Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 211 of 265 (132733)
08-11-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by jt
08-11-2004 2:08 AM


Re: Really?
Not your post specifically. But we have a few members that have to parse every single line of the posts they are responding too. Also a few posters that even after you read it a half dozen times you are still not sure whatthey were trying to say.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by jt, posted 08-11-2004 2:08 AM jt has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 212 of 265 (132788)
08-11-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Loudmouth
08-04-2004 6:22 PM


Re: some cleaned up(side)down
yes-you were correct again. Thanks! I now look at your avatar as magnetosomes!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Loudmouth, posted 08-04-2004 6:22 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 213 of 265 (132883)
08-11-2004 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by jt
08-10-2004 9:38 PM


JT definitely has some smarts...
JT - First I want to restate what someone else said, it has been a good discussion with you, and I hope I haven't come across as too harsh; I also look forward to discussing specific genetic points with you - don't worry if you're not an expert, since you're not expected to be and you'll learn a lot along the way.
JT writes:
My guess is that some "junk DNA" controls/has some effect on recombination, and that a large amount of adaptation is "programmed in."
Good guess! Research has already shown that th is occurs!
In fact, there are regions called "recombination hotspots" where recombination happens at a much higher rate than average. Also, the study on transposable elements I mentioned a few pages back in this thread discusses how their activity has a ided "adaptation" (which at a genetic level is evolution).
Some work I'm slightly familar with is by Evan Eichler, whose primary focus involves comparing the genomes of human and non-human primates to examine functional and evolutionary relationships. (Y ou can see his published work by going to http://www.pubmed.org and searching for "eichler e" - some of the papers are available for free on-line). Much of the work is technical, but you shouldn't hestitate to look around and see what you can understand - that i s h ow you learn to read scientific papers anyway. You may also enjoy entering "evolution genetics" as the search terms and seeing what pops up - please let me know if you have any questions...
From a review paper by Eichler:
Eichler writes:
Large-scale geno me sequencing is providing a comprehensive view of the complex evolutionary forces that have shaped the structure of eukaryotic chromosomes. Comparative se quence analyses reveal patterns of apparently random rearrangement interspersed with regions of ext raordinarily rapid, localized genome evolution. Numerous subtle rearrangements near centromeres, telomeres, duplications, and interspersed repeats suggest h otspots for eukaryotic chromosome evolution. This localized chromosomal instability may play a rol e in rapidly evolving lineage-specific gene families and in fostering large-scale changes in gene order. Computational algorithms that take into account thes e dynamic forces along with traditional models of chromosomal rearrangement show promise for reco nstructing the natural history of eukaryotic chromosomes.
link to abstract
JT writes:
I think that there may be more adaptation programme d into cells than could have happened via evolution.
This is where I don't see your reasoning... What evidence or concept gives you the idea that it is "pro gramming" versus "evolution"?
Indeed, the area and ideas you talk about devoting your caree r to - the research done in that field has already shown how "junk DNA" can "accelerate" evolution beyond random mutational events, thus providing more evidence th at "evolution" may not take as long as we think.
Perhaps a point of clarification would he lp: do you believe that gene sequence could have evolved, but not functional "junk DNA"? Or do you believe that these two classifications of DNA would evolve differ ently?
Also as a general note on your comments on this thread: You replied to me sometime in the thread that you disbelieved evolution due to scientific reasons, not supernatural ones. Yet throughout your comments you state things like "my creationist vi ewpoint leads me to believe evolution could not...". I guess I still don't have an unders tanding of your viewpoint (if you yourself don't have an understanding yet that is fine!).e

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jt, posted 08-10-2004 9:38 PM jt has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 214 of 265 (132962)
08-11-2004 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by jt
08-11-2004 12:50 AM


quote:
However, after carefully reading that statement, I realized that it is naturalism, not evolution, which is a tenet of humanism, and someone could be a humanist without believing evolution. I stand (well, actually sit) corrected.
That is the difference between ontological naturalism, which says "nature is all there is", and methodological naturalism, which says "I can only know what I can detect with my senses".
Notice that MN doesn't say anything at all about if the supernatural exists or not. It cannot, by definition, have anything to say about it. It is neutral on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by jt, posted 08-11-2004 12:50 AM jt has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 215 of 265 (132964)
08-11-2004 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by jt
08-11-2004 1:18 AM


If so, how can you know this objectively, since you are not omnicient?
quote:
Who says I'm not?
Me.
Tell me exactly what I was doing one hour ago.
Can't tell me? Then you aren't omnicient.
quote:
in regards to the supernatural, I am willing to, on faith, believe that the Bible is accurate in regards to creation. I do not claim, though, that my beliefs regarding the supernatural are scientific.
Then you don't know that supernatural creation is most likely; you just believe it.
Big difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by jt, posted 08-11-2004 1:18 AM jt has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 216 of 265 (132972)
08-11-2004 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by jt
08-11-2004 1:36 AM


Re: Separation
quote:
Evolution, i.e. gradual change via many small changes, applies to many things, and thus is helpful in regards to many things. I do not, however, believe that it is sufficient to explain life.
If you are referring to the origin of the first life, then I would agree.
The ToE doesn't deal with how life first came into existence. It deals with the changes that life underwent ever since it emerged.
Your argument is most likely with the various abiogenesis theories, which are not anywhere near as well-supported as the ToE.
quote:
Also, issues with "micro vs. macro evolution" could easily creep in here, but those are for a seperate debate.)
FYI, the "micro vs. micro" thing is a Creation Science distortion. There is no difference in mechanism between micro- and macroevolution; just the timescales are different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by jt, posted 08-11-2004 1:36 AM jt has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 217 of 265 (133943)
08-14-2004 9:32 PM


Reply to Post #198, by Crashfrog
If you disagree, we need to pin down what "supernatural" means. I made a thread to do just that (in the Is It Science area) but so far nobody's participated. I'd love to have your input, though.
I do disagree, and I'm game for that, but I probably won't have much time for it. By the way, are you still interested in the mythical bible thread? I have a message here which is awaiting response.
There's no other way to substantiate the occurance of events except via the scientific method; all other methods are indistinguishable from falsehood.
Did Julius Ceaser exist? If your answer is "yes" or "probabably," why do you think so?
Reply to Post #203, by Ifen
I get the impression that "Truth" is in some fundamantal sense the crux of your interest.
I am interested in both Truth and truth, and I think I understand the distinction you are trying to make. Big T is metaphysical, little t is physical?
My personal interest lies along the lines of what in Zen Buddhism is called "direct seeing into one's nature".
What is that? (I won't be debating your answer, I'm just curious)
For me consciousness is the fundamental mystery that tends to get ignored by western religion
If by "western religion" you mean christianity, I disagree. Christianity explains consciousness by spirit.
You are doing a good job clarifying your meaning I think.
Thanks, and so are you.
Reply to Post #209, by Mark24
Such as?
Are you asking for reasons I disbelieve evolution or reasons I don't believe there is a naturalistic explanation? For the former, I believe that mutations/natural selection cannot explain life forms like we see today, that the fossil record does not support evolution, and other things. (note: I do not want to debate these things here, and I am asserting that I believe these things; I am not asserting the things themselves)
If you meant the latter, I am currently debating about that under the "god of the gaps" subtopic, and would welcome any arguments you have that pertain to it.
Reply to "Re: Jumping the gun," Post #210, by Schrafinator
Unless we follow the above tenet, we are no different from those who figured that the god Apollo pulled the sun across the dome of the sky in his firey chariot.
Yes, we are different, because we have an accurate book about a man who made convincing claims to being God and creating the earth in a manner described in another book. I know that the accuracy of the Bible is debated, but if it is accurate and Jesus actually was dead for three days and then came back to life, doesn't that give him some credibility? In any case, it is much better supported than greek mythology.
The scientific answer to a gap in our knowledge must always be, simply, "We don't know"
Or, "We don't know for sure, but we think..." It is ok, when science cannot shed light on an issue, to look somewhere else for knowledge. You need to be careful how you look, and know that it isn't as sure as science, but as long as you are careful there is nothing wrong with gaining knowledge outside of science.
For example, take history. We can examine little of human history using scientific methods; much of our knowledge of history comes from ancient manuscripts whose claims cannot be verified. Scholars study these manuscripts and do what the can to determine what is true and false. Most historical accounts come with no garuntee of certainty, only the label "I, a scholar, think..."
If only knowledge discovered by science was accepted, there would be no historical field of study.
not "We don't have a scientific explanation right at this moment, therefore Godidit."
I do not recomend going from "I don't know" to "Goddidit." I don't know how the bananas got into the fruitbowl, but my answer isn't "Godidit." The reason that is my answer for the universe is because the Bible, which I believe is accurate, says so, and there is no other (known) explanation (in my opinion) which can account for the universe we see today.
Reply to "RE: Really?", Post #211, by Jar
Not your post specifically.
Oh good. Phew.
Reply to "JT definitely has some smarts...", Post #213, by Pink Sasquatch
JT - First I want to restate what someone else said, it has been a good discussion with you, and I hope I haven't come across as too harsh;
I have enjoyed your posts, and you definitely have not been harsh. Even if I had thought you were, the title of your post would have cleared that up.
I also look forward to discussing specific genetic points with you - don't worry if you're not an expert, since you're not expected to be and you'll learn a lot along the way.
That sounds good - although my posts will probably appear less than often, because I will need to spend a lot of time researching.
Good guess! Research has already shown that this occurs!
Thanks, but I cannot claim credit for it the guess. I recently heard another creationist talking about it, and the possibility sounded fascinating. I didn't know it had been researched, though.
You can see his published work by going to http://www.pubmed.org and searching for "eichler e" - some of the papers are available for free on-line
Thanks for showing me this; I was recently wondering where I could go to find actual research papers involving genetics. Now I know.
This is where I don't see your reasoning... What evidence or concept gives you the idea that it is "programming" versus "evolution"?
The concept I have is basically that most organisms already have adaptations for a huge amount of different situations, and that to "adapt" to a situation does not require new genetic information, but an expression of what is already there. This would be a problem for evolution if the vast majority of organisms had numerous unexpressed adaptations for situations they couldn't possibly have encountered; if an organism hadn't encountered a situation, how could it have evolved adaptations for it?
I don't have any evidence for that right now, though, it is an untested hypothesis.
Do you believe that gene sequence could have evolved, but not functional "junk DNA"? Or do you believe that these two classifications of DNA would evolve differently?
I don't believe either of the two could have evolved.
Yet throughout your comments you state things like "my creationist viewpoint leads me to believe evolution could not...". I guess I still don't have an understanding of your viewpoint.
I looked back through my posts, and the only statement like that I found was this: (in post #186: "My creationist viewpoint leads me to suspect that there would not be 'junk DNA' in any appreciable amount."
I was talking about an assumption/prediction I made based on my opinion that creation is a better explanation of life than evolution is.
However, I do make mistakes, and it is quite possible I said something like that. If I did, it was probably a thinko (sort of like a typo, but with an idea).
To clarify: I disbelieve evolution because of evidence, not emotions (and I do my best to not let emotions affect my interpretation of the evidence).
Reply to Post #215, by Schrafinator
Can't tell me? Then you aren't omnicient.
Now that you mention it, you are right; I couldn't be omniscient. This will take some getting used too...
Then you don't know that supernatural creation is most likely; you just believe it.
I agree, and I don't think I have represented it otherwise; if I have, it was a mistake.
Reply to Post #216, by Schrafinator
If you are referring to the origin of the first life, then I would agree.
I was referring to life in its current forms, not just the origin of life.
FYI, the "micro vs. micro" thing is a Creation Science distortion.
Sort of. What creationists mean by the concept "micro-evolution" is that genetic change happens, but not in a way which could lead to any substantial change. However, the actual term "micro-evolution" means "small evolution," which is not what creationists mean. I admit that the misuse of this term by creationists is, well, a fairly obvious misuse, and I will try to avoid using it in the future.
{I'm not condeming JT for this message structure. It was something that I had (more or less) suggested. My suggestion was bad (or at least flawed). See Re: The many short postings vs. a single large posting question for discussion of this matter - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-15-2004 03:24 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 08-15-2004 1:41 PM jt has replied
 Message 220 by nator, posted 08-16-2004 7:15 PM jt has replied
 Message 221 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-16-2004 8:17 PM jt has replied
 Message 224 by lfen, posted 08-17-2004 2:04 AM jt has replied
 Message 226 by lfen, posted 08-17-2004 2:27 AM jt has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 218 of 265 (134082)
08-15-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by jt
08-14-2004 9:32 PM


By the way, are you still interested in the mythical bible thread?
I am. I'm working on my reply in that thread now.
If your answer is "yes" or "probabably," why do you think so?
Because of the scientific method, or, at least, a generalized version of the same methodological naturalism that underpins it - the existence of a real man named "Julius Caesar" is the simplest explanation for a series of unrelated documents that mention him by name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by jt, posted 08-14-2004 9:32 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by jt, posted 08-16-2004 6:56 PM crashfrog has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 219 of 265 (134450)
08-16-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by crashfrog
08-15-2004 1:41 PM


Because of the scientific method, or, at least, a generalized version of the same methodological naturalism that underpins it - the existence of a real man named "Julius Caesar" is the simplest explanation for a series of unrelated documents that mention him by name.
My reasoning for believing creationism follows the same logic. It is the simplest explanation for a whole slew of data which I have, as close to scientifically as possible (as well as I can), analyzed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 08-15-2004 1:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2004 11:02 AM jt has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 220 of 265 (134459)
08-16-2004 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by jt
08-14-2004 9:32 PM


If you are referring to the origin of the first life, then I would agree.
quote:
I was referring to life in its current forms, not just the origin of life.
OK, then, what are the specific insufficiencies of the ToE that you have identified?
FYI, the "micro vs. micro" thing is a Creation Science distortion.
quote:
Sort of. What creationists mean by the concept "micro-evolution" is that genetic change happens, but not in a way which could lead to any substantial change. However, the actual term "micro-evolution" means "small evolution," which is not what creationists mean. I admit that the misuse of this term by creationists is, well, a fairly obvious misuse, and I will try to avoid using it in the future.
OK, good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by jt, posted 08-14-2004 9:32 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jt, posted 08-16-2004 8:34 PM nator has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 221 of 265 (134474)
08-16-2004 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by jt
08-14-2004 9:32 PM


unexpressed adaptations
The concept I have is basically that most organisms already have adaptations for a huge amount of different situations, and that to "adapt" to a situation does not require new genetic information, but an expression of what is already there.
Built-in adaptation does occur to an extensive degree at the molecular level - because of the adaptation at this unseen level, outward apparent defects are often not seen as a result of minor perturbations of the environment. Organisms do have a "range" of environments they can deal with because of such adaptation - an organism with a too-specific niche without any adaptability is less likely to persist.
Though I doubt that this fits your comment of "adaptations for a huge amount of different situations."
This would be a problem for evolution if the vast majority of organisms had numerous unexpressed adaptations for situations they couldn't possibly have encountered; if an organism hadn't encountered a situation, how could it have evolved adaptations for it?
Ask yourself how you would go about examining/testing this question. First, what evidence would we see in nature if this was the case? Why haven't we already observed the "unexpressed adaptations", either at the organism- or DNA- level?
Also, if you found evidence of an "unexpressed adaptation" in a given organism: how would you show that at no point in the history of that organism did the species (or an ancestor species) encounter an environment where the adaptation would be useful?
A well-characterized example is found in the stickleback fish. Open-saltwater sticklebacks have large spiny fins that are used as a defense against larger fish swallowing them whole. The shallow-stream-dwelling freshwater stickleback lacks large ventral spines - in the shallow streams crustaceans prey on the sticklebacks by grasping their ventral spines, so long spines are a detriment. However, the genetic basis of long vs. absent ventral spines has been found in a promoter region. If the promoter is 'reactivated' by mutation in the stream stickleback, it will have long ventral spines.
The reason I give this example is thus: An examination of this 'silenced' regulatory region could be seen as an "unexpressed adaptation", and its reactivation could be seen as expression of a defensive structure against a predator the freshwater fish had never encountered. However, this is an unlikely hypothesis that is not falsifiable.
In reality, this "unexpressed adaptation" makes a case in favor of evolution, because it (along with other evidence) suggests that the "unexpressed adaptation" comes from the ancestral salt-water species, and has since been silenced via mutation and selection.
The above is not a criticism of the hypothesis, but is rather an exercise in the testing of the hypothesis. Hopefully you can glean from these questions and examples "the nature of scientific inquiry contrasted with creation science"...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by jt, posted 08-14-2004 9:32 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by jt, posted 08-17-2004 2:19 AM pink sasquatch has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 222 of 265 (134480)
08-16-2004 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by nator
08-16-2004 7:15 PM


OK, then, what are the specific insufficiencies of the ToE that you have identified?
Here are a few general reasons:
1. The fossil record does not support evolution.
2. The earth is around 6,000 years old, which isn't enough time for evolution.
3. Mutations/natural selection cannot account for the life we see today.
4. There are a number of "irreducibly complex" mechanisms/organisms.
I know that you are going to disagree with and have rebutals for all of those, but that would be off topic, and if you could restrain yourself until the proper thread I would appreciate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by nator, posted 08-16-2004 7:15 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 08-16-2004 11:04 PM jt has replied
 Message 230 by lfen, posted 08-17-2004 2:47 AM jt has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 223 of 265 (134518)
08-16-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by jt
08-16-2004 8:34 PM


quote:
1. The fossil record does not support evolution.
How so?
quote:
2. The earth is around 6,000 years old, which isn't enough time for evolution.
All geologic evidence we have ever found completely contradicts this idea. Also, we have continuous ice core layers going back 300,000 years and tree ring data going back at least 9,000 years.
What evidence do you have to explain this if the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
quote:
3. Mutations/natural selection cannot account for the life we see today.
How so?
quote:
4. There are a number of "irreducibly complex" mechanisms/organisms.
Why do you think that ID systems cannot evolve?
quote:
I know that you are going to disagree with and have rebutals for all of those, but that would be off topic, and if you could restrain yourself until the proper thread I would appreciate it.
Perhaps you can link to the threads you will begin on any or all of these topics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by jt, posted 08-16-2004 8:34 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by jt, posted 08-18-2004 5:00 PM nator has not replied
 Message 262 by jt, posted 08-20-2004 5:11 PM nator has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 224 of 265 (134538)
08-17-2004 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by jt
08-14-2004 9:32 PM


Reply to Post #203, by Ifen
I get the impression that "Truth" is in some fundamantal sense the crux of your interest.
I am interested in both Truth and truth, and I think I understand the distinction you are trying to make. Big T is metaphysical, little t is physical?
For a start that works for me.
ersonal interest lies along the lines of what in Zen Buddhism is called "direct seeing into one's nature".
What is that? (I won't be debating your answer, I'm just curious)
You are asking a what is for me a very important fundamental question but I don't know how to answer it briefly. I'll try this basic introduction of the meditation the Buddha is said to have used to awaken. It's called vipassana. One notices as much about ones experience as possible, the sensations and thoughts without getting lost in them. The question might be what is this phenomena that I am at the experiental level. What really am I? So instead of looking to an external sources that gives a verbal answer you look deeply into how you are actually experiencing your being.
e consciousness is the fundamental mystery that tends to get ignored by western religion
If by "western religion" you mean christianity, I disagree. Christianity explains consciousness by spirit.
"explains" are you saying consciousness is not a mystery for Christians?
If you are saying that I would say that explaining consciousness away by calling it spirit is what I meant by ignoring it. A few of the contemplatives like the John the Divine seem interested in it though.
By western religion I mean centrally but not exclusively Judaism, Christianity, Islam, LDS, Bahai, on and on, etc with the emphasis on the revealed truth aspect which I characterize as "God told me to tell you how to live" this replacing the earlier "God told us to kill all you cause he is giving us this land" scenerio. I know I'm being a obnoxious in this characterization of revealed religion and I don't say it to offend you, but you can see I have a hard time tolerating revealed religion, or as my brother recently said to me, "I know you have a thing against organized religion but would you listen to what I'm saying here."
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by jt, posted 08-14-2004 9:32 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by jt, posted 08-17-2004 2:30 AM lfen has replied
 Message 228 by jt, posted 08-17-2004 2:30 AM lfen has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 225 of 265 (134542)
08-17-2004 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by pink sasquatch
08-16-2004 8:17 PM


Re: unexpressed adaptations
Though I doubt that this fits your comment of "adaptations for a huge amount of different situations."
No, it isn't. Although that is interesting.
How would you show that at no point in the history of that organism did the species (or an ancestor species) encounter an environment where the adaptation would be useful?
I don't know - I'm not sure I can; probably the best I could do would be to say "this organism most probably didn't encounter...", which isn't excessively scientific. I should have thought my hypothesis through better before I proposed it. Thanks for pointing out this problem.
The above is not a criticism of the hypothesis, but is rather an exercise in the testing of the hypothesis.
I appreciate your helping me think it through. Throughout your posts to me, you have been taking sort of a mentor role; I have learned a lot from you so far, and look forward to learning more. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-16-2004 8:17 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-17-2004 2:36 PM jt has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024