The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

B. Mid-Eighteenth-Century Contributions1. Carolus Linneaus and Taxonomy
a. Taxonomy is the science of classifying organisms; taxonomy had been a main concern of biology.
b. Carolus Linneaus (1707-1778) was a Swedish naturalist in the field of taxonomy:
1. Linneaus developed a binomial system of nomenclature (two-part names for each species [e.g., Homo sapiens]).
2. He developed a system of classification for all known plants.
3. Like other taxonomists of his time, Linnaeus believed in the ideas of
a. special creation -- each species had an "ideal" structure and function; and
b. fixity of species -- each species had a place in the scala naturae, a sequential ladder of life.
c. Linnaeus thought that classification should describe the fixed features of species and reveal God's divine plan.
d. His ideas reflected the ideas of Plato and Aristotle: the ideal form can be deduced, and organisms
can be arranged in order of increasing complexity.
e. His later work with hybridization suggested species might change with time.the above from:
http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/apbio18.htmlI guess even this won't be enough. If I have time I will find the books that support my claim.

quote:

---

John Paul:
What natural causes have I ignored that can bring life from non-life?

---

Catalytic RNA to name one. Also, the scenarios for the natural construction of self-replicators breaks no known law of chemistry or physics. There is nothing magical about the chemistry that makes up life, it obeys every known thermodynamic and chemical principle known. Unless you can show how life from non-life violates physical laws then you have to admit that it is possible, even if it is improbable.Also, even if the first replicator was designed, this in no way elimates subsequent evolution of species via purely naturalistic mechanisms. Abiogenesis is not well understood and there is room for several theories. Interplanetary seeding, comet seeding, and possibly terraforming by an alien race are viable. However, the theory of evolution is well understood, and is capable of explaining the current diversity in species and diversity of morphology that we see today. There is no need for a designer to make IC systems, evolution is enough.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-16-2004 11:58 AM

quote:

---

b. fixity of species -- each species had a place in the scala naturae, a sequential ladder of life.

---

And this has been proven wrong. We have observed the non-fixity of species.Also, science has shown that life is a bush/tree, not a ladder. Although we still use his classification scheme, we no longer abide by his hypotheses.

quote:

---

1. Carolus Linneaus and Taxonomy
a. Taxonomy is the science of classifying organisms; taxonomy had been a main concern of biology.
b. Carolus Linneaus (1707-1778) was a Swedish naturalist in the field of taxonomy:
1. Linneaus developed a binomial system of nomenclature (two-part names for each species [e.g., Homo sapiens]).
2. He developed a system of classification for all known plants.

---

And none of this relies on the supernatural in its conception or application

quote:

---

3. Like other taxonomists of his time, Linnaeus believed in the ideas of
a. special creation -- each species had an "ideal" structure and function; and
b. fixity of species -- each species had a place in the scala naturae, a sequential ladder of life.

---

And like other taxonomists of his time, he was wrong...still has no impact or influence on the classification system.

quote:

---

c. Linnaeus thought that classification should describe the fixed features of species and reveal God's divine plan.

---

He could have believed that a talking goat lived in his butt, it is irrelevant to the science of taxonomy.

quote:

---

d. His ideas reflected the ideas of Plato and Aristotle: the ideal form can be deduced, and organisms
can be arranged in order of increasing complexity.

---

Which is why modern taxonomy uses his nomenclature system and his observations of the biodiversity in nature but does not rely on mid 18th century superstition.

quote:

---

e. His later work with hybridization suggested species might change with time.

---

Kind of screws over his belief in special creation and the fixity of species.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:
What natural causes have I ignored that can bring life from non-life?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
Catalytic RNA to name one.John Paul:
That is an assertion without support.LM:
Also, the scenarios for the natural construction of self-replicators breaks no known law of chemistry or physics.John Paul:
Ignorance of chemical bonds is not evidence. IOW the chemicals necessary for life would not form if left to their own devices. The bonds wouldn't be there.LM:
There is nothing magical about the chemistry that makes up life, it obeys every known thermodynamic and chemical principle known.John Paul:
More assertion and falsified.LM:
Unless you can show how life from non-life violates physical laws then you have to admit that it is possible, even if it is improbable.John Paul:
Again the chemical bonds would not form.LM:
Also, even if the first replicator was designed, this in no way elimates subsequent evolution of species via purely naturalistic mechanisms.John Paul:
True. However if life did not orginate via purely natural processes then why would anyone infer it evolved by them?LM:
However, the theory of evolution is well understood, and is capable of explaining the current diversity in species and diversity of morphology that we see today.John Paul:
Please present the paper(s) that show mutations can accumulate in such a way that we would believe the ToE is indicative of reality.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Carolus Linneaus and Taxonomy
a. Taxonomy is the science of classifying organisms; taxonomy had been a main concern of biology.
b. Carolus Linneaus (1707-1778) was a Swedish naturalist in the field of taxonomy:
1. Linneaus developed a binomial system of nomenclature (two-part names for each species [e.g., Homo sapiens]).
2. He developed a system of classification for all known plants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MaM:
And none of this relies on the supernatural in its conception or applicationJohn Paul:
Do you have a point?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Like other taxonomists of his time, Linnaeus believed in the ideas of
a. special creation -- each species had an "ideal" structure and function; and
b. fixity of species -- each species had a place in the scala naturae, a sequential ladder of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mam:
And like other taxonomists of his time, he was wrong...still has no impact or influence on the classification system.John Paul:
How was he wrong?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Linnaeus thought that classification should describe the fixed features of species and reveal God's divine plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mam:
He could have believed that a talking goat lived in his butt, it is irrelevant to the science of taxonomy.John Paul:
That is your assertion. However the fact remains he was out to name the created kinds.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. His ideas reflected the ideas of Plato and Aristotle: the ideal form can be deduced, and organisms
can be arranged in order of increasing complexity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mam:
Which is why modern taxonomy uses his nomenclature system and his observations of the biodiversity in nature but does not rely on mid 18th century superstition.John Paul:
What superstition?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. His later work with hybridization suggested species might change with time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mam:
Kind of screws over his belief in special creation and the fixity of species.John paul:
What an odd statement. A scientist, via his own research, falsifies his original thought and Mammuthus thinks this means something? However it does show that Charles Darwin was ignorant. Linne was before Darwin and his work was published. That is why it is funny when Darwin posed that species are not immutable.

Why is this funny? That species were mutable was already understood. How this could happen was another matter.

quote:

---

LM:
There is nothing magical about the chemistry that makes up life, it obeys every known thermodynamic and chemical principle known.

​

John Paul:
More assertion and falsified.

---

Please show me what chemical or physical laws the chemistry of life violates.

quote:

---

LM:
Unless you can show how life from non-life violates physical laws then you have to admit that it is possible, even if it is improbable.

​

John Paul:
Again the chemical bonds would not form.

---

The devil is in the details, please be specific.

Linne was before Darwin and his work was published. That is why it is funny when Darwin posed that species are not immutableNN:
Why is this funny?John Paul:
It is funny because Darwin was not only a plagiarist (he stole natural selection) he was also ignorant of current scientific thought.

Where did Darwin steal NS from?I thought it was understood that the mutability was already understood to be the mystery to be explaned.

NN:
Where did Darwin steal NS from?John Paul:
Ed Blythe wrote about NS while darwin was on his voyage. It has also been told to me that NS was written about before that.NN:
I thought it was understood that the mutability was already understood to be the mystery to be explaned.John Paul:
Linne already wrote that speciation occurred. He did not write about the mechanism.

Darwin gets the credit because he put all the pieces of the puzzle together. Wallace did the same, though later. Even though Darwin hadn't formally published, by the time Wallace's ideas came to the attention of the British scientific community, Darwin had already established priority for his ideas through a voluminous correspondence.Darwin also gets the credit because he presented, explained and interpreted a large body of evidence supportive of evolution. While Darwin included and built upon the idea of the mutability of species, he never claimed to have originated the idea. As in all science, he built upon the work of other scientists.As the years went by after the publication of Origins, one of the criticisms Darwin received was that he credited too few people, and the list of acknowledgements grew longer with each edition.It isn't necessary or even valid to malign the popular image of Darwin in order to discredit the idea of evolution because, as we all know, Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed. Since this is a know fact, and since it has been scientifially established that deathbed recantations take priority over issues of evidence and interpretation, obviously the theory is false. --Percy

quote:

---

NN:
Where did Darwin steal NS from?

​

John Paul:
Ed Blythe wrote about NS while darwin was on his voyage.

---

So, does this mean that it was 'stolen?'Tell us, why does it gripe you so much that Darwin received credit for the ToE? If it was someone else, would you be just as vehement? And just what difference does it make? Is the problem that you know you don't have a valid argument and have to attack someone's 19th century integrity?

quote:

---

It has also been told to me that NS was written about before that.

---

Oh! Well, that changes everything. You have been told! I think that clinches it.

John Paul, please learn to use the standard quote tags rather than adopting your own difficult to read method. Only you if you're willing to massively equivocate between terms. The current meaning of evolution applies to descent with natural selection as described by Darwin.You are right, however, that there were alternatives - pretty much any religion has its own pet creation myth. However, all of them are totally lacking in evidence so they don't address my point. Now you're just being stupid. Really? Where then is any reference to the created kind in his classification system?

quote:

---

You can NOT stop an inference by what may be found out in the future. The future may also confirm ID. ID is inferred by what we know NOW. IOW ID is based on our current state of knowledge.

---

No, it seems to me that you are basing ID on our currrent LACK of knowledge of a naturalistic explanation for certain systems.How can you tell the difference between an ID system and a natural system we will never understand because we do not have the intelligence to understand it?Just because we do not understand a system in nature does not mean it didn't come about by purely natural means.Also, could you please list off a few ways in which ID has advanced our understanding of nature, or some technological advancements it has been used for?