Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
Antimulticulture
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
I have heard many Christians say that evolution
doesn't concern them because, after all, it's
"_only a theory_." Presumably they think that the
word "theory" means about the same thing as a
"pipe dream."
[Ed. The dictionary also defines a "theory" as
speculation - eg 'JFK conspiracy theory'. When
the "theory of evolution" was first proposed it
was nothing more than a form of this aforementioned
'speculation' as it had no grounding in science -
Remember Darwin never explained the 'Origin of Species'
in his book...now let's learn how the term "theory" is
deliberately misapplied in the scientific sense by
the Marxists...]
But the term "theory," at least as it applies to
experimental science, has a much nobler meaning
than that. A scientific theory is a careful
attempt to explain certain observable
_facts_ of nature by means of experiments. Since
many Christians have concluded that evolution is
incompatible with the Biblical account of
creation, we would do well to investigate if
evolution is a fact or a theory -- or perhaps neither.
There is a widespread misconception that good
theories grow up to be facts and that the really
good ones finally become laws. But these three
categories of scientific description are neither
directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often
occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be
described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law
-- all at the same time!
Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity.
First, there is a "fact" of gravity. While we
cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we
do observe the effects of this force every time we
drop something. There is also a _theory_ of
gravity that addresses the question of how this
force we call gravity really works. While we don't
know how gravity works, there are theories that
attempt to explain it. Finally there is the
well-known _law_ of gravity. This law, first
formulated by Isaac Newton, a believing Christian
and creationist, is a mathematical equation that
shows a relationship between mass, distance and
gravitational force. So, in summary, a _scientific
fact_ is an observable natural occurrence; a
"scientific theory" is an attempt to explain how a
natural occurrence works; and a _scientific law_
is a mathematical description of a natural occurrence.
Science itself is the whole process of making
careful observations of certain facts of nature
and then constructing and testing theories that
seek to explain those facts. Scientists call these
attempts to test their theories experiments.
Experimental science, better known as "empirical
science", is the kind of science that is
responsible for the marvelous technological
achievements that make our life easier. One has
only to consider what it would be like to endure
surgery without anesthesia to appreciate the
contributions of empirical science to our lives.
The most important requirement of empirical
science is that any object or phenomenon we wish
to study must first be "observable". While we may
assume the existence of events not witnessed by
human observers, such events are not suited to
study by empirical science. Secondly, the event we
wish to study should be "repeatable". Unique and
unrepeatable
events, such as the Babylonian Empire, are the
subject of history, not empirical science.
Finally, any theory we might propose as an
explanation for an observable and repeatable event
must be "testable": we must be able to conceive of
an experiment that could refute our theory if it
were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation
for an event in such a way that no one could
conceive of any way to test or refute it, it
wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a
"belief". Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily
wrong, they just aren't well suited to study by
empirical science.
What then shall we say of evolution? First,
evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary
changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to
be "observable" in the lifetime of human
observers. The offspring of most living organisms,
for example, are said to remain largely unchanged
for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years.
Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur,
evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they
are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible." Dobzhansky concludes that the
"applicability of the experimental method to the
study of such unique historical processes is
severely restricted." Finally, evolutionist Paul
Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution
"cannot be refuted by any possible observations"
and thus is "outside of empirical science."
Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely
believed by the scientific community to be a
"fact" and those who dare to doubt it are not
endured gladly. The _Encyclopedia Britannica_
confidently assures us that "we are not in the
least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In his
textbook _Evolution_, Joe Savage says "we do not
need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the
fact of evolution any more than we need to
demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In
another textbook, "Outlines of General Zoology",
H. Newman arrogantly declares that evolution has
no rival as an explanation for the origin of
everything "except the outworn and completely
refuted one of special creation, now retained only
by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial."
What exactly is the "observable fact" of
evolution? First you should be aware that
evolutionists recognize two types of "evolution"
--microevolution, which is observable, and
macroevolution, which isn't. So called
"microevolution" is a process of "limited"
variation among the individuals of a given species
that produces the sort of variety we observe among
dogs. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a
hypothetical process of "unlimited" variation that
evolutionists believe transforms one kind of
living organism into a fundamentally different
kind such as the transformation of reptiles into
birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has
ever observed anything remotely like this
transformation.
The very name "microevolution" is intended to
imply that it is this kind of variation that
accumulates to produce macroevolution, though a
growing number of evolutionists admit there is no
evidence to support this. Thus, an observable
phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable
phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and
then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the
strength of the former. It is this kind of
limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the
argument for evolution.
In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable,
repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account
of creation is not observable, repeatable or
refutable by man. Special creation is accepted
with faith by those who believe that the Bible is
the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient
Creator whose Word is more reliable than the
speculations of men. Both evolution and creation,
however, can be compared for their "compatibility"
with what we "do" observe of the facts of nature.
In future essays we will see that creation by
intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable
explanation for the origin of the complexity we
see in living things than is evolution by mere
chance and the intrinsic properties of matter.
[Ed. Evolution is not science, it is a political
movement pushed by leftists who seek a world without
consequence for their depravity...]
-x-
Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from
Brown University. He has been involved in
biomedical research and education for over 30 years.
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multi-culty
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up The Traitors!"
gso...@gmail.com
to the evolutionary paradigm, most particularly the numerous paradoxes
involved in the unfit transitional periods implied by a continuous
variation, it is certainly untrue that the process cannot be tested or
observed. And the examples go much further than domesticated animals -
which in fact only show the effects of artificial selection regimes,
and have little to do with environmental pressures or adaptive
mutations. More relevant are the many experiments with bacteria, which
by virtue of rapid population turnover are able to show adaptive
specialization on quite reasonable time scales in response to a wide
variety of novel environments. You would be quite right however, to
point out that these experiments give little indication of
'macro-evolution'. For that it is more relevant to look outside of the
biological context. Although evolutionary theory was initially formed
as an explanatory framework for organic variation, its most useful
elements have subsequently been freed from the traditional die-hard
darwinian standpoint. Observable examples of the propagation of
adaptive variation are widespread in our cultures, technologies and
artifacts. Furthermore, there is a substantial body of literature on
computationally based experiments in evolution, particularly in the
field of artificial life. The fact is that the processes of selective
pressure are quite definitely observable, and are thus significantly
less ad-hoc explanations than creationism or intelligent design. The
real issue with evolutionary theory is in determining exactly what
classes of elements the process acts on, and by what mechanisms the
mutations occur. The paradigm's biggest downfall is the assumption that
the mutations on which selective pressures act are initially random -
which often yields prohibitive time scale forecasts and forces
reluctant acceptance of such constructs as the anthropic principle, as
well as raising the sticky issue of what exactly 'randomness' is and
whether or not it is even a fundamentally objective feature of our
universe. Bottom line, evolution is much more than a politcal
stand-point, but also much less well-defined than we might like it to
be.
-Grayden
David V.
First of all, evolution is not a paradigm. Evolution is a fact.
It happened. Deal with it.
--
Dave
....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>gso...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Though there are certainly a number of unanswered questions
>> with regard to the evolutionary paradigm....
>
Perhaps the guy is a POMO.
David V.
POMO ?
grayden
First off I don't know what POMO means either, but I can only assume
it's derisive. Secondly, I'm not really disputing evolution - but I am
saying that the term is still sufficiently ill-defined to be accepted
as a 'fact'. Evolution is a brilliant and evidently well reasoned idea,
but we still haven't figured out exactly where its bounds of
applicability are, so to call it fact is premature. There is a great
deal supporting it, but in so far as science is concerned it is still
too loosely defined and its particular details too often contested to
be held in any absolute sense. If you'd bothered to read the rest of my
post you would have already inferred that standpoint and might perhaps
have advanced arguments against it instead of empty refutation.
-Grayden
David V.
>
> First off I don't know what POMO means either, but I can only
> assume it's derisive. Secondly, I'm not really disputing
> evolution - but I am saying that the term is still
> sufficiently ill-defined to be accepted as a 'fact'.
Then it is obvious that you lack the knowledge on the topic.
Evolution happened. It is a fact. There is not one iota of
scientific proof, or evidence, that disputes the fact that
evolution happened, and is happening now. There are only RELIGIOUS
objections. Evolution is defined as change over time. There is
ample proof of that.
> Evolution is a brilliant and evidently well reasoned idea, but
> we still haven't figured out exactly where its bounds of
> applicability are, so to call it fact is premature.
No, it is not. You are purposely confusing two terms in order to
create an argument by equivocation. Evolution happened. That is a
fact beyond a doubt. How evolution happened has been pretty much
answered; change in DNA over time. That we do not know the exact
gene change sequence to go from a eohippus to a horse does not
change the fact that it happened.
> There is a great deal supporting it, but in so far as science
> is concerned it is still too loosely defined and its
> particular details too often contested to be held in any
> absolute sense.
Evolution is NOT loosely defined. That's just a creationists
claim that is based on ignorance rather than reality.
> If you'd bothered to read the rest of my post you would have
> already inferred that standpoint and might perhaps have
> advanced arguments against it instead of empty refutation.
Your's is the empty refutation and as such there can be no
"advanced arguments" against your claims.
You'll have to forgive my curtness. I'm tired of creationists
making up lies about evolution and trying to push their religion
on everyone else. I don't know all there is to know about
evolution since I have only a Masters in Entomology. I do know
that evolution is a fact. Like I said; the only objections are
religious, or based on ignorance.
grayden
David V. wrote:
> grayden wrote:
> >
> > First off I don't know what POMO means either, but I can only
> > assume it's derisive. Secondly, I'm not really disputing
> > evolution - but I am saying that the term is still
> > sufficiently ill-defined to be accepted as a 'fact'.
>
> Then it is obvious that you lack the knowledge on the topic.
> Evolution happened. It is a fact. There is not one iota of
> scientific proof, or evidence, that disputes the fact that
> evolution happened, and is happening now. There are only RELIGIOUS
> objections. Evolution is defined as change over time. There is
> ample proof of that.
If that is your sole definition for evolution, then the whole subject
is irrelevant. Any dynamic system will change over time - but will
generally do so in a way that tends toward more simplistic and less
ordered states. Biological entities are particularly complex
configurations which effect local reductions in entropy. So if your
definition of evolution is simply "change over time", then of course it
has happened. However, I suspect you would actually want to define
evolution as directed change over time - even if the sole 'direction'
is through open-ended and self-referential environment-agent
interactions resulting in differential selective pressure on variable
traits. But if that is the case then you are left with a number of
loose ends which need to be better defined. What is the nature of the
environment-agent interaction? How is the variability produced? Can an
evolutionary system be open-ended without being self-referential? What
you don't seem to realize is that I'm not arguing against evolution. I
have no taste for creationism - and I made that explicit in my very
first post. Evidently you haven't taken the time to digest this. What
I'm saying is that 'evolution', as a term and as a field of study,
lacks a rigorous and unanimously agreed-upon definition. That doesn't
mean it's wrong, and I don't believe that it is. What it means is that
it is still not fully matured as a theoretical construct, and this is
largely because it has so many important implications. So no. Evolution
is not a fact. Change over time is a fact. It even seems clear that
directed, adaptive change over time through selective pressures is a
fact. But until 'evolution' can be explicitly and consistently
pinned-down, it is a linguistic umbrella for what is currently a large
body of often-contrary ideologies. Try to read what I'm saying instead
of putting me into one of two boxes.
>
> > Evolution is a brilliant and evidently well reasoned idea, but
> > we still haven't figured out exactly where its bounds of
> > applicability are, so to call it fact is premature.
>
> No, it is not. You are purposely confusing two terms in order to
> create an argument by equivocation. Evolution happened. That is a
> fact beyond a doubt. How evolution happened has been pretty much
> answered; change in DNA over time. That we do not know the exact
> gene change sequence to go from a eohippus to a horse does not
> change the fact that it happened.
Actually there's a lot more than this that we don't really know and
which has direct relevance to any generalized theory of evolution. Why
do all biological species on earth share the same 'genetic code'? Is it
a structural necessity or an early fluke preserved because it got a
head start on its competition? We don't know. Is the prodominant
driving force point mutation or cross-over? We don't know. Are chnages
in trait expressive step-wise or continuous? Inconclusive. Does
evolution's domain include only biological things, or would thoughts
and artifacts also be included in a generalized theory? Depends who you
ask. Do you see my point? Everyone has a general idea of what the word
means - and in that context it is indeed essentially irrefutable. But a
general idea makes for inconsistent study and consequently produces
shaky scientific footing. The theory needs to be disambiguated, or if
necessary subdivided.
>
> > There is a great deal supporting it, but in so far as science
> > is concerned it is still too loosely defined and its
> > particular details too often contested to be held in any
> > absolute sense.
>
> Evolution is NOT loosely defined. That's just a creationists
> claim that is based on ignorance rather than reality.
>From the above points I hope you'll reconsider that stance.
>
> > If you'd bothered to read the rest of my post you would have
> > already inferred that standpoint and might perhaps have
> > advanced arguments against it instead of empty refutation.
>
> Your's is the empty refutation and as such there can be no
> "advanced arguments" against your claims.
>
> You'll have to forgive my curtness. I'm tired of creationists
> making up lies about evolution and trying to push their religion
> on everyone else. I don't know all there is to know about
> evolution since I have only a Masters in Entomology. I do know
> that evolution is a fact. Like I said; the only objections are
> religious, or based on ignorance.
> --
> Dave
And like I said - I'm not a creationist and I couldn't care less what
you believe as religion. But what you believe as science needs basis in
something more firm than a generalized collection of principles. And if
you weren't so dogmatic about the subject, you'd be willing to address
the legitimate concerns instead of relegating them to the same category
as the crack-pot concerns. There *are* probability issues with
evolution as solely directed by chance. That doesn't mean you need to
invoke some 'God' mechanism or what have you. It just means you have to
look at a larger picture and see what system-level effects might serve
as organizational driving forces at the lower levels. There are also
issues involving mimickry amoung species. An oft cited example is when
two unpalatable (to birds) species of moths develop similar appearances
over time. If they both start looking different, then theoretically, a
change (i.e. a step towards looking like the other species) would
result in them no longer looking like they original did - which would
be selectively disadvantageous because birds would need to learn that
these new looking moths are also unpalatable. But the effect is
observed and recorded anyway. There are a lot of similar 'paradoxes'
involving intermediate stages in proposed evolutionary courses. I have
to stress that this doesn't mean the theory is wrong - it just means it
has a lot of unanswered questions. And the sooner we stop ignoring them
and figure out a framework that actually answers them, the sooner and
more easily we can stamp out the crack-pot alternatives. Hopefully
you'll take the time to consider this before blindly attacking me
again.
-Grayden
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>> grayden wrote:
>>
>>> First off I don't know what POMO means either, but I can
>>> only assume it's derisive. Secondly, I'm not really
>>> disputing evolution - but I am saying that the term is
>>> still sufficiently ill-defined to be accepted as a 'fact'.
>>>
>>
>> Then it is obvious that you lack the knowledge on the topic.
>> Evolution happened. It is a fact. There is not one iota of
>> scientific proof, or evidence, that disputes the fact that
>> evolution happened, and is happening now. There are only
>> RELIGIOUS objections. Evolution is defined as change over
>> time. There is ample proof of that.
>
> If that is your sole definition for evolution, then the whole
As are your objections to evolution. I don't have time to read
through lengthy straw man arguments against evolution. Go to
college and take a few biology, and philosophy, courses.
Jeffrey Turner
> grayden wrote:
>
>> David V. wrote:
>>
>>> grayden wrote:
>>>
>>>> First off I don't know what POMO means either, but I can only assume
>>>> it's derisive. Secondly, I'm not really disputing evolution - but I
>>>> am saying that the term is still sufficiently ill-defined to be
>>>> accepted as a 'fact'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then it is obvious that you lack the knowledge on the topic.
>>> Evolution happened. It is a fact. There is not one iota of
>>> scientific proof, or evidence, that disputes the fact that
>>> evolution happened, and is happening now. There are only RELIGIOUS
>>> objections. Evolution is defined as change over time. There is ample
>>> proof of that.
>>
>>
>> If that is your sole definition for evolution, then the whole subject
>> is irrelevant......
>
>
> As are your objections to evolution. I don't have time to read
> through lengthy straw man arguments against evolution. Go to
> college and take a few biology, and philosophy, courses.
Or try talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/
--Jeff
--
The shepherd always tries to persuade
the sheep that their interests and
his own are the same. --Stendhal
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>> grayden wrote:
>>
>>> David V. wrote:
>>>
>>>> grayden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First off I don't know what POMO means either, but I
>>>>> can only assume it's derisive. Secondly, I'm not
>>>>> really disputing evolution - but I am saying that the
>>>>> term is still sufficiently ill-defined to be accepted
>>>>> as a 'fact'.
>>>>
>>>> Then it is obvious that you lack the knowledge on the
>>>> topic. Evolution happened. It is a fact. There is not
>>>> one iota of scientific proof, or evidence, that disputes
>>>> the fact that evolution happened, and is happening now.
>>>> There are only RELIGIOUS objections. Evolution is
>>>> defined as change over time. There is ample proof of
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> If that is your sole definition for evolution, then the
>>> whole subject is irrelevant......
>>
>> As are your objections to evolution. I don't have time to
>> read through lengthy straw man arguments against evolution.
>> Go to college and take a few biology, and philosophy,
>> courses.
>
> Or try talk.origins or http://www.talkorigins.org/
That's part of the problem. People don't want to get educated on
evolution. They just want to dispute a few poorly phrased
statements, or misunderstood concepts, and think they've brought
down all of evolution.
grayden
This as absolutely unbelievable. In every post I've written here I've
argued *for* the concept. If you are unwilling to even address the
existing and relevant concerns with regards to its remaining
ambiguities, then your standpoint is more in line with the church than
with science. I haven't once said the theory is wrong - I've said it
needs explicit delineation. And it does. Can you tell me exactly what
properties a system requires in order for the emergence of evolutionary
effects? If you can't - then you don't have a theory - you have a
paradigm that *needs* a theory. Just because all the evidence indicates
that there should be one (and it does), doesn't mean you can just not
bother formulating it. I'm genuinely amazed by the hypocritical
dogmatism that still infects science. You can prop yourself up on a
pile of textbooks and you still won't gain a shred of added perspective
unless you're willing to take in the information in a critical manner.
Not assuming it's wrong - but looking for where it might need
improvement. There's a distinct difference between memorization and
learning.
-Grayden
David V.
> here I've argued *for* the concept.
Saying that evolution is poorly defined is not arguing *for* the
concept.
> If you are unwilling to even address the existing and relevant
> concerns with regards to its remaining ambiguities, then your
> standpoint is more in line with the church than with science.
>
What "ambiguities"?
Your strawman argument about the definition of evolution?
Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA212.html
Your strawman argument about evolution not explaining everything?
Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100_1.html
Your "arguments" are exactly the same as the creationists.
> I haven't once said the theory is wrong - I've said it needs
> explicit delineation. And it does.
It has been. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it
hasn't been done.
> Can you tell me exactly what properties a system requires in
> order for the emergence of evolutionary effects?
Because you don't get the exact answer to an overly broad, and
poorly phrased, question doesn't mean that evolution didn't
happen or is not a valid theory.
Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
This might help you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
grayden
David V. wrote:
> grayden wrote:
> > If you are unwilling to even address the existing and relevant
> > concerns with regards to its remaining ambiguities, then your
> > standpoint is more in line with the church than with science.
> >
> What "ambiguities"?
>
> Your strawman argument about the definition of evolution?
> Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA212.html
>
>From that very site:
"The word "evolution" is an unfortunate instance of that ambiguity; it
is used for the fact of biological change over time; as shorthand for
the theory of evolution, which encompasses a much broader range of
observations and ideas; and for change generally, in any realm. The
ambiguity can usually be resolved by the context in which the word is
used, at least by people who know something about biological
evolution."
This handy prefab response is entirely in line with my statements. I'm
not sure what your point is. My problem with that ambiguity is that it
points to lingering instability in the framework. If the theory is that
context-sensitive, why is it so unreasonable for me to suggest that it
would be beneficial to have a general and explicit foundation?
> Your strawman argument about evolution not explaining everything?
> Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100_1.html
This site is even less useful and essentially irrelevant to my
questions. I raised issues on very particular concerns with the general
scheme which have yet to be resolved. The responses on the site don't
even pretend to address the anomalous facts I mentioned, so I don't
really know why you sent me there. However, there were some interesting
points there regardless.
"The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply
uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as
principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In
the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the
phenomena involved. All are facts:
-Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
-Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
-Species are related via common descent from one or a few common
ancestors;
-Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species
change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well. "
Here's my concern. Each of those facts (and yes, I accept completely
that they are facts), are historical ones. They say nothing about the
process of evolution in general. This is like founding physical theory
on the fact that "something once fell". This guarantees the truth of an
effect, but it does nothing to explain the mechanisms.
>
> Your "arguments" are exactly the same as the creationists.
But I have a distinctly different agenda.
>
> > I haven't once said the theory is wrong - I've said it needs
> > explicit delineation. And it does.
>
> It has been. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it
> hasn't been done.
If you can point me to it I'd be delighted, but it certainly isn't
anywhere on the site you directed me to.
>
> > Can you tell me exactly what properties a system requires in
> > order for the emergence of evolutionary effects?
>
> Because you don't get the exact answer to an overly broad, and
> poorly phrased, question doesn't mean that evolution didn't
> happen or is not a valid theory.
I don't know why you consider that to be a poorly phrased question,
except perhaps because you don't have an answer for it. A theory about
some feature of the universe should be universal. Period. If, as is
apparantly the case with evolution, the theory is dependent on certain
contexts, then the system level requirements ensuring those contexts
need to be explicitly defined. Questions like: How are the units
subject to evolutionary pressures differentiated from their
environments? What, if any, are the bounds regulating the influence a
unit has on its environment versus the influence the environment exerts
on the unit? If evolutionary theory is so great (and I honestly think
it has a deep significance), then why is no one willing to put in the
effort to actually explain what it is? Ignoring the hard problems won't
make them go away.
>
> Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
> This might help you:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
>From that last site:
"Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is
occurring. That part of Darwin's book is now considered to be so
overwhelmingly demonstrated that is is often referred to as the FACT of
evolution. However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated."
Am I the only one who thinks that's a problem? You still seem bent on
pegging me as a creationist - but you're wrong, and that definitely
flavours the types of arguments you're putting forward here. I am as
scientifically grounded as the next guy, and I do believe that the
collection of principles embodied by evolutionary theory is pointing
towards something very important and likely universal. But I'm the guy
in the back saying that just because we're sure it happened doesn't
mean we can pretend we know why it happened and just not bother
discussing it. The site however, was helpful at least in clarifying
your position. I now know why you say evolution is a fact: because it
has happened here on earth in the biological context. What I'm arguing
is different. I'm saying that evolutionary theory is incomplete. The
principles, in so far as they are applicably useful, are fairly
consistent - but most of those principles are poorly, if at all
understood.
So to summarize my position once more, because I want this to be clear
before you send me to more counter-creationist sites, I'm not disputing
that evolution happened on Earth within the biological domain. What I'm
arguing is that the theory behind that "fact of evolution" is still far
from mature as a scientific theory. To use a stupid metaphor, evolution
is a really beautiful rug - but none of the ends have been tied off. To
me, that's a problem.
-Grayden
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>>grayden wrote:
>
>
>>>If you are unwilling to even address the existing and relevant
>>> concerns with regards to its remaining ambiguities, then your
>>> standpoint is more in line with the church than with science.
>>>
>>
>>What "ambiguities"?
>>
>>Your strawman argument about the definition of evolution?
>>Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA212.html
>>
>
> This handy prefab response is entirely in line with my statements. I'm
> not sure what your point is.
I'm sorry. I can't help you.
Toadface
Wars, simply the result of imagination.
Toadface
"How evolution happened has been pretty much
answered; change in DNA over time. That we do not know the exact
gene change sequence to go from a eohippus to a horse does not
change the fact that it happened. "
It is a known fact that different animals have different DNA but it not
a fact that this happened by evolution. Evoltuion is a very bad
assumption without proof just like saying, somewhere in the universe
Darth Vader must exist because I've seen enough science FICTION films.
grayden
I think you actually *would* benefit from visiting
http://www.talkorigins.org
-grayden
David V.
> Evolution is Science FICTION.
Actually, it's your god, and your education, that's fiction.
David V.
> David V wrote:
>
> "How evolution happened has been pretty much answered; change
> in DNA over time. That we do not know the exact gene change
> sequence to go from a eohippus to a horse does not change the
> fact that it happened. "
>
> It is a known fact that different animals have different DNA
> but it not a fact that this happened by evolution.
It is, you're just too ignorant to understand.
Toadface
prove something to be true. There was a time when most people believed
the world to be flat but it did not PROVE it to be true.
Toadface
Toadface
"Actually, it's your god, and your education, that's fiction."
Come on you can do better than that. You cannot debate evolution
without using childish insults. It's the same whenever you see it
debated on TV. The reason you can't debate seriously is because it
can't really be taken seriously. in another 1000 years, cats will still
go meow and dogs will go woff woff. they won't evolve because they
never did.
I'm saying stop watching Star Trek ort Dr Who but try to recognise the
difference between fact and fiction.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Evolution is Science FICTION. It is no more a fact than Dr Who or Star
>Wars, simply the result of imagination.
for anyone who learned his biology from Bible babble.
BCole
plants, and so on. Macroevolution is a theory utilizing facts and
reason. Macroevolution will become a fact in the case of observable
evidence such as the extraction of DNA from fossils over a comparable
time period of millions of years. However, for a theory to be
disproved, it must be replaced by another theory also using facts and
reason. If the macroevolution did not exist as as theory and instead
were a belief, intelligent design would be a belief. If the theory of
evolution were a belief and not a theory, intelligent design and
macroevolution would constitute the same argument as theism versus
atheism. But beliefs do not exist alongside a theory. Intelligent
design uses neither facts nor reason. Intelligent design would only be
proven in the case that God appeared and stated that creationism is
fact. In the case of God's announcement, intelligent design would jump
from non-existence (not a belief), skipping over the theory stage, to
fact, and in the process, replace the theory of macroevolution. But
like any other theory that may someday contest or replace the theory of
macroevolution, intelligent design, in comparison, does not currently
exist as an alternative to the theory of macroevolution. The theory of
macroevolution is currently the ONLY explanation of the change of life
over time.
Le Trôle
news:1123801467.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Microevolution is a fact supported by empirical evidence: bacteria,
> plants, and so on. Macroevolution is a theory utilizing facts and
> reason.
If evolution works, how come all them different kinds
of animals needed to be loaded on the ark? A couple
of badgers would have been enough if critters
change into other critters anyway.
BCole
anyway. If the Ark existed, placing only two bagders on the Ark would
irradicate the organisms formed by evolution in the time period prior
to the Ark - the badgers being but one branch on the tree at the time
of the Ark. The badgers, over billions of years, would also adapt and
evolve but certainly not into the same "critters' stored in the Ark.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>If evolution works, how come all them different kinds
>of animals needed to be loaded on the ark? A couple
>of badgers would have been enough if critters
>change into other critters anyway.
>
That's exactly what happened, but it wasn't badgers it was a pair of
tape worms.
The story of Noah gets my vote for extra high Bible stupidity, not
only for its pervasive influence on creationist theory but because of
its utter impossibility as truth.
Unlike the absurdity of Adam and Eve, which creationists also have to
contend with, the Noah’s tale is an entertaining fable which lacks
any sensible message. Indeed, it personifies God as a nasty
vindictive grouch and serves as an interesting subject for fairy tale
illustrators.
Apparently God just got upset again and chose to bump off most
everything he considered offensive which he apparently would do more
often. Perhaps the authors had, not scaring children too much in mind,
so that they could graduate them more easily to the truly horrible
stuff in store for them later in the book..
I’m sure the authors never imagined how much this story would also
bend the minds of impressionable adults and assorted religious cranks;
especially those who label doubters of this tall tale abysmally
immoral and condemn them as candidates for the ovens of hell, as
provided for us by their loving god.
Daniel T.
gso...@gmail.com wrote:
> Though there are certainly a number of unanswered questions with regard
> to the evolutionary paradigm, most particularly the numerous paradoxes
> involved in the unfit transitional periods implied by a continuous
> variation, it is certainly untrue that the process cannot be tested or
> observed. And the examples go much further than domesticated animals -
> which in fact only show the effects of artificial selection regimes,
> and have little to do with environmental pressures or adaptive
> mutations. More relevant are the many experiments with bacteria, which
> by virtue of rapid population turnover are able to show adaptive
> specialization on quite reasonable time scales in response to a wide
> variety of novel environments.
I think David V. gave you something of a bum rap. You obviously believe
that biological evolution occurred. (BTW, a better definition than
talkorigins is at
<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml>.)
> You would be quite right however, to
> point out that these experiments give little indication of
> 'macro-evolution'. For that it is more relevant to look outside of the
> biological context.
Here though, I think you are off base. First, the whole concept of
"macro-evolution" seems rather slippery, simply because there is debate
over what constitutes a species. (see
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html>, section 2.0.)
Second, looking outside the biological context cannot help because
evolution *requires* a biological context. (See the berkeley site above,
especially .../evo101/IIntro.shtml.)
> Although evolutionary theory was initially formed
> as an explanatory framework for organic variation, its most useful
> elements have subsequently been freed from the traditional die-hard
> darwinian standpoint. Observable examples of the propagation of
> adaptive variation are widespread in our cultures, technologies and
> artifacts.
Cultural, and technological evolution, however are not subject to the
same rules as biological evolution because the change is not due to the
same forces.
> Furthermore, there is a substantial body of literature on
> computationally based experiments in evolution, particularly in the
> field of artificial life. The fact is that the processes of selective
> pressure are quite definitely observable, and are thus significantly
> less ad-hoc explanations than creationism or intelligent design.
Here I agree with you. Computers, can be used to simulate evolution at
least to some extent.
> The
> real issue with evolutionary theory is in determining exactly what
> classes of elements the process acts on, and by what mechanisms the
> mutations occur.
We know what classes of elements that biological evolution acts on, and
as I understand it, we have a pretty firm idea about the mechanisms as
well. What we don't yet know is which mechanisms are the most important
under what circumstances. IE it's easy to know that species A and
species B diverged, but harder to determine why the divergence took
place.
> The paradigm's biggest downfall is the assumption that
> the mutations on which selective pressures act are initially random -
> which often yields prohibitive time scale forecasts and forces
> reluctant acceptance of such constructs as the anthropic principle, as
> well as raising the sticky issue of what exactly 'randomness' is and
> whether or not it is even a fundamentally objective feature of our
> universe. Bottom line, evolution is much more than a politcal
> stand-point, but also much less well-defined than we might like it to
> be.
With the above, you are falling squarely in the ID camp. If the
mutations are not random, then they must be determined. This opens the
question as to who or what determined them.
--
Magic depends on tradition and belief. It does not welcome observation,
nor does it profit by experiment. On the other hand, science is based
on experience; it is open to correction by observation and experiment.
David V.
> David V wrote: "Actually, it's your god, and your education,
> that's fiction."
>
Don't need to. You need to prove your silly god exists before you
can claim it created anything. There is proof of evolution but no
proof of your god.
And there can be no debate with you since you don't know what
you're talking about.
David V.
> Another website written by deluded (possible demon possessed)
> does not prove something to be true.
Demons don't exist either.... except for the demons in your mind.
They have pills that can help you get rid of them. In the mean
time it helps to get rid of those demons if you take a sharp
pencil and push them deep into each of your ears.
David V.
> "BCole" <Bria...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Microevolution is a fact supported by empirical evidence:
>> bacteria, plants, and so on. Macroevolution is a theory
>> utilizing facts and reason.
>
> If evolution works, how come all them different kinds of
> animals needed to be loaded on the ark? A couple of badgers
> would have been enough if critters change into other critters
> anyway.
The story of an ark and flood is a RELIGIOUS one and has no place
in a scientific discussion.
David V.
> "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If evolution works, how come all them different kinds of
>> animals needed to be loaded on the ark? A couple of badgers
>> would have been enough if critters change into other
>> critters anyway.
>
> That's exactly what happened, but it wasn't badgers it was a
> pair of tape worms.
>
> The story of Noah gets my vote for extra high Bible stupidity,
> not only for its pervasive influence on creationist theory
> but because of its utter impossibility as truth.
It's not even a christian story! They stole it from the Summerians.
grayden
Unfortunately the definition there is stated specifically as a
definition of biological evolution not of evolution in general. My
point in bringing up artifiacts was not to say that they necessarily
evolved in the same way as biological organisms, but to point out that
there are a great number of similarities in their developmental
histories - similarities that would have to be encompassed or justified
in a general evolutionary framework. Artifacts are clearly a form of
biological periphery - requiring life to exist. Yet they hold a role in
adaptation and selection that is analogous to neither genotype nor
phenotype.
Well here I don't actually see a big issue. Ultimately is seems more
religious or mystical to speculate that there is randomness in the
operation of the universe. However - I can see the concern. The way I
see it is not that the forces are intelligently directed, or even
guided per se, but rather that they are bounded. In other words, I
suspect there are system-level properties which restrict the number of
theoretically viable paths to a more manageable subset. My biggest
issue is simply that 'random' (and I will be argued half to death on
this I'm sure) seems to be little more than linguistic short-hand for
'I have no idea how this works'. It doesn't imply some god-type thing,
it just implies that there is more to the picture.
You can read some of my other replies to David V. to get a better
picture of some of my other compaints. Thanks for leaving the
ridiculous world of black and white and indulging in some healthy grey.
Daniel T.
"grayden" <gso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > In article <1123531165....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > gso...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You would be quite right however, to
> > > point out that these experiments give little indication of
> > > 'macro-evolution'. For that it is more relevant to look outside of the
> > > biological context.
> >
> > Here though, I think you are off base. First, the whole concept of
> > "macro-evolution" seems rather slippery, simply because there is debate
> > over what constitutes a species. (see
> > <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html>, section 2.0.)
> > Second, looking outside the biological context cannot help because
> > evolution *requires* a biological context. (See the berkeley site above,
> > especially .../evo101/IIntro.shtml.)
>
> Unfortunately the definition there is stated specifically as a
> definition of biological evolution not of evolution in general.
That is not unfortunate at all, there is no "evolution in general". The
"evolution of a star", the "evolution of civilization", the "evolution
of the computer"... None of these has anything to do with the Theory of
Evolution. None of these processes operate in the same manor, nor with
the same mechanisms as biological evolution.
> My
> point in bringing up artifiacts was not to say that they necessarily
> evolved in the same way as biological organisms, but to point out that
> there are a great number of similarities in their developmental
> histories - similarities that would have to be encompassed or justified
> in a general evolutionary framework. Artifacts are clearly a form of
> biological periphery - requiring life to exist. Yet they hold a role in
> adaptation and selection that is analogous to neither genotype nor
> phenotype.
By arguing for some unified evolutionary theory that is supposed to
explain "change", you are straying far afield and putting yourself in a
camp of one. I have read of no one who believes such a unified theory
exists.
I already read *all* your replies to David V. All scientists accept that
the "randomness" of mutation operates only within certain bounds. Of
course the forces are bounded, molecules only attach to each other in
certain ways. I will go so far as to say that this is one of the prime
differences between evolution and ID. Evolution recognizes that there
are limits to what a biological entity can do and seeks to define those
limits (see
<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE6aFitenough.shtml> for
example.)
Daniel T.
"BCole" <Bria...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Microevolution is a fact supported by empirical evidence: bacteria,
> plants, and so on. Macroevolution is a theory utilizing facts and
> reason. Macroevolution will become a fact in the case of observable
> evidence such as the extraction of DNA from fossils over a comparable
> time period of millions of years.
Macro-evolution is a fact, we have seen it happen.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html>
David V.
> ..... Unfortunately the definition there is stated
> specifically as a definition of biological evolution not of
That's the only kind of evolution there is when we are talking
about biology.
> Well here I don't actually see a big issue. Ultimately is
> seems more religious or mystical to speculate that there is
> randomness in the operation of the universe.....
There is no need to speculate about such randomness. It exists.
Le Trôle
news:go0of1htrvc6evolg...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:12:31 +0100, "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If evolution works, how come all them different kinds
> >of animals needed to be loaded on the ark? A couple
> >of badgers would have been enough if critters
> >change into other critters anyway.
> >
> That's exactly what happened, but it wasn't badgers it was a pair of
> tape worms.
Tapeworms are parasites. Without a host, they die.
Noah and his family didn't have worms.
You are wrong.
Frank F. Matthews
Le Trôle wrote:
But if they didn't have worms then did the little buggers evolve after
the deluge? Or did God create them later to bug us?
grayden
Well perhaps it is a camp of one - but part of modern biology's current
identity crisis (and this at least is not my sole opinion) is that it's
main principles are somewhat disembodied from the other core sciences.
To pretend that the theory evolution will somehow operate independently
from the processes in the rest of the universe is essentially to take a
vitalist stance on biology - which many people still do implicitly even
if they don't realize it. To say that evolution is distinct from change
in general is to hold to some very tenuous assumptions about the
universe. Unless there is reason to posit otherwise, which I am open to
hearing, the simplest assumption is that all things develop by means of
the same processes. What makes the evolution of a star *qualitatively*
different from that of a biological unit is the constituent parts and
their relative configurations - as I said before: system-level
differences. There is no reason to believe that evolution earns its
characteristics from any different mechanisms than the rest of the
universe's operations. The broader categories referenced by
evolutionary theory's native terminology are descriptive of different
organizational characteristics - not functional ones. The appearance of
mechanistic difference is due to consideration at only those levels.
Ultimately, if evolution is to become a unified element of an
explanatory scientific framework, it will have to reconcile biotic and
abiotic change as aspects of the same process. Otherwise it's holding
to its own peculiar gods.
>
> [...]
I won't bother with further comment on randomness here - as it is a
topic more than worthy of its own thread.
-Grayden
David V.
>>
>>> If evolution works, how come all them different kinds of
>>> animals needed to be loaded on the ark? A couple of
>>> badgers would have been enough if critters change into
>>> other critters anyway.
>>
>> That's exactly what happened, but it wasn't badgers it was a
>> pair of tape worms.
>
> Tapeworms are parasites. Without a host, they die. Noah and
> his family didn't have worms.
>
> You are wrong.
Duh! That's because Noah and his family never existed.
Le Trôle
wrote in message news:Q0bLe.138739$0f.1...@tornado.texas.rr.com...
We already know that disease did not exist at the end of the
six days of Creation, they are a result of the fall. Did the ark
contain a collection of various microbes and pathogens, or
were these forms of life a later addition as the need arose?
The issue is not arrival of these germs after Creation, the issue is
whether or not they arrived before the flood. I would say they
were each created as needed to affect the course of history.
That's already been covered in numerous AIDS discussions.
You get AIDS as punishment for sodomy, so it's not out of line
to say you get worms as punishment for the abomination of
walking barefoot in a sewage.
> Or did God create them later to bug us?
Less bugging and more like coaxing to develop. Trodding in
human waste is unseemly and base and indicative of failure.
This is the origin of the phrase "in deep shit". Sanitation was one
of the earliest objectives of civil engineering, thus tapeworms are
directly responsible for the might of Western technology.
Le Trôle
news:7eudnSeSy7X...@sti.net...
> Le Trôle wrote:
> > "Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> >
> >> "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >>> If evolution works, how come all them different kinds of
> >>> animals needed to be loaded on the ark? A couple of
> >>> badgers would have been enough if critters change into
> >>> other critters anyway.
> >>
> >> That's exactly what happened, but it wasn't badgers it was a
> >> pair of tape worms.
> >
> > Tapeworms are parasites. Without a host, they die. Noah and
> > his family didn't have worms.
> >
> > You are wrong.
>
> Duh! That's because Noah and his family never existed.
You take this as a matter of faith. You have no evidence
to support your claim that a given man never existed.
Do you have a census of 4004 b.c. Mesopotamia?
If Noah or his family did not appear on it, that would not be
proof, merely lack of evidence, and please remember,
my rationalist thinking friend, lack of evidence is just that,
a lack of evidence, and not proof.
Rembrandt Kuipers
> You take this as a matter of faith. You have no evidence
> to support your claim that a given man never existed.
>
> Do you have a census of 4004 b.c. Mesopotamia?
> If Noah or his family did not appear on it, that would not be
> proof, merely lack of evidence, and please remember,
> my rationalist thinking friend, lack of evidence is just that,
> a lack of evidence, and not proof.
I have lack of evidence that there is an elephant in my living room. Do
you suggest that I have no proof that there is not one?
I presume it is obvious that (if you excuse the grammar) you can have
'evidence of lack' and we are not limited to 'lack of evidence'.
For example that we lack a geological record of a global flood at that
time is evidence of the lack of a global flood at that time. If there
was such a flood it would have implications.
From my side I find it interesting that you appear to admit believing
in something for which you appear to concede there is no evidence.
Rem
David V.
>
> We already know that disease did not exist at the end of the
> six days of Creation, they are a result of the fall.
Which is a lie since nothing like that is mentioned in christian
mythology.
> Did the ark contain a collection of various microbes and
> pathogens, or were these forms of life a later addition as the
> need arose?
A need arose for polio?
> The issue is not arrival of these germs after Creation, the
> issue is whether or not they arrived before the flood. I would
> say they were each created as needed to affect the course of
> history.
Based on what empirical evidence?
> That's already been covered in numerous AIDS discussions. You
> get AIDS as punishment for sodomy, so it's not out of line to
> say you get worms as punishment for the abomination of walking
> barefoot in a sewage.
Then why do babies get HIV just for being born? What are they
being punished for. Your god is a worthless piece of crap if it
has to punish babies.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>
>>> "Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>>>
>>>> "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> If evolution works, how come all them different kinds
>>>>> of animals needed to be loaded on the ark? A couple
>>>>> of badgers would have been enough if critters change
>>>>> into other critters anyway.
>>>>
>>>> That's exactly what happened, but it wasn't badgers it
>>>> was a pair of tape worms.
>>>
>>> Tapeworms are parasites. Without a host, they die. Noah
>>> and his family didn't have worms.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>
>> Duh! That's because Noah and his family never existed.
>
> You take this as a matter of faith.
No, you do. There is absolutely no evidence for a flood or ark.
That Noah and that whole story existed is part of the christian
mythology and not an historical fact. The funny part is that it's
not even a christian myth. They stole it from someone else.
Le Trôle
> Le Trôle wrote:
> >
> > We already know that disease did not exist at the end of the
> > six days of Creation, they are a result of the fall.
>
> Which is a lie since nothing like that is mentioned in christian
> mythology.
There was no disease before the fall of Adam. You can call
the whole of it a lie, that is your prerogative under free will.
You liken it all to mythology, that is your choice. You are
not excused for mistakes of this basic point of theology,
no more than claiming Galileo rode a chopped out harley.
Well, you actually can do what you wish. You just can't
expect to be taken seriously if you make basic errors
in the stating the position of the opposing argument.
> > Did the ark contain a collection of various microbes and
> > pathogens, or were these forms of life a later addition as the
> > need arose?
>
> A need arose for polio?
Black Death as well. It changed history.
> > The issue is not arrival of these germs after Creation, the
> > issue is whether or not they arrived before the flood. I would
> > say they were each created as needed to affect the course of
> > history.
>
> Based on what empirical evidence?
Based upon "I would say". You probably aren't used to opinion
being labelled as such, or at least you don't appear to recognise
it. Now, you could rephrase that question to ask me why I held
that given opinion. Nope, too late. I'm bored.
> > That's already been covered in numerous AIDS discussions. You
> > get AIDS as punishment for sodomy, so it's not out of line to
> > say you get worms as punishment for the abomination of walking
> > barefoot in a sewage.
>
> Then why do babies get HIV just for being born?
Because sodomites and fornicators and drug addicts cause them
to get infected. AIDS could be eliminated in less than a generation
without any medical research or treatment, quite easily, and get this,
it could be done by simply by stopping immoral behaviour.
Blame the mothers for their conduct that leads to AIDS,
the same way the mothers are responsible for crack babies
or babies with foetal alcohol syndrome.
Actually, blame Adam. You did ask about a condition,
and that condition isn't just a result of the fall, but rather
a result of current choices as well.
> What are they
> being punished for.
Begged Question. You must not your use your argument
as its own basis. The only ones who are punished are
the ones who can be held accountable for their actions.
> Your god is a worthless piece of crap if it
> has to punish babies.
And what a pleasant young man you seem to be,
not withstanding you belligerence and ignorance
and logical fallacies and jumped conclusions.
Le Trôle
news:42fe1468$0$1275$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Le Trôle wrote:
> > You take this as a matter of faith. You have no evidence
> > to support your claim that a given man never existed.
> >
> > Do you have a census of 4004 b.c. Mesopotamia?
> > If Noah or his family did not appear on it, that would not be
> > proof, merely lack of evidence, and please remember,
> > my rationalist thinking friend, lack of evidence is just that,
> > a lack of evidence, and not proof.
>
> I have lack of evidence that there is an elephant in my living room. Do
> you suggest that I have no proof that there is not one?
Does your lack of evidence for an elephant arise from a systematic
search of the room, the undisputed truth being that you will indeed
find an elephant if it is there, and coming up with no detectable elephant?
Proof of No Elephant.
Does your lack of evidence arise from a dismissal of the possibility
of an elephant without any ability to determine if an elephant exists?
No proof of No Elephant.
Was an elephant with a given name in the same spot in 4004 b.c.?
You can dismiss the 4004 elephant, or you can accept the 4004
elephant as faith. You can not say there was not a 4004 elephant.
> I presume it is obvious that (if you excuse the grammar) you can have
> 'evidence of lack' and we are not limited to 'lack of evidence'.
>
> For example that we lack a geological record of a global flood at that
> time is evidence of the lack of a global flood at that time. If there
> was such a flood it would have implications.
Yes. It would provide proof, and remove the need for faith. Yawn.
Stars were provided for a specific purpose, so the light was already
in place without the need to travel for millions of years before the
light was of any use to man. Yawn.
> From my side I find it interesting that you appear to admit believing
> in something for which you appear to concede there is no evidence.
I have faith in things unseen. So do you.
Nah, the second part is what's interesting.
Le Trôle
> >> Duh! That's because Noah and his family never existed.
> >
> > You take this as a matter of faith.
>
> No, you do. There is absolutely no evidence for a flood or ark.
> That Noah and that whole story existed is part of the christian
> mythology and not an historical fact. The funny part is that it's
> not even a christian myth. They stole it from someone else.
Which, to the casual observer, might label Christians and Jews
as merely being plagiarists, whilst pushing the provenance
of the story further back into history where it is even less
subject to being disproved.
> ....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
> ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
> the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
For fuck's sake, please stop jabbing me in the arse with
that pitchfork and let me have just a single drop of water.
- Carl Sagan, 2005.
Rembrandt Kuipers
>> I have lack of evidence that there is an elephant in my living room. Do
>> you suggest that I have no proof that there is not one?
>
> Does your lack of evidence for an elephant arise from a systematic
> search of the room, the undisputed truth being that you will indeed
> find an elephant if it is there, and coming up with no detectable elephant?
> Proof of No Elephant.
>
> Does your lack of evidence arise from a dismissal of the possibility
> of an elephant without any ability to determine if an elephant exists?
> No proof of No Elephant.
>
> Was an elephant with a given name in the same spot in 4004 b.c.?
>
> You can dismiss the 4004 elephant, or you can accept the 4004
> elephant as faith. You can not say there was not a 4004 elephant.
There is nothing that I disagree with here.
>> I presume it is obvious that (if you excuse the grammar) you can have
>> 'evidence of lack' and we are not limited to 'lack of evidence'.
>>
>> For example that we lack a geological record of a global flood at that
>> time is evidence of the lack of a global flood at that time. If there
>> was such a flood it would have implications.
>
> Yes. It would provide proof, and remove the need for faith. Yawn.
> Stars were provided for a specific purpose, so the light was already
> in place without the need to travel for millions of years before the
> light was of any use to man. Yawn.
I am not sure what you are suggesting here. Do you believe that proof of
a global flood has been deliberately suppressed or removed by your god?
>> From my side I find it interesting that you appear to admit believing
>> in something for which you appear to concede there is no evidence.
>
> I have faith in things unseen. So do you.
What do I have faith in? I am not aware of any such faith.
Do you have a definition for faith?
Rem
Le Trôle
I think it may be fair to say He has ensured no overwhelming evidence
exists to either prove or disprove. The things that serve as evidence
in this matter are evenly divided as to how they may be interpreted.
In the end, each man will choose based on the belief system he uses.
> >> From my side I find it interesting that you appear to admit believing
> >> in something for which you appear to concede there is no evidence.
> >
> > I have faith in things unseen. So do you.
>
> What do I have faith in? I am not aware of any such faith.
The belief that you will not be judged after death.
> Do you have a definition for faith?
A belief.
I believe you to be sincere in your conversation here.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:go0of1htrvc6evolg...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:12:31 +0100, "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If evolution works, how come all them different kinds
>> >of animals needed to be loaded on the ark? A couple
>> >of badgers would have been enough if critters
>> >change into other critters anyway.
>> >
>> That's exactly what happened, but it wasn't badgers it was a pair of
>> tape worms.
>
>Tapeworms are parasites. Without a host, they die.
>Noah and his family didn't have worms.
>
Prove they didn't
Mani Deli
>You can read some of my other replies to David V. to get a better
>picture of some of my other compaints. Thanks for leaving the
>ridiculous world of black and white and indulging in some healthy grey.
Either Noah existed or he didn't there is no grey here.
David V.
>>
>>> We already know that disease did not exist at the end of
>>> the six days of Creation, they are a result of the fall.
>>
>> Which is a lie since nothing like that is mentioned in
>> christian mythology.
>
> There was no disease before the fall of Adam.
A statement that you cannot back up with anything but religious
beliefs. I prefer to deal with reality, not mythology.
>>> Did the ark contain a collection of various microbes and
>>> pathogens, or were these forms of life a later addition as
>>> the need arose?
>>
>> A need arose for polio?
>
> Black Death as well. It changed history.
What proof do you have to back up your claims? A note from this
god of yours stating why it invented those diseases and why it
needed to change history in that manner. Until you come up with
that note, or some other empirical proof, you're just talking
nonsense.
>>> The issue is not arrival of these germs after Creation,
>>> the issue is whether or not they arrived before the flood.
>>> I would say they were each created as needed to affect the
>>> course of history.
>>
>> Based on what empirical evidence?
>
>
> Based upon "I would say".
That's not empirical evidence...... it's an excuse and not a very
bright one either.
>>> That's already been covered in numerous AIDS discussions.
>>> You get AIDS as punishment for sodomy, so it's not out of
>>> line to say you get worms as punishment for the
>>> abomination of walking barefoot in a sewage.
>>
>> Then why do babies get HIV just for being born?
>
> Because sodomites and fornicators and drug addicts cause them
> to get infected.....
So, the babies fornicating and sodomizing each other causes it?
>> What are they being punished for.
>
> Begged Question.
Yes, all of your statements are begging the question, the
question as to why someone in this modern era would be so
ignorant as to believe any of the things you are claiming.
>> Your god is a worthless piece of crap if it has to punish
>> babies.
>
> And what a pleasant young man you seem to be
More pleasant than your asinine god.
David V.
>>>
>>> You take this as a matter of faith.
>>
>> No, you do. There is absolutely no evidence for a flood or
>> ark. That Noah and that whole story existed is part of the
>> christian mythology and not an historical fact. The funny
>> part is that it's not even a christian myth. They stole it
>> from someone else.
>
> Which, to the casual observer, might label Christians and Jews
Duh!
--
Dave
David V.
>
> I think it may be fair to say He has ensured no overwhelming
> evidence exists to either prove or disprove.
So then you are admitting your mythology says your god lied?
> The belief that you will not be judged after death.
Judged by a non existent god?
A religious belief is a belief held in spite of the evidence to
the contrary. Maybe if you went on knowledge instead of blind
belief you might be able to understand just how ridiculous this
god stuff is. You would have to think to do that though.
Christians are not allowed to think, just believe.
Le Trôle
Prove they did. You made that assertion.
The burden of proof is on you, sir.
Isn't this how the game is played?
Le Trôle
> Le Trôle wrote:
> >
> > I think it may be fair to say He has ensured no overwhelming
> > evidence exists to either prove or disprove.
>
> So then you are admitting your mythology says your god lied?
Nope. You know this. Yawn.
> > The belief that you will not be judged after death.
>
> Judged by a non existent god?
Who seems to be your obsession none the less.
Oh, that all men would give as much regard to God as you!
Le Trôle
> Le Trôle wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> Le Trôle wrote:
> >>
> >>> We already know that disease did not exist at the end of
> >>> the six days of Creation, they are a result of the fall.
> >>
> >> Which is a lie since nothing like that is mentioned in
> >> christian mythology.
> >
> > There was no disease before the fall of Adam.
>
> A statement that you cannot back up with anything but religious
> beliefs. I prefer to deal with reality, not mythology.
The lack of response concerning the misrepresentation
of the opposing view is noted. Just snip the hard parts, eh?
> >>> Did the ark contain a collection of various microbes and
> >>> pathogens, or were these forms of life a later addition as
> >>> the need arose?
> >>
> >> A need arose for polio?
> >
> > Black Death as well. It changed history.
>
> What proof do you have to back up your claims?
25,000,000 were killed, alternative trade routes were opened
and many many many other effects too great to list. I am not
abligated to provide proof of the Black Death any more than
I would be expected to provide proof of gravity. This says less
about your so-called investigative procedure and more about
your lack of a basic education. Prove the Black Death? WTF?
> A note from this
> god of yours stating why it invented those diseases and why it
> needed to change history in that manner.
He made it, He can do as He sees fit.
> Until you come up with
> that note, or some other empirical proof, you're just talking
> nonsense.
That's opinion. Nonsense is a subjective term.
I demand empirical evidence.
> >>> The issue is not arrival of these germs after Creation,
> >>> the issue is whether or not they arrived before the flood.
> >>> I would say they were each created as needed to affect the
> >>> course of history.
> >>
> >> Based on what empirical evidence?
> >
> >
> > Based upon "I would say".
>
> That's not empirical evidence...... it's an excuse and not a very
> bright one either.
No, it's opinion, marked as such.
> >>> That's already been covered in numerous AIDS discussions.
> >>> You get AIDS as punishment for sodomy, so it's not out of
> >>> line to say you get worms as punishment for the
> >>> abomination of walking barefoot in a sewage.
> >>
> >> Then why do babies get HIV just for being born?
> >
> > Because sodomites and fornicators and drug addicts cause them
> > to get infected.....
>
> So, the babies fornicating and sodomizing each other causes it?
No, and no more than babies themselves must be
in control of a motorcar to be killed by a drunk driver.
Is this the limit of your rhetorical skill?
> >> What are they being punished for.
> >
> > Begged Question.
>
> Yes, all of your statements are begging the question, the
> question as to why someone in this modern era would be so
> ignorant as to believe any of the things you are claiming.
If you actually knew the meaning of "begged question",
you wouldn't say this. Perhaps your education is lacking.
> >> Your god is a worthless piece of crap if it has to punish
> >> babies.
> >
> > And what a pleasant young man you seem to be
>
> More pleasant than your asinine god.
Even in your foaming shrieks, you acknowledge Him
by placing Him at the center of your purpose.
> ....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
> ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
> the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Oh, it's not the heat, it's the humidity - Carl Sagan, 2005.
Le Trôle
> Le Trôle wrote:
> >
> > I think it may be fair to say He has ensured no overwhelming
> > evidence exists to either prove or disprove.
>
> So then you are admitting your mythology says your god lied?
No. There is no lie in remaining anonymous.
You are not even aware of your own jumped conclusions.
But I thought you had no interest in theology anyway.
> > The belief that you will not be judged after death.
>
> Judged by a non existent god?
Who is your very purpose in life. Find the Fool.
> A religious belief is a belief held in spite of the evidence to
> the contrary.
Yep. It's called Faith. Yawn.
> Maybe if you went on knowledge instead of blind
> belief you might be able to understand just how ridiculous this
> god stuff is.
> You would have to think to do that though.
> Christians are not allowed to think, just believe.
I've reduced you to selective schnippage and then
chasing your own arse around school-boy points of rhetoric.
> ....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
> ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
> the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
How's it going, Adolph? - Carl Sagan, 1987.
David V.
>>
>>> I think it may be fair to say He has ensured no
>>> overwhelming evidence exists to either prove or disprove.
>>
>> So then you are admitting your mythology says your god lied?
>>
>
> No. There is no lie in remaining anonymous. You are not even
> aware of your own jumped conclusions.
Nice try at evasion. It won't work though. The lies of your god
were in your claim it hid evidence of a flood. The funny part is
that you claim your god hid the evidence, and other christians
claim their god left evidence. Can't you guys get your
mythologies straight?
> But I thought you had no interest in theology anyway.
Where did I say that?
>>> The belief that you will not be judged after death.
>>
>> Judged by a non existent god?
>
> Who is your very purpose in life. Find the Fool.
That question makes no sense. I found the fool; you.
>> A religious belief is a belief held in spite of the evidence
>> to the contrary.
>
> Yep. It's called Faith. Yawn.
An irrational faith.
>> Maybe if you went on knowledge instead of blind belief you
>> might be able to understand just how ridiculous this god
>> stuff is.
I see you can't deal with knowledge.
>> You would have to think to do that though. Christians are
>> not allowed to think, just believe.
>
> I've reduced you to selective schnippage
Nah, just bored. You're not a very bright opponent.
--
Dave
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We already know that disease did not exist at the end
>>>>> of the six days of Creation, they are a result of the
>>>>> fall.
>>>>
>>>> Which is a lie since nothing like that is mentioned in
>>>> christian mythology.
>>>
>>> There was no disease before the fall of Adam.
>>
>> A statement that you cannot back up with anything but
>> religious beliefs. I prefer to deal with reality, not
>> mythology.
>
> The lack of response concerning the misrepresentation of the
> opposing view is noted. Just snip the hard parts, eh?
Nah, I just snip the boring parts that I've heard thousands of
times before. Do try to come up with something new. And I noticed
that you had no proof to back up your claims about Adam and other
claims you've made. Typical.
>>>>> Did the ark contain a collection of various microbes
>>>>> and pathogens, or were these forms of life a later
>>>>> addition as the need arose?
>>>>
>>>> A need arose for polio?
>>>
>>> Black Death as well. It changed history.
>>
>> What proof do you have to back up your claims?
>
> 25,000,000 were killed.....
More evasion and strawmen snipped. Where is the proof that your
god caused all that you claim?
>> A note from this god of yours stating why it invented those
>> diseases and why it needed to change history in that
>> manner.
>>
>
> He made it, He can do as He sees fit.
That's your claim but you have failed, miserably, to back it up
with anything but more claims. Don't you get tired of lying?
Doesn't your religion tell you not to lie?
>> Until you come up with that note, or some other empirical
>> proof, you're just talking nonsense.
>
> That's opinion. Nonsense is a subjective term. I demand
> empirical evidence.
In other words, you have no proof. Why couldn't you be honest and
admit it?
>>>>> The issue is not arrival of these germs after
>>>>> Creation, the issue is whether or not they arrived
>>>>> before the flood. I would say they were each created
>>>>> as needed to affect the course of history.
>>>>
>>>> Based on what empirical evidence?
>>>
>>> Based upon "I would say".
>>
>> That's not empirical evidence...... it's an excuse and not a
>> very bright one either.
>
> No, it's opinion, marked as such.
An opinion based on a blind, emotionally based, irrational,
faith. A faith you cling to so that you can stay within the flock
you've chosen.
>>>>> That's already been covered in numerous AIDS
>>>>> discussions. You get AIDS as punishment for sodomy, so
>>>>> it's not out of line to say you get worms as
>>>>> punishment for the abomination of walking barefoot in
>>>>> a sewage.
>>>>
>>>> Then why do babies get HIV just for being born?
>>>
>>> Because sodomites and fornicators and drug addicts cause
>>> them to get infected.....
>>
>> So, the babies fornicating and sodomizing each other causes
>> it?
>
> No.....
That's what you just said. Your god punishes babies for what
others have done. Not a very nice god. Even I have more morals
than that.
>>>> What are they being punished for.
>>>
>>> Begged Question.
>>
>> Yes, all of your statements are begging the question, the
>> question as to why someone in this modern era would be so
>> ignorant as to believe any of the things you are claiming.
>
> If you actually knew the meaning of "begged question"
I do.
>>>> Your god is a worthless piece of crap if it has to
>>>> punish babies.
>>>
>>> And what a pleasant young man you seem to be
>>
>> More pleasant than your asinine god.
>
> Even in your foaming shrieks, you acknowledge Him by placing
> Him at the center of your purpose.
Him? You've seen it's genitals?
--
Dave
David V.
>>
>>> I think it may be fair to say He has ensured no
>>> overwhelming evidence exists to either prove or disprove.
>>
>> So then you are admitting your mythology says your god lied?
>
> Nope. You know this. Yawn.
Yes, I know you, and your god, have lied.... well, at least you
represent your mythology as having your god lie.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>> A religious belief is a belief held in spite of the evidence to
>> the contrary.
>
>Yep. It's called Faith. Yawn.
Unless you call it stupidity.
Le Trôle
> Le Trôle wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> Le Trôle wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think it may be fair to say He has ensured no
> >>> overwhelming evidence exists to either prove or disprove.
> >>
> >> So then you are admitting your mythology says your god lied?
> >>
> > No. There is no lie in remaining anonymous. You are not even
> > aware of your own jumped conclusions.
>
> Nice try at evasion. It won't work though. The lies of your god
> were in your claim it hid evidence of a flood.
There is no lie in remaining anonymous.
> The funny part is
> that you claim your god hid the evidence, and other christians
> claim their god left evidence. Can't you guys get your
> mythologies straight?
What guys? I have cited no others. Please, calm down.
I know you need to blow off a little steam, but random
shouts of irrelevance will accomplish nothing.
> > But I thought you had no interest in theology anyway.
>
> Where did I say that?
You said it nowhere, which is why I prefaced the statement
with "I thought". So you do have an interest in theology.
You just use it distort it and create strawman arguments.
This does a disservice to good-natured argument and
also prevents the honest exchange of ideas.
> >>> The belief that you will not be judged after death.
> >>
> >> Judged by a non existent god?
> >
> > Who is your very purpose in life. Find the Fool.
>
> That question makes no sense. I found the fool; you.
Your hatred of God is what drives you to foaming
idiotic ranting discussions such as this. I suggest you
calm down, take a deep breath, and concentrate more
on following a genuine conversation that bleating out
sophmoric canned responses.
> >> A religious belief is a belief held in spite of the evidence
> >> to the contrary.
> >
> > Yep. It's called Faith. Yawn.
>
> An irrational faith.
Coming from an irrational foaming atheist, that really hurts.
> >> Maybe if you went on knowledge instead of blind belief you
> >> might be able to understand just how ridiculous this god
> >> stuff is.
>
> I see you can't deal with knowledge.
I see you don't actually work with knowledge,
just the empty rhetoric of the school-boy atheist.
You need to get laid.
That would do more to calm you than anything.
Of course, I recommend you do that sort of thing
within the bounds of marriage. Go find a nice girl.
> >> You would have to think to do that though. Christians are
> >> not allowed to think, just believe.
> >
> > I've reduced you to selective schnippage
Section restored as an example of selective schnippage--
I've reduced you to selective schnippage and then
chasing your own arse around school-boy points of rhetoric.
> Nah, just bored. You're not a very bright opponent.
So stop responding. You see, you have been caught several
times practising shoddy reasoning and generally faulty
presentation of ideas. The boredom you claim to have is the
result of conducting a basically one sided argument, hearing
only your own fanatical words and tired repetitious phrases.
Since your discourse is overwhelmingly the same time after time,
of course you are bored.
Le Trôle
> Le Trôle wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> Le Trôle wrote:
> >>
> >>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>> Le Trôle wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> We already know that disease did not exist at the end
> >>>>> of the six days of Creation, they are a result of the
> >>>>> fall.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is a lie since nothing like that is mentioned in
> >>>> christian mythology.
> >>>
> >>> There was no disease before the fall of Adam.
> >>
> >> A statement that you cannot back up with anything but
> >> religious beliefs. I prefer to deal with reality, not
> >> mythology.
> >
> > The lack of response concerning the misrepresentation of the
> > opposing view is noted. Just snip the hard parts, eh?
>
> Nah, I just snip the boring parts that I've heard thousands of
> times before.
And that's a lie, and forget the snippage, we both know it.
You're Owned, dude.
> Do try to come up with something new.
There is nothing new.
> And I noticed that you had no proof to back up your claims
> about Adam and other claims you've made. Typical.
No, it's conversation, and opinion.
> >>>>> Did the ark contain a collection of various microbes
> >>>>> and pathogens, or were these forms of life a later
> >>>>> addition as the need arose?
> >>>>
> >>>> A need arose for polio?
> >>>
> >>> Black Death as well. It changed history.
> >>
> >> What proof do you have to back up your claims?
> >
> > 25,000,000 were killed.....
>
> More evasion and strawmen snipped.
Owned again.
> Where is the proof that your
> god caused all that you claim?
Would you listen if it's presented? Nope.
> >> A note from this god of yours stating why it invented those
> >> diseases and why it needed to change history in that
> >> manner.
> >>
> >
> > He made it, He can do as He sees fit.
>
> That's your claim but you have failed, miserably, to back it up
> with anything but more claims. Don't you get tired of lying?
> Doesn't your religion tell you not to lie?
Even in your foaming shrieks, you acknowledge Him by placing
Him at the center of your purpose.
> >> Until you come up with that note, or some other empirical
> >> proof, you're just talking nonsense.
> >
> > That's opinion. Nonsense is a subjective term. I demand
> > empirical evidence.
>
> In other words, you have no proof.
In other words, you have no proof.
> Why couldn't you be honest and admit it?
Why couldn't you be honest and admit it?
> >>>>> The issue is not arrival of these germs after
> >>>>> Creation, the issue is whether or not they arrived
> >>>>> before the flood. I would say they were each created
> >>>>> as needed to affect the course of history.
> >>>>
> >>>> Based on what empirical evidence?
> >>>
> >>> Based upon "I would say".
> >>
> >> That's not empirical evidence...... it's an excuse and not a
> >> very bright one either.
> >
> > No, it's opinion, marked as such.
>
> An opinion based on a blind, emotionally based, irrational,
> faith. A faith you cling to so that you can stay within the flock
> you've chosen.
I demand empirical evidence of that assertion.
> >>>>> That's already been covered in numerous AIDS
> >>>>> discussions. You get AIDS as punishment for sodomy, so
> >>>>> it's not out of line to say you get worms as
> >>>>> punishment for the abomination of walking barefoot in
> >>>>> a sewage.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then why do babies get HIV just for being born?
> >>>
> >>> Because sodomites and fornicators and drug addicts cause
> >>> them to get infected.....
> >>
> >> So, the babies fornicating and sodomizing each other causes
> >> it?
> >
> > No.....
>
> That's what you just said.
No.
> Your god punishes babies for what
> others have done.
No.
> Not a very nice god. Even I have more morals
> than that.
No.
> >>>> What are they being punished for.
> >>>
> >>> Begged Question.
> >>
> >> Yes, all of your statements are begging the question, the
> >> question as to why someone in this modern era would be so
> >> ignorant as to believe any of the things you are claiming.
> >
> > If you actually knew the meaning of "begged question"
>
> I do.
No.
Le Trôle
Because Ad Hominem is such a typical tactic?
Le Trôle
> Le Trôle wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> Le Trôle wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think it may be fair to say He has ensured no
> >>> overwhelming evidence exists to either prove or disprove.
> >>
> >> So then you are admitting your mythology says your god lied?
> >
> > Nope. You know this. Yawn.
>
> Yes, I know you, and your god, have lied.... well, at least you
> represent your mythology as having your god lie.
Yawn. How long will it continue? As long as it is baited?
David V.
> "Le Trôle" <let...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> A religious belief is a belief held in spite of the
>>> evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> Yep. It's called Faith. Yawn.
>
> Unless you call it stupidity.
They are pretty stupid to believe all that crap they spew. It's
so moronic that I don't think even they believe in it. They just
try to impress the others and see who can be the baddest sheep in
the flock.
--
Dave
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5OWdnZ2dnZ0IUjy6nZ2dn...@sti.net...
>
>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think it may be fair to say He has ensured no
>>>>> overwhelming evidence exists to either prove or
>>>>> disprove.
>>>>
>>>> So then you are admitting your mythology says your god
>>>> lied?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. There is no lie in remaining anonymous. You are not
>>> even aware of your own jumped conclusions.
>>
>> Nice try at evasion. It won't work though. The lies of your
>> god were in your claim it hid evidence of a flood.
>
>
> There is no lie in remaining anonymous.
We've been over that before. Do try harder in the future. You're
getting boring.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zsydnXO-Qti...@sti.net...
>
>>Le Trôle wrote:
>>
>>>"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Le Trôle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Le Trôle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We already know that disease did not exist at the end
>>>>>>> of the six days of Creation, they are a result of the
>>>>>>> fall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which is a lie since nothing like that is mentioned in
>>>>>>christian mythology.
>>>>>
>>>>>There was no disease before the fall of Adam.
>>>>
>>>>A statement that you cannot back up with anything but
>>>>religious beliefs. I prefer to deal with reality, not
>>>>mythology.
>>>
>>>The lack of response concerning the misrepresentation of the
>>>opposing view is noted. Just snip the hard parts, eh?
>>
>>Nah, I just snip the boring parts that I've heard thousands of
>>times before.
>
>
> And that's a lie, and forget the snippage, we both know it.
Yawn......
Daniel T.
"grayden" <gso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > In article <1123846606.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "grayden" <gso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel T. wrote:
> > > > In article <1123531165....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > gso...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You would be quite right however, to
> > > > > point out that these experiments give little indication of
> > > > > 'macro-evolution'. For that it is more relevant to look outside of the
> > > > > biological context.
> > > >
> > > > Here though, I think you are off base. First, the whole concept of
> > > > "macro-evolution" seems rather slippery, simply because there is debate
> > > > over what constitutes a species. (see
> > > > <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html>, section 2.0.)
> > > > Second, looking outside the biological context cannot help because
> > > > evolution *requires* a biological context. (See the berkeley site above,
> > > > especially .../evo101/IIntro.shtml.)
> > >
> > > Unfortunately the definition there is stated specifically as a
> > > definition of biological evolution not of evolution in general.
> >
> > That is not unfortunate at all, there is no "evolution in general". The
> > "evolution of a star", the "evolution of civilization", the "evolution
> > of the computer"... None of these has anything to do with the Theory of
> > Evolution. None of these processes operate in the same manor, nor with
> > the same mechanisms as biological evolution.
> >
> > > My
> > > point in bringing up artifiacts was not to say that they necessarily
> > > evolved in the same way as biological organisms, but to point out that
> > > there are a great number of similarities in their developmental
> > > histories - similarities that would have to be encompassed or justified
> > > in a general evolutionary framework. Artifacts are clearly a form of
> > > biological periphery - requiring life to exist. Yet they hold a role in
> > > adaptation and selection that is analogous to neither genotype nor
> > > phenotype.
> >
> > By arguing for some unified evolutionary theory that is supposed to
> > explain "change", you are straying far afield and putting yourself in a
> > camp of one. I have read of no one who believes such a unified theory
> > exists.
>
> Well perhaps it is a camp of one - but part of modern biology's current
> identity crisis (and this at least is not my sole opinion) is that it's
> main principles are somewhat disembodied from the other core sciences.
> To pretend that the theory evolution will somehow operate independently
> from the processes in the rest of the universe is essentially to take a
> vitalist stance on biology - which many people still do implicitly even
> if they don't realize it.
Fortunately, science doesn't do this. Although I will agree that many
people treat evolution as a religion and do take a vitalist stance.
> To say that evolution is distinct from change
> in general is to hold to some very tenuous assumptions about the
> universe.
As you said yourself: "If [change over time] is your sole definition for
evolution, then the whole subject is irrelevant."
So you hold that if change over time is evolution's sole definition then
it is irrelevant, yet you want to posit that evolution is wrong unless
it has such a definition?
> What makes the evolution of a star *qualitatively*
> different from that of a biological unit is the constituent parts and
> their relative configurations - as I said before: system-level
> differences.
The qualitative difference is that "parent" stars do not pass down
traits to "child" stars.
> There is no reason to believe that evolution earns its
> characteristics from any different mechanisms than the rest of the
> universe's operations.
Not in the reductionist sense no, all processes work through chemistry
and physics.
> The broader categories referenced by
> evolutionary theory's native terminology are descriptive of different
> organizational characteristics - not functional ones. The appearance of
> mechanistic difference is due to consideration at only those levels.
> Ultimately, if evolution is to become a unified element of an
> explanatory scientific framework, it will have to reconcile biotic and
> abiotic change as aspects of the same process. Otherwise it's holding
> to its own peculiar gods.
No, it's holding to the same gods as all "higher" sciences. Physics and
chemistry are the root of all.
--
Magic depends on tradition and belief. It does not welcome observation,
nor does it profit by experiment. On the other hand, science is based
on experience; it is open to correction by observation and experiment.
Le Trôle
> Le Trôle wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:5OWdnZ2dnZ0IUjy6nZ2dn...@sti.net...
> >
> >> Le Trôle wrote:
> >>
> >>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Le Trôle wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think it may be fair to say He has ensured no
> >>>>> overwhelming evidence exists to either prove or
> >>>>> disprove.
> >>>>
> >>>> So then you are admitting your mythology says your god
> >>>> lied?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No. There is no lie in remaining anonymous. You are not
> >>> even aware of your own jumped conclusions.
> >>
> >> Nice try at evasion. It won't work though. The lies of your
> >> god were in your claim it hid evidence of a flood.
> >
> >
> > There is no lie in remaining anonymous.
>
> We've been over that before.
So stop responding. You see, you have been caught
several times practising shoddy reasoning and generally
faulty presentation of ideas. You suck at discussion.
> Do try harder in the future. You're getting boring.
The boredom you claim to have is the result of conducting
David V.
> [bullshit snipped]
Look, prove your god exists, or go away.
Le Trôle
> Le Trôle wrote:
> > [bullshit snipped]
>
> Look, prove your god exists, or go away.
So don't respond.
But you will respond. You must respond.
I promise to listen.
David V.
>>
>>>[bullshit snipped]
>>
>>Look, prove your god exists, or go away.
>
Still no proof of your god? I knew you couldn't and wouldn't.
Typical.
Mani Deli
As the nation slides ever further into mass stupidity, internationally
the only thing it will have left is a bit of "behind."
"Many Going to College Aren't Ready, Report Finds--By TAMAR LEWIN
Only about half of this year's high school graduates have the reading
skills they need to succeed in college, and even fewer are prepared
for college-level science and math courses, according to a yearly
report from ACT, which produces one of the nation's leading college
admissions tests.
The report, based on scores of the 2005 high school graduates who took
the exam, some 1.2 million students in all, also found that fewer than
one in four met the college-readiness benchmarks in all four subjects
tested: reading comprehension, English, math and science."
Le Trôle
> Le Trôle wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >>Le Trôle wrote:
> >>
> >>>[bullshit snipped]
> >>
> >>Look, prove your god exists, or go away.
> >
> > [more bullshit snipped]
>
> Still no proof of your god? I knew you couldn't and wouldn't.
> Typical.
Still angry? Please calm down. Life is too short.
Have a coke and a smile.
I'm willing to listen.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:k5ednVDRmIc...@sti.net...
>> Still no proof of your god? I knew you couldn't and wouldn't.
>> Typical.
>
>Still angry? Please calm down. Life is too short.
>Have a coke and a smile.
>
>I'm willing to listen.
>
>
This is about the best the "I have proof of god jerks" here can
conjure up. As usual all bluster and no iota of proof of anything. Its
a species that comes in all religious flavors which has spouted
centuries of bullshit.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [bullshit snipped]
>>>>
>>>> Look, prove your god exists, or go away.
>>>
>>> [more bullshit snipped]
>>
>> Still no proof of your god? I knew you couldn't and
>> wouldn't. Typical.
>
No proof of your god yet? What's the hold up? Don't have any?
David V.
>>> wouldn't. Typical.
>>
>> Still angry? Please calm down. Life is too short. Have a
>> coke and a smile.
>>
>> I'm willing to listen.
>
> This is about the best the "I have proof of god jerks" here
> can conjure up. As usual all bluster and no iota of proof of
> anything. Its a species that comes in all religious flavors
> which has spouted centuries of bullshit.
That describes him perfectly, all talk and no substance. Not once
has he presented anything of intelligence for someone to reply
to. Typical. I don't think his dipstick is touching any oil.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Le Trôle wrote:
>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>>
>>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [bullshit snipped]
>>>>>
>>>>> Look, prove your god exists, or go away.
>>>>
>>>> [more bullshit snipped]
>>>
>>> Still no proof of your god? I knew you couldn't and
>>> wouldn't. Typical.
>>
If you keep asking this, the "I have proof of god" assholes will
eventually crawl back into their holes and disappear. As has happened
here so many times before.
Le Trôle
Sounds like you just found Religion.
Such Fervor.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [bullshit snipped]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look, prove your god exists, or go away.
>>>>>
>>>>> [more bullshit snipped]
>>>>
>>>> Still no proof of your god? I knew you couldn't and
>>>> wouldn't. Typical.
>
> If you keep asking this, the "I have proof of god" assholes
> will eventually crawl back into their holes and disappear. As
> has happened here so many times before.
Yeah, but there's plenty of assholes out there. When this one
goes away, another will pop up. Why do they have to be so boring
and stupid? I guess that's why they try so hard to ruin our
schools; so they won't be alone.
David V.
> "Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>>
>>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le Trôle wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [bullshit snipped]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look, prove your god exists, or go away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [more bullshit snipped]
>>>>>
>>>>> Still no proof of your god? I knew you couldn't and
>>>>> wouldn't. Typical.
>>>>
>> If you keep asking this, the "I have proof of god" assholes
>> will eventually crawl back into their holes and disappear.
>> As has happened here so many times before.
>
Got that proof of your little god yet?
grayden
Officially science doesn't - but a whole lot of scientists do. And they
might be great scientists doing great work. As I say - it's a view
that's often held implicitly and to an extent without the holder's full
understanding of what they're doing.
>
> > To say that evolution is distinct from change
> > in general is to hold to some very tenuous assumptions about the
> > universe.
>
> As you said yourself: "If [change over time] is your sole definition for
> evolution, then the whole subject is irrelevant."
With no undue irony - a quote can't be separated from its context and
maintain the same meaning. However - yes I said it, and yes I meant it.
My point is that evolution is a class of effects within 'change over
time', so although the phrase is an accurate desciption - it isn't in
any way explanatory. The fact that just about anything can be
truthfully defined as 'change over time' does not mean that there isn't
a better definition. I think I'm going to have to defend myself on this
one - because it probably sounds like I'm running in circles - but I'll
wait for the questions.
>
> So you hold that if change over time is evolution's sole definition then
> it is irrelevant, yet you want to posit that evolution is wrong unless
> it has such a definition?
>
> > What makes the evolution of a star *qualitatively*
> > different from that of a biological unit is the constituent parts and
> > their relative configurations - as I said before: system-level
> > differences.
>
> The qualitative difference is that "parent" stars do not pass down
> traits to "child" stars.
Well that's not really true. They pass on a great deal of information -
and in fact that information is often combined from several stars,
since the gas from many exploded stars will often combine to form their
successors. In fact - as far as we know, life is heavily reliant on
that process to produce and spread heavy elements. The problem is that
people always get hung up on this mystical fitness concept, without
realizing that the environment that determines an agent's fitness is
subject to the same processes of change as the agent. So yes - stars do
pass on features by means of element ratios, encoded by the
distribution of gas in space and expressed temporally through
gravitational collapse. To describe these features as 'adaptive' or
'nonadaptive' is to miss the point. The star's 'life' will be different
depending on these ratios and on its size, etc. And all of those
features will result in different types of child systems. The problem
is when you try to find which stars should be evolutionarily more
'fit'. That just doesn't make sense in terms of stars - and
realistically doesn't make sense in any other context either. The only
possible angle you could take is that heavy element laden gas clouds
are more fit because they are more likely to produce planets which may
then develop life. My point in all this is that you can't pretend that
evolution just spontaneously starts at some particular level or
organization. It's the same ridiculous problem we have with trying to
define 'life'. You can't fence off something that meshes continuously
with its surroundings. If evolution only arises in certain
configurations of matter - then the questions that have to be answered
are: "what properties do those configurations have?" and "how did those
configurations arise?". To look at DNA and say "that there - that's
evolution", is to miss the point entirely.
>
> > [snip]
-grayden
David V.
>
> Officially science doesn't - but a whole lot of scientists do.
Can you name ONE scientists that has evolution as a religion?
grayden
David V. wrote:
> grayden wrote:
> >
> > Officially science doesn't - but a whole lot of scientists do.
>
> Can you name ONE scientists that has evolution as a religion?
>
> --
> Dave
>
Actually I was referring to scientists taking a vitalist stance, not to
them taking evolution as religion. However, arguably a religion is
simply a collection of ideas with respect to the functioning and basis
of the world, and in some cases a set of moral guidelines for operation
in the world. So any set of beliefs is logically equivalent - in those
respects - with 'religion'. In that sense, any scientist who believes
in evolution is one who holds it as part of their religion. But that's
probably not your definition of religion. More to the point, if I was
interested in discussing religion I would probably be posting in the
numerous threads about religion. Not here.
As to vitalism - which is what I was intending to refer to, anyone who
believes that evolution is its own special independent field, or that
'life' is a unique property of certain things and not others is taking
a vitalist stance. Period.
-grayden
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>> grayden wrote:
>>
>>> Officially science doesn't - but a whole lot of scientists
>>> do.
>>
>> Can you name ONE scientists that has evolution as a
>> religion?
>
> stance, not to them taking evolution as religion.
That is not true. Your exact word was "religion".
> However, arguably a religion is simply a collection of ideas
> with respect to the functioning and basis of the world,.....
And that collection necessarily includes gods, and their ilk,
along with reliance on ancient texts and magical thinking. None
of which are included in any scientific discipline. Trying to
expand the word "religion" to include everything means it just
defines nothing. Also your argument is based on an army of straw
men, equivocation, and several other logical fallacies.
> As to vitalism - which is what I was intending to refer to,
> anyone who believes that evolution is its own special
> independent field, or that 'life' is a unique property of
> certain things and not others is taking a vitalist stance.
> Period.
Vitalism is not part of evolution, nor a part of any modern
science, and is just another red herring you're trying to toss in
to stink up the argument.
grayden
> grayden wrote:
> > David V. wrote:
> >> grayden wrote:
> >>> Officially science doesn't - but a whole lot of scientists
> >>> do.
> >> Can you name ONE scientists that has evolution as a
> >> religion?
> > Actually I was referring to scientists taking a vitalist
> > stance, not to them taking evolution as religion.
> That is not true. Your exact word was "religion".
Well actually - no it wasn't. If you follow the indentations you'll see
that 'religion' was used by Daniel as an extension of my previous
comment on vitalism.
> > However, arguably a religion is simply a collection of ideas
> > with respect to the functioning and basis of the world,.....
> And that collection necessarily includes gods, and their ilk,
> along with reliance on ancient texts and magical thinking. None
> of which are included in any scientific discipline. Trying to
> expand the word "religion" to include everything means it just
> defines nothing. Also your argument is based on an army of straw
> men, equivocation, and several other logical fallacies.
I'm sorry - I guess I missed the meeting where 'religion' was given a
definitive description. In any case, the argument was strictly devil's
advocat, particularly since I had no intention of discussing religion
in the first place. I see however, that you've omitted that part of my
quote.
> > As to vitalism - which is what I was intending to refer to,
> > anyone who believes that evolution is its own special
> > independent field, or that 'life' is a unique property of
> > certain things and not others is taking a vitalist stance.
> > Period.
> Vitalism is not part of evolution, nor a part of any modern
> science, and is just another red herring you're trying to toss in
> to stink up the argument.
Which argument exactly? You've been busy fighting with the trolls about
Noah's ark. The only person in this thread who has contributed any
relevant and thoughtful comments is Daniel T.
Perhaps you'd earn more credibility if you tried refutation or some
form of reasoned critical analysis instead of simple dismissal.
-Grayden
> --
> Dave
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>> grayden wrote:
>>
>>> David V. wrote:>>>
>>>
>>>> grayden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Officially science doesn't - but a whole lot of
>>>>> scientists do.
>>>>
>>>> Can you name ONE scientists that has evolution as a
>>>> religion?
>>>
>>> Actually I was referring to scientists taking a vitalist
>>> stance, not to them taking evolution as religion.
>>
>> That is not true. Your exact word was "religion".
>
Did you, or did you not use the word "religion"?
>>> However, arguably a religion is simply a collection of
>>> ideas with respect to the functioning and basis of the
>>> world,.....
>>
>> And that collection necessarily includes gods, and their
>> ilk, along with reliance on ancient texts and magical
>> thinking. None of which are included in any scientific
>> discipline. Trying to expand the word "religion" to include
>> everything means it just defines nothing. Also your argument
>> is based on an army of straw men, equivocation, and
>> several other logical fallacies.
>
> I'm sorry - I guess I missed the meeting where 'religion' was
> given a definitive description.....
It seems you did. Your argument based on a redefinition of
"religion" isn't going to work.
>>> As to vitalism - which is what I was intending to refer
>>> to, anyone who believes that evolution is its own special
>>> independent field, or that 'life' is a unique property of
>>> certain things and not others is taking a vitalist
>>> stance. Period.
>>
>> Vitalism is not part of evolution, nor a part of any modern
>> science, and is just another red herring you're trying to
>> toss in to stink up the argument.
>
> Which argument exactly?
The vitalism one which is the one my last statement was referring
to. That should have been obvious since it was the first word of
the statement!
I snip what I don't reply to. Sorry if you can't deal with that.
Daniel T.
"grayden" <gso...@gmail.com> wrote:
So because some scientists supposedly take a vitalist stance, you paint
the entire enterprise with that brush?
> > > To say that evolution is distinct from change
> > > in general is to hold to some very tenuous assumptions about the
> > > universe.
> >
> > As you said yourself: "If [change over time] is your sole definition for
> > evolution, then the whole subject is irrelevant."
>
> With no undue irony - a quote can't be separated from its context and
> maintain the same meaning. However - yes I said it, and yes I meant it.
> My point is that evolution is a class of effects within 'change over
> time', so although the phrase is an accurate desciption - it isn't in
> any way explanatory. The fact that just about anything can be
> truthfully defined as 'change over time' does not mean that there isn't
> a better definition. I think I'm going to have to defend myself on this
> one - because it probably sounds like I'm running in circles - but I'll
> wait for the questions.
What is it exactly that you are trying to better define? This whole
thing started as I recall because you thought the definition of
evolution was too broad, but when given a more narrow definition you say
it's too narrow. Or are you trying to find a word that adequately
represents "change over time"?
We seem to have one word that has two definitions. "Evolution" is used
to mean "change over time" and it is also used to represent a specific
processes of biological systems. Just because the same word is used,
doesn't mean there must be some theoretical connection to the two.
> > > What makes the evolution of a star *qualitatively*
> > > different from that of a biological unit is the constituent parts and
> > > their relative configurations - as I said before: system-level
> > > differences.
> >
> > The qualitative difference is that "parent" stars do not pass down
> > traits to "child" stars.
>
> Well that's not really true. They pass on a great deal of information -
> and in fact that information is often combined from several stars,
> since the gas from many exploded stars will often combine to form their
> successors. In fact - as far as we know, life is heavily reliant on
> that process to produce and spread heavy elements. The problem is that
> people always get hung up on this mystical fitness concept, without
> realizing that the environment that determines an agent's fitness is
> subject to the same processes of change as the agent. So yes - stars do
> pass on features by means of element ratios, encoded by the
> distribution of gas in space and expressed temporally through
> gravitational collapse.
"Parent" stars do *not* pass down their traits to "children" stars.
Stars don't have children at all. The matter expunged from an exploding
star, unlike an exploding mushroom, does not in any sense contain a
blue-print for the production of more stars.
> My point in all this is that you can't pretend that
> evolution just spontaneously starts at some particular level or
> organization. It's the same ridiculous problem we have with trying to
> define 'life'. You can't fence off something that meshes continuously
> with its surroundings. If evolution only arises in certain
> configurations of matter - then the questions that have to be answered
> are: "what properties do those configurations have?" and "how did those
> configurations arise?". To look at DNA and say "that there - that's
> evolution", is to miss the point entirely.
Unless, of course, DNA is the configuration in which evolution arises...
grayden
> In article <1124465239.055097.326...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,> > > In article <1123896165.270930.292...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,> > > > > In article <1123846606.963633.274...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Of course not. What I'm criticising is the pretence that evolution can
be indefinitely treated as an independent theoretical construct.
>
> > > > To say that evolution is distinct from change
> > > > in general is to hold to some very tenuous assumptions about the
> > > > universe.
> > >
> > > As you said yourself: "If [change over time] is your sole definition for
> > > evolution, then the whole subject is irrelevant."
> >
> > With no undue irony - a quote can't be separated from its context and
> > maintain the same meaning. However - yes I said it, and yes I meant it.
> > My point is that evolution is a class of effects within 'change over
> > time', so although the phrase is an accurate desciption - it isn't in
> > any way explanatory. The fact that just about anything can be
> > truthfully defined as 'change over time' does not mean that there isn't
> > a better definition. I think I'm going to have to defend myself on this
> > one - because it probably sounds like I'm running in circles - but I'll
> > wait for the questions.
>
> What is it exactly that you are trying to better define? This whole
> thing started as I recall because you thought the definition of
> evolution was too broad, but when given a more narrow definition you say
> it's too narrow. Or are you trying to find a word that adequately
> represents "change over time"?
It's not so much a definition as a framework that I'm looking for.
Everyone is so caught up in evolution as a strictly biological
(whatever the hell that means) phenomenon, that they forget that what
we see as biology is almost certainly just one instantiation of a more
general process. We look at DNA for instance, and instead of
abstracting its function in the overall scheme of things, we pretty
well just say that it *is* its function and move on. "DNA carries
genetic information which is modified and passed on between generations
leading to differentially adaptive variations". Well great. But the
real issue isn't what DNA does - but rather what features of DNA are
necessary and sufficient to perform that function. I've never seen that
question answered.
>
> We seem to have one word that has two definitions. "Evolution" is used
> to mean "change over time" and it is also used to represent a specific
> processes of biological systems. Just because the same word is used,
> doesn't mean there must be some theoretical connection to the two.
That's exactly what I mean by vitalism. To assume that biological
evolution is independent from system evolution in general is to state
that there's something special about biology apart from configuration.
If that's not vitalism I don't know what is.
>
> > > > What makes the evolution of a star *qualitatively*
> > > > different from that of a biological unit is the constituent parts and
> > > > their relative configurations - as I said before: system-level
> > > > differences.
> > >
> > > The qualitative difference is that "parent" stars do not pass down
> > > traits to "child" stars.
> >
> > Well that's not really true. They pass on a great deal of information -
> > and in fact that information is often combined from several stars,
> > since the gas from many exploded stars will often combine to form their
> > successors. In fact - as far as we know, life is heavily reliant on
> > that process to produce and spread heavy elements. The problem is that
> > people always get hung up on this mystical fitness concept, without
> > realizing that the environment that determines an agent's fitness is
> > subject to the same processes of change as the agent. So yes - stars do
> > pass on features by means of element ratios, encoded by the
> > distribution of gas in space and expressed temporally through
> > gravitational collapse.
>
> "Parent" stars do *not* pass down their traits to "children" stars.
> Stars don't have children at all. The matter expunged from an exploding
> star, unlike an exploding mushroom, does not in any sense contain a
> blue-print for the production of more stars.
But it does. The particular configuration of a gas cloud is determined
by the configurations of the contributing bodies. A gas cloud will not
contain heavy elements unless the stars that fed it did. Plain and
simple. The only difference is that DNA for instance represents a
compact encoding that requires a strictly regulated environment in
order to be expressed, whereas a gas cloud is essentially a one-to-one
representation of information. In essence, the gas cloud is a structure
whose encoded information regulates its own structure, whereas DNA
is an information structure which regulates surrounding structures
while preserving its own. It's an issue of complexity, temporal
persistence and depth of encoding. DNA can only do what it does because
its environment is sufficiently rich in consistent but diverse
interactions. The vast majority of what DNA does is encoded in its
environment - not its structure. A lonely double-helix drifting in
space wouldn't act any differently than the elements in a gas cloud.
>
> > My point in all this is that you can't pretend that
> > evolution just spontaneously starts at some particular level or
> > organization. It's the same ridiculous problem we have with trying to
> > define 'life'. You can't fence off something that meshes continuously
> > with its surroundings. If evolution only arises in certain
> > configurations of matter - then the questions that have to be answered
> > are: "what properties do those configurations have?" and "how did those
> > configurations arise?". To look at DNA and say "that there - that's
> > evolution", is to miss the point entirely.
>
> Unless, of course, DNA is the configuration in which evolution arises...
To think of it as "the" configuration seems quite short-sighted to me.
That it is *a* configuration is obvious. But the question is "what
about it makes it so?"
-Grayden
grayden
> Did you, or did you not use the word "religion"?
Well let's take a look:
> > [Grayden]: Well perhaps it is a camp of one - but part of modern biology's current
> > identity crisis (and this at least is not my sole opinion) is that it's
> > main principles are somewhat disembodied from the other core sciences.
> > To pretend that the theory evolution will somehow operate independently
> > from the processes in the rest of the universe is essentially to take a
> > vitalist stance on biology - which many people still do implicitly even
> > if they don't realize it.
> [Daniel]: Fortunately, science doesn't do this. Although I will agree that many
> people treat evolution as a religion and do take a vitalist stance.
Nope. Guess not.
> [etc]
-Grayden
David V.
You forgot to reply to the other questions. I guess you couldn't
answer them.
Daniel T.
"grayden" <gso...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's probably not the only difference, but it is the defining
difference. The "child" star does not have the same configuration as the
parent star, it *cannot*. The child mushroom does have the same
configuration (with some variation) as its parent.
> > > My point in all this is that you can't pretend that
> > > evolution just spontaneously starts at some particular level or
> > > organization. It's the same ridiculous problem we have with trying to
> > > define 'life'. You can't fence off something that meshes continuously
> > > with its surroundings. If evolution only arises in certain
> > > configurations of matter - then the questions that have to be answered
> > > are: "what properties do those configurations have?" and "how did those
> > > configurations arise?". To look at DNA and say "that there - that's
> > > evolution", is to miss the point entirely.
> >
> > Unless, of course, DNA is the configuration in which evolution arises...
>
> To think of it as "the" configuration seems quite short-sighted to me.
> That it is *a* configuration is obvious. But the question is "what
> about it makes it so?"
Until some other configuration is discovered in which evolution arises,
DNA is *the* configuration. You are positing something that doesn't
exist, and then asking what this nonexistent thing has in common with
DNA. Your question is exactly why scientists get so excited at the
thought of finding life on another planet.
grayden
> You forgot to reply to the other questions. I guess you couldn't
> answer them.
You didn't ask any other questions.
-Grayden
David V.
I've asked them before.