in it's entirety.
> > I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> > quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> > my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> > that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> > reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> > criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> > If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> > of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
> > minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
> > Those who present only one view point do not allow
> > this.
> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed
> in public schools....
... for the same reason that criticism of gravity is not
"allowed."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
> On 7/29/2010 2:03 PM, Himself wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:56:41 -0400, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> >>>
> >>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> >>> I read the book in it's entirety.
> >>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> >>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> >>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> >>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> >>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such
> >>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
> >>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> >>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own
> >>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
> >>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
> >>> this.
> >>>
> >> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed
> > Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right
> > here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be
> > very sympathetic to your plight.
> As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence
> or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is
> not reasonable. Do you have patience?
So write a paper and submit it to a science journal: THEY
DESPERATELY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR AMAZING DISCOVERY! You need
not bother posting your astonishing discovery here--- send it to a
refereed peer-reviewed journal amd we will read about it later.
Flywatch
>> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed
>> in public schools....
>... for the same reason that criticism of gravity is not
>"allowed."
I would second an law to make an exception for that one, in schools
that are on the 11th floor, or above. Not for students, but for the
fundies who try to infest the education system with pseudoscience.
Stuart
That's not a substitute for actual knowledge in biology or
geology. A good education is a start, not an end.
Stuary
R.Dean
many on my engineering colleagues seem to fit your description. This
is curious.
Shane
You need to research more. Nashton is one of the more hateful people on
this site, its just he disguises it a little better. (Some people would
call that dishonesty). See his interactions with Chris Thompson where he
encourages an admitted alcoholic to drink. See his many posts where he
reverts to insults. See the many posts where his challenges get answered
and he reposts the challenge like the answers never occurred.
The overall problem that Nashton--and a number of others on the theistic
side of the matter--is that they are want to claim that
darwinists/evolutionists etc have no objective morality or ethics, and
therefore thy are not as worthy people as themselves. By making this
claim they make us wonder why they are surprised when their opponents
act in a manner they attribute to them, and of course they make
themselves a target when they themselves indulge in the behaviour they
lament in others.
I suggest that you do spend some time researching just who you are
getting into bed with in this instance.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
It's just a question that arises from the Salem Conjecture. Why are
religious people afraid of science?
skye...@yahoo.com
> On 7/30/2010 2:51 AM, harry k wrote:
> > Well, perhaps if you got an education it wouldn't apply to you.
>
> >
> I admit, Harry, I didn't make a study of biology, but I do have a
> masters degree in electrical engineering (MsEE). So, I have a
> reasonably good education.
But evolution is about *biology*. An engineering degree only
qualifies you to make judgements on, well, *engineering*.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Fnord, already.
James Beck
What good fortune. I wanted to play the saxophone, but had to study
the accordion instead. My mother's uncle (killed in WWII) was a
professional accordionist. She inherited the accordion along with the
associated guilt.
Ralph
Nothing curious about it. Narrow minds make good engineers, to be a
scientist takes a curious mind.
Flywatch
>Public schools, being mandatory and publicly funded, are a slightly
>different matter. We the people, through our elected school board
>members and other representatives, decide what criteria our curricula
>must meet. Even then, our decisions might effectively be vetoed in
>court if they were found to be opposed by state or federal law, as in
>the Dover Trial, where it was found that the Dover Area School
>District had broken the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
>deciding to teach creationism in the classroom.
Seems to mee a good thing, that the constitution can be used to
control the risk of having a (local) concentration of theocrats or
other occultists turn a public school into some kind of Hogwarts.
Apart from the negative "no religion in public schools" there should
be a strong positive national safeguard for the quality of schooling.
Without that, a school in, say Roswell, could start a ufology
curriculum, teaching about Iargans and other alien species, using
YouTube clips and crackpot DVD's as educational stuff. That way they
would attract families from all over the country who want their
children taught this crap, and the region would turn into a fruitcake
rerservation. Elected school boards need constant supervision, and not
just to protect the children against (disguised) theocrats.
So, even without the 1st amendment, school board decisions like the
one in Dover should be overturned, on grounds of education quality.
TimR
>
> But evolution is about *biology*. An engineering degree only
> qualifies you to make judgements on, well, *engineering*.
>
The Salem Conjecture was new to me. A little google and now I'm
educated. Wish I'd had google in engineering school! Hee, hee.
If there is anything to engineers being overrepresented in
creationism, may I suggest two possible factors?
One is general competence. Like many professions that require
rigorous preparation, e.g. medicine, engineers tend to overestimate
how general their competence is. We tend to think that since we
understand how the world works mechanically at a level of detail
beyond mere mortals, that we also can figure out how it works
biologically or chemically. Of course that's not true. But we really
can fix a lawnmower, and a doctor can't.
The other is fear. Scientists think, we build stuff. We have
personal liability for anything that goes wrong. Just as religion
requires a healthy dose of fear, not only to keep adherents in line
but to keep them from thinking too critically, engineering contains
more defense than medicine does. Fear is general as well.
Nor are engineers free of superstition even within their own
discipline. I just rejected an air conditioning design that included
magnetic water treatment - the theory that if you put a magnet outside
a pipe, the water will somehow know not to corrode or scale. Some of
my peers were embarassed they'd missed it, but some of them were
indignant that I wasn't a believer.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Cool.
Doctors are a particularly interesting case. Scientists who are doing
related research often have dismissive comments about the ability of
doctors to understand what is going on -- both because the doctors are
more full of themselves than they warrant and because they aren't nearly
as well-informed about the current science as the researchers are.
cassandra
That's ok. I had an EE brother-in-law who insists cell phones cause
brain cancer and make honeybees disappear.
Nick Keighley
> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> > A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> > I read the book in it's entirety.
> > I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> > quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> > my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> > that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> > reasonable critiques of evolution.
I'd be surprised if they actually were reasonable
> > Should any such
> > criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
do we have critcism of gravity or geocentrism in schools? It's hard
enough getting this stuff into kids heads without having to add in a
lot of contradictory and actually false stuff.
Any real criticism of science should be dealt with in the published
journals. Much (most?) of science *is* criticism or correction of
previous stuff.
> > If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> > of the controversy,
there is no scientific controvery only a social and religious one.
Discussing religion in schools in the US appears to be illegal.
> > and allowed to make up their own
> > minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
> > Those who present only one view point do not allow
> > this.
there is only one evidence based view. And science is all about
evidence.
This is really an undercover attempt by certain religious groups to
prevent the teaching of facts that they find unpalatable. And the
various political groups that try to use it to their advantage.
> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed
> in public schools, but not on talk radio either.
as others have pointed out a radio show isn't obliged to air anything
> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this
> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's
> something in your chest call in. You can talk about
> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc".
I must admit he mentioned science and religion so it's kind of
predicable that creationism would have reared its ugly head. Seems odd
to then dismiss the discussion.
> After
> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane
> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School
> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both
> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and
> _against_ both 'theories'".
there actually is no evidence for creationism nor any against
evolution. He was mistaken (at best).
> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution,
> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting
> him off and going to a commercial.
>
> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something
> I had posted earlier on this NG.
>
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the
> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing
> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this
> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any
> other subject was ok, but not this)
>
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that
> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific
> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing
> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't
> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
you *sound* anti-science. Your argument (else-thread) appears to be
based on evidence from paleontologists contemporary with
Darwin.Haven't you got somehting a little more up to date? For
various reasons you aren't going to see a fossil record with a smooth
progression like you'd like to see. But we do have the whale, the
horse and (da! dum!) the human. Read "The Origin of Humankind" by
Richard Leakey. Or "Trillobite!" by Richard Fortey (any amusing and
witty book about trilobites deserves to be read!)
Oh, and if evolution is wrong what is your alternative? Did species
just spring up fully formed? How often? How many? Why?
And then:-
Did any evolution occur? Why the morphological tree? Why the genetic
tree? Why the fossil tree? What are ERVs? Why do we share so much DNA
with chimps compared with, say, tree frogs?
--
Nick Keighley
chris thompson
>
>
>
> > But evolution is about *biology*. An engineering degree only
> > qualifies you to make judgements on, well, *engineering*.
>
> The Salem Conjecture was new to me. A little google and now I'm
> educated. Wish I'd had google in engineering school! Hee, hee.
>
> If there is anything to engineers being overrepresented in
> creationism, may I suggest two possible factors?
That's not quite what the Salem Hypothesis says. The actual idea is
that _if_ a creationist makes claims to scientific training or
expertise, it is probable that the creationist is an engineer.
Chris
chris thompson
wrote:
> On 29 July, 18:56, "R.Dean" <R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> > > A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> > > I read the book in it's entirety.
> > > I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> > > quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> > > my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> > > that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> > > reasonable critiques of evolution.
>
> I'd be surprised if they actually were reasonable
>
> > > Should any such
> > > criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>
> do we have critcism of gravity or geocentrism in schools? It's hard
> enough getting this stuff into kids heads without having to add in a
> lot of contradictory and actually false stuff.
>
> Any real criticism of science should be dealt with in the published
> journals. Much (most?) of science *is* criticism or correction of
> previous stuff.
>
> > > If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides
> > > of the controversy,
>
> there is no scientific controvery only a social and religious one.
> Discussing religion in schools in the US appears to be illegal.
Not quite. It is legal to discuss religion, but not legal to teach a
religious view as truth.
Chris
snip good stuff
Nick Keighley
> On Jul 31, 12:45 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
thanks for the correction
> Chris
> snip good stuff
thanks, do you think he'll answer?
Will in New Haven
wrote:
This, in fact, can lead to even greater anger by religious people.
Discussion of religion as _other_ than revealed truth can lead to
claims that religion is being disrespected.
chris thompson
R.Dean
is the fact that, engineering is about design, so who better than
engineers to recognize and acknowledge design? Obviously, from Darwin
onward, where there can be no acknowledgement of design, the absence of
design has to be a foregone conclusion. (science supposidily demands it)
Darwin wrote in a letter, in 1860, to Asa Gray, "I am conscience that I
am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we
see it, is the result if chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate
thing as the result of Design."
Then he goes on in the letter to explain why he cannot accept design in
nature. U can read the letter at:
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2998
Richard Dawkings has written books in which his objective is to dissuade
readers that the design we see in nature is in reality
"apparent design". In _The Blind_Watchmaker_" he attacks Paley
argument, where he took on Paley's _Evidences_ (of) design.
I don't know how one can always distinguishes between "apparent design"
and actual design. There is no such thing in the real world as perfect
design, Optimum design is about compromise. Good design is about
design that withstands wear and tear, the effects of the 2nd law of
thermodynamics. Of course sometimes we can look at a object and see
apparent design. There is stone formation in Carolina called Cesar's
head. It appears sculptured, but this is a illusion. It's design by wind
and rain. But look at the sculptures of the 4 US Presidents on
Mt. Rushmore. We know they were sculptured by artist, we know the
sculptures. Look again at Cesar's head, How do we know the rough image
of a human profile wasn't an ancient sculpture; its features eroded by
wind and rain? An ancient Greek statue, is an actual object designed by
an artist. How do we know? Experience shows that humans do create
images of themselves, and these statues are an image of a early
living Greek figure or mythological being. Otherwise how do we know?
If we examine an giraffe's long neck we see actual design which allows
a giraffe to live. "Apparent design" fails here, (although Darwin
attempted to explain how the giraffe got it's long neck by appealing to
his theory). But these "just so stories" do not account for the design
of a large heart (up to 24 pounds), a series of 7(?) neck and head
valves which serve to aid the heart in getting blood to the brain, and
preventing high blood pressure from causing brain damage, vessel
rupture and iris destruction when it stoops to drink.
Could the elongated neck have developed through through
macroevolution, which natural selection would select for? This has been
suggested. However, this would require parallel spontaneous development
of the heart, system of valves, and other special adaptations. Such as
the network of elestic blood vessels, elongated tongue, long legs etc in
order for the animal to survive.
There is no empirical evidence from the fossil record which shows
the elongation of the Giraffe's neck from a creature, that existed
during the Miocene. From it's fossil remains it's virtually the same as
the okapi, however, it is considered a sister species of the form
that gave rise to the modern giraffe. But the series of increasing
neck lengths which gradual change requires are missing from the fossil
record: due, no doubt to an imperfect fossil record. While this is a
logical explanation, it is an excuse, a very convenient excuse.
This is one of a number of problems, I see for evolution and natural
selection, and just one issue that is unresolved.
R.Dean
> On Jul 30, 7:44 pm, "skyey...@yahoo.com"<skyey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> But evolution is about *biology*. An engineering degree only
>> qualifies you to make judgements on, well, *engineering*.
>>
>
> The Salem Conjecture was new to me.
>
>
A little google and now I'm
> educated. Wish I'd had google in engineering school! Hee, hee.
>
> If there is anything to engineers being overrepresented in
> creationism, may I suggest two possible factors?
>
> One is general competence. Like many professions that require
> rigorous preparation, e.g. medicine, engineers tend to overestimate
> how general their competence is.
>
electives are not the same as with students who study less
rigorous majors.
>
We tend to think that since we
> understand how the world works mechanically at a level of detail
> beyond mere mortals, that we also can figure out how it works
> biologically or chemically. Of course that's not true. But we really
> can fix a lawnmower, and a doctor can't.
>
pet scanners, nuclear plants etc. that scientist dream up. So, without
a knowledge of science, how could we accomplish this?
But to become a good engineer, in addition to math, we need a good
foundation in the science of physics and chemistry.
>
> The other is fear. Scientists think, we build stuff. We have
> personal liability for anything that goes wrong. Just as religion
> requires a healthy dose of fear, not only to keep adherents in line
> but to keep them from thinking too critically, engineering contains
> more defense than medicine does. Fear is general as well.
>
anxiety until I see it function as I intended. This doesn't always
happen, as you, as an engineer, knows.
>
> Nor are engineers free of superstition even within their own
> discipline. I just rejected an air conditioning design that included
> magnetic water treatment - the theory that if you put a magnet outside
> a pipe, the water will somehow know not to corrode or scale. Some of
> my peers were embarassed they'd missed it, but some of them were
> indignant that I wasn't a believer.
>
not believers.
R.Dean
always wants to take charge of any conversation, but it doesn't take
long to realize he quickly gets lost and is out of his element.
hersheyh
Humans, generally, are all too likely to see "design" and "pattern" in
nature. After all, usually the consequences of false negative (not
seeing the predator's eyes in the grass) tend to be a bit more
consequential to one's reproductive success than the consequence of a
false positive (seeing predator's eyes in the grass when they aren't
there). Engineers, whose entire focus is on human-manufactured and
designed objects are, perhaps, even more likely to ascribe patterns to
"design" than the average natural scientist.
> Obviously, from Darwin
> onward, where there can be no acknowledgement of design, the absence of
> design has to be a foregone conclusion.
Darwin, in fact, acknowledged design by humans using the same process
that occurs in nature; he called it "artificial selection". That
acknowledgement of "designed organismal features" was, in fact, a
crucial part of his argument. What he did was recognize that
"selection" for increased "fitness" in specific environments did not
require a human-like designer. [This is unlike "selection" by humans,
which typically decreases the fitness of the organism so selected in
'natural' environments.] Darwin saw that the environment itself could
accomplish *change* in traits as well as the long recognized ability
of the environment to *prevent* change. And always in the direction
of "optimization" to the environment that the parents faced.
> (science supposidily demands it)
> Darwin wrote in a letter, in 1860, to Asa Gray, "I am conscience that I
> am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we
> see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate
Coevolution. Blood vessels certainly have the capacity to evolve
valves. Are you claiming that the only thing preventing brain damage
and iris destruction is a "miracle"? That there are not any
physiological or anatomical adaptations that prevent that damage?
> Could the elongated neck have developed through through
> macroevolution, which natural selection would select for? This has been
> suggested. However, this would require parallel spontaneous development
> of the heart, system of valves, and other special adaptations.
Why would that be a problem?
> Such as
> the network of elestic blood vessels, elongated tongue, long legs etc in
> order for the animal to survive.
Why would that be a problem?
R.Dean
> On 29 July, 18:56, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>
>
>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>> reasonable critiques of evolution.
>
> I'd be surprised if they actually were reasonable
>
>
>>> Should any such
>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>
> do we have critcism of gravity or geocentrism in schools? It's hard
> enough getting this stuff into kids heads without having to add in a
> lot of contradictory and actually false stuff.
>
analogy. The effects of gravity are easily discernible to everyone and
is readily testable through active experimentation. Just hold out
a book and turn loose. It will not float it will fall until something
stops it. Evolution is not so easy to see it is not readily testable
through active experimentation such as with gravity or Pasteur's
experiment. Evolution, unlike gravity requires persuasion, exhortation,
conversion and some say propaganda, bantering, subtile threats and
brain-washing.
Will in New Haven
No, it doesn't. All it requires is careful observation of the natural
world. It is clear that evolution occurred and is still going on. You
admit that you don't have much background in biology and it is
possible that people have tried persuasion, etc with you. But you
haven't much background in biology, so no one really should care about
your opinion. I know, in a world where we are constantly inundated
with poll results and politicking, that seems dismissive. And it is
dismissive. Evolution simply doesn't care whether you believe in it or
not. This isn't Tinkerbell here.
R.Dean
experments etc were very narrow, no room for unrelated liberal
arts studies. This only accounts for my absence of a college
background in geology, biology, psychology etc.
But I have read and done considerable studies on my own, after college.
>
> Stuary
>
chris thompson
> >> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>
> >>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
> >>> I read the book in it's entirety.
> >>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
> >>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
> >>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
> >>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
> >>> reasonable critiques of evolution.
>
> > I'd be surprised if they actually were reasonable
>
> >
> I only stated that they seemed reasonable to me.
>
> >>> Should any such
> >>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>
> > do we have critcism of gravity or geocentrism in schools? It's hard
> > enough getting this stuff into kids heads without having to add in a
> > lot of contradictory and actually false stuff.
>
> >
> I see gravity frequently used as a analogy. But it's a very poor
> analogy. The effects of gravity are easily discernible to everyone and
> is readily testable through active experimentation. Just hold out
> a book and turn loose. It will not float it will fall until something
> stops it.
Hmm. I have seen video of people in space and they let go of things
and they do not fall anywhere- they just kind of hang in one spot.
> Evolution is not so easy to see it is not readily testable
> through active experimentation such as with gravity or Pasteur's
> experiment. Evolution, unlike gravity requires persuasion, exhortation,
> conversion and some say propaganda, bantering, subtile threats and
> brain-washing.
Excellent. Given that evolution requires such simplistic rhetorical
techniques, it should be rather easy for you to refute the conclusions
presented in this article:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.short
Full cite:
Herrel, A., Huyghe, K., Vanhooydonck. B., Backeljau, T., Breugelmans,
K., Grbac, I., Van Damme, R., Irschick, D. 2008. Rapid large-scale
evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with
exploitation of a different dietary resource. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
105:4792-4795.
Since it was published in PNAS, the full article is available at no
cost, no registration required. There is a link to a PDF version at
the URL I provided.
Please demonstrate the exhortation, persuasion, propaganda, etc.etc. &
etc in the article. Show where they are mistaken in their conclusions.
Please pay special attention to the statistical methodology, if you
will.
Looking forward to the rebuttal,
Chris
chris thompson
By the way, thank you for proving me mistaken about whether you would
respond.
Chris
R.Dean
> On Jul 30, 9:12 am, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/29/2010 2:47 PM, TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 29, 10:56 am, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>
>>>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design.
>>>>> I read the book in it's entirety.
>>>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical
>>>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to
>>>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere
>>>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be
>>>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education?
>>>>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative.
>>>>> Those who present only one view point do not allow
>>>>> this.
>>
>>>> in public schools, but not on talk radio either.
>>>> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's
>>>> something in your chest call in. You can talk about
>>>> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane
>>>> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School
>>>> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both
>>>> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and
>>>> _against_ both 'theories'".
>>
>>>> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting
>>>> him off and going to a commercial.
>>
>>>> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something
>>>> I had posted earlier on this NG.
>>
>>>> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the
>>>> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing
>>>> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this
>>>> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any
>>>> other subject was ok, but not this)
>>
>>>> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that
>>>> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific
>>>> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing
>>>> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>>
>>>> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't
>>>> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
>>
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> about three or four days there, but quickly realized the insanity of
>>> those who run that forum. They insist Tiktaalik is "just a fish" even
>>> though it is one of the must stunning examples of the predictive power
>>> of evolutonary theory. They insist I prove that the laws of nature we
>>> observe now were always thus and so, putting the burden on me when
>>> they are the ones with the extraordinary claims that the earth is only
>>> six thousand years old and man is not biologically related to other
>>> species. I am actually surprised I lasted as long as I did there. It
>>> was an exercise in futility to try to reason with people who dismiss
>>> the evidence and to whom faith is more important than evidence or
>>> reasoning.
>>
>> >
>> I take it from your title, that you are a guitarist. So am I. I've
>> played the guitar and the piano for about twenty years. The guitar
>> is my first love. My mother was a piano teacher, so, I didn't have
>> a choice I had to learn the piano.
>
> while simultaneously riding a vintage Schwinn ten-speed (hence my
> stage name of The Bicycling Guitarist by which I have been known since
> the early 1980s and which is already arranged to be carved on my
> tombstone). Check my official web site at http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/
> or my YouTube channel "BicyclingGuitarist" if you want to hear what I
> sound like. One of my favorites of the hundreds of songs I've written
> is "Evolution" at http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/songs/evolutio.htm
> My new band Rosetucky will re-record this song probably sometime this
> year. I hope to make a video for it too.
> TBG
>
I went to You tube, listened and watched you. You are very good. I
enjoyed your playing. I can ride a bicycle, and play the guitar, but
_not_ at the same time. I seen you have a Fender Strat, I have a Fender
F240A acoustic. I didn't know Fender made an acoustic stratacaster.
I knew a Jonathan Colton, an engineer who took a hiatus from his
engineering job to embark on a music career. He has a several songs,
he wrote on you tube. My favorite is without music, but is beautiful
entitled "When you Go". He wrote the song "Code Monkey", It's Not about
You", and dozens or other. You might enjoy his stuff.
TimR
> >
> We design, in addition to lawnmowers, rocket ships, computers, lasers,
> pet scanners, nuclear plants etc. that scientist dream up.
Of course you know this.
But for the benefit of the non-engineers reading this, I feel
compelled to explain further.
The highest achievement possible for an engineer is not to fix a
lawnmower.
Nor is it to design a lawnmower.
Rather, it is to design a tool to fix a broken lawnmower.
Once you understand that, you understand engineers.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
>On 7/31/2010 12:45 PM, Nick Keighley wrote:
If you don't understand that the effects of imperfect reproduction are
also discernible, it comes from your religious prejudices. Go learn some
genetics.
...
R.Dean
>
>> Obviously, from Darwin
>> onward, where there can be no acknowledgement of design, the absence of
>> design has to be a foregone conclusion.
>
> Darwin, in fact, acknowledged design by humans using the same process
> that occurs in nature; he called it "artificial selection".
>
carried out. Natural selection supposedly, according to evolution, is
not intelligent, no intelligent oriented.
That
> acknowledgement of "designed organismal features" was, in fact, a
> crucial part of his argument. What he did was recognize that
> "selection" for increased "fitness" in specific environments did not
> require a human-like designer. [This is unlike "selection" by humans,
> which typically decreases the fitness of the organism so selected in
> 'natural' environments.] Darwin saw that the environment itself could
> accomplish *change* in traits as well as the long recognized ability
> of the environment to *prevent* change. And always in the direction
> of "optimization" to the environment that the parents faced.
>
Yes, I'm quite aware and have a reasonably good understand of this.
Changing environment, and other abiotic conditions cause stress etc on
organisms which are adapted to the old when change occurs. Those with
the necessary mutations are selected, are better suited to cope, survive
and have offspring which inherit the improved traits which are better
fit the changed enviroment.
The organisms which are less fit(less adapted to the changing
enviroment) are culled out by natural selection. (just one example)
Co evolution has been compared to a arms race. The predator is faster
than the prey members, therefore, selection chooses faster prey to
survive and produce faster offspring. Faster offspring selects for the
faster cat.
But commonly named examples of co evolution would be bees and flowers,
fig species and specialty wasp to fertilize the fruit, a species of ant
and Acadia tree etc. But co evolution in the case of the neck of a
giraffe and the necessary etwases for life. Where is your evidence?
To simply state "coevolution" is in the same vein as "goddidit".
>
Blood vessels certainly have the capacity to evolve
> valves.
>
This is just a claim with no empirical evidence to support it.
Are you claiming that the only thing preventing brain damage
> and iris destruction is a "miracle"?
>
No, it's the series of valves that regulate blood pressure as
the animal goes through its process of living day to day.
That there are not any
> physiological or anatomical adaptations that prevent that damage?
>
>> Could the elongated neck have developed through through
>> macroevolution, which natural selection would select for? This has been
>> suggested. However, this would require parallel spontaneous development
>> of the heart, system of valves, and other special adaptations.
>
> Why would that be a problem?
>
That comment explains nothing.
>
>> Such as
>> the network of elestic blood vessels, elongated tongue, long legs etc in
>> order for the animal to survive.
>
> Why would that be a problem?
>
Where is you answer.
>>
>> There is no empirical evidence from the fossil record which shows
>> the elongation of the Giraffe's neck from a creature, that existed
>> during the Miocene. From it's fossil remains it's virtually the same as
>> the okapi, however, it is considered a sister species of the form
>> that gave rise to the modern giraffe. But the series of increasing
>> neck lengths which gradual changes requires are missing from the fossil
>> record: due, no doubt to an imperfect fossil record. While this is a
>> logical explanation, it is an excuse, a very convenient excuse.
>
Obviously, there is no natural explanation to this. And certainly no one
has offered any empirical evidence which demonstrates the evolutionary
pathway of the particular feature.
R.Dean
R.Dean
> On Jul 31, 6:01 pm, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> We design, in addition to lawnmowers, rocket ships, computers, lasers,
>> pet scanners, nuclear plants etc. that scientist dream up.
>
> Of course you know this.
>
> But for the benefit of the non-engineers reading this, I feel
> compelled to explain further.
>
> The highest achievement possible for an engineer is not to fix a
> lawnmower.
>
that doesn't perform to specs, it's the engineering technician to
explain why it doesn't and for engineers to "go back to the drawning
board". This I've done.
>
> Nor is it to design a lawnmower.
>
> Rather, it is to design a tool to fix a broken lawnmower.
>
> Once you understand that, you understand engineers.
>
Well, yes. Good show!
R.Dean
>
> Chris
>
Robert Camp
> On 7/30/2010 7:30 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:06:59 -0400, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >> On 7/30/2010 11:29 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:14:24 -0400, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>> alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >>>> On 7/30/2010 2:51 AM, harry k wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 10:56 am, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
<snip>
> >>> Maybe you can explain why strongly-religious people with an interest in
> >>> science and technology tend to become engineers rather than scientists.
>
> >> That's an astute observation, Mr. Free. I never thought about it, but
> >> many on my engineering colleagues seem to fit your description. This
> >> is curious.
>
> > It's just a question that arises from the Salem Conjecture. Why are
> > religious people afraid of science?
>
> I've never heard of Salem Conjecture, but one thing comes to mind, that
> is the fact that, engineering is about design, so who better than
> engineers to recognize and acknowledge design?
People who are skilled at recognizing and acknowledging flawed
arguments.
You, as an engineer, are familiar with design (as, in fact, we all
are). But you still make the unwarranted leap of logic that allows an
assumption of equivalence between human design and the kind of
"design" that would be required for ID. In this case at least,
engineers appear to be more likely than most to see what they wish to
see.
> Obviously, from Darwin
> onward, where there can be no acknowledgement of design, the absence of
> design has to be a foregone conclusion.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but you produce this kind of
petulant, pejorative assertion often enough that it's hard to take
your attempts to look unbiased seriously. Please stop the whining,
it's unseemly, but more importantly it's inaccurate. "Design" will be
acknowledged when "design" has been evidenced. The "absence of design"
you speak of is merely a facet of scientific methodology. You should
learn more about this.
> (science supposidily demands it)
> Darwin wrote in a letter, in 1860, to Asa Gray, "I am conscience that I
> am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we
> see it, is the result if chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate
> thing as the result of Design."
> Then he goes on in the letter to explain why he cannot accept design in
> nature. U can read the letter at:
Your transcriptions could benefit from some proof-reading. In any
case, we're aware of Darwin's thoughts here, what's your point?
> Richard Dawkings has written books in which his objective is to dissuade
> readers that the design we see in nature is in reality
> "apparent design". In _The Blind_Watchmaker_" he attacks Paley
> argument, where he took on Paley's _Evidences_ (of) design.
No, his attempt was to *persuade* readers that the design we see in
nature is really apparent design. What's your point?
> I don't know how one can always distinguishes between "apparent design"
> and actual design.
It depends on how good an approximation of actual design (the result
of purposeful agency) the apparent design is. But there is a problem
of terminology here, and that is why I disagree with Dawkins that it
is accurate or reasonable to call anything in nature "apparent
design." Since the word design implies intent, and there is nothing
diagnostic, or even suggestive, of intent in the works of nature, I
think it's a mistake to use the word, even when qualified by
"apparent."
> There is no such thing in the real world as perfect
> design, Optimum design is about compromise. Good design is about
> design that withstands wear and tear, the effects of the 2nd law of
> thermodynamics.
This is all true, as it applies to human design. Likely as well it is
true as it applies to design by any natural intelligence. But there is
no way to extend these concerns to the kind of "designer" required by
ID. You simply cannot know anything about which constraints, if any,
apply to a transcendent designer.
> Of course sometimes we can look at a object and see
> apparent design. There is stone formation in Carolina called Cesar's
> head. It appears sculptured, but this is a illusion. It's design by wind
> and rain. But look at the sculptures of the 4 US Presidents on
> Mt. Rushmore. We know they were sculptured by artist, we know the
> sculptures. Look again at Cesar's head, How do we know the rough image
> of a human profile wasn't an ancient sculpture; its features eroded by
> wind and rain? An ancient Greek statue, is an actual object designed by
> an artist. How do we know? Experience shows that humans do create
> images of themselves, and these statues are an image of a early
> living Greek figure or mythological being. Otherwise how do we know?
We know by reference to experience. This is not fool-proof by any
means, as your examples, and many others, show.
> If we examine an giraffe's long neck we see actual design which allows
> a giraffe to live.
Was this a mistake of composition, or do you intend to demonstrate how
you know that the giraffe's neck is "actual design?" If the latter,
you can start by listing those characteristics of the giraffe's neck
that unequivocally point to purposeful intent.
> "Apparent design" fails here, (although Darwin
> attempted to explain how the giraffe got it's long neck by appealing to
> his theory). But these "just so stories" do not account for the design
> of a large heart (up to 24 pounds), a series of 7(?) neck and head
> valves which serve to aid the heart in getting blood to the brain, and
> preventing high blood pressure from causing brain damage, vessel
> rupture and iris destruction when it stoops to drink.
> Could the elongated neck have developed through through
> macroevolution, which natural selection would select for? This has been
> suggested. However, this would require parallel spontaneous development
> of the heart, system of valves, and other special adaptations. Such as
> the network of elestic blood vessels, elongated tongue, long legs etc in
> order for the animal to survive.
You have never taken a biology class, or read a biology textbook, have
you?
> There is no empirical evidence from the fossil record which shows
> the elongation of the Giraffe's neck from a creature, that existed
> during the Miocene. From it's fossil remains it's virtually the same as
> the okapi, however, it is considered a sister species of the form
> that gave rise to the modern giraffe. But the series of increasing
> neck lengths which gradual change requires are missing from the fossil
> record: due, no doubt to an imperfect fossil record. While this is a
> logical explanation, it is an excuse, a very convenient excuse.
Wonderfully cherry-picked. You cite the lack of transitionals since
the Miocene without mentioning those during and before.
"Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first
giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then
Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early
Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid
complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage
goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe,
and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi,
essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa
(Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html
However, you were too quick on the draw. Look up the work of Solounias
and Tang regarding Bohlinia attica, a medium-length necked giraffe.
> This is one of a number of problems, I see for evolution and natural
> selection, and just one issue that is unresolved.
I'll never cease to be amazed at how engineers can "just know" that
biologists who have spent their professional careers researching this
stuff are wrong. The hubris is simply staggering.
RLC