Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

Hi Mike,If all you meant by "the authority of logical wisdom" is that science employs logic as one of its tools then I agree with you, but your full statement was this: If by "knowledge" you mean knowledge about the real world, then knowledge *is* king. No amount of logic, clever thinking and wise discernment will get you anywhere without genuine facts garnered from the real world. If this were not true then armchair theorists would rule. Science works because it ties theory, which are generalizations from facts, to the real world. At heart Coyote's criticisms stem from your reluctance to tie your preferred ideas to the real world. This is too far off topic to comment on the errors, but you should probably avoid drawing your examples from physics.Getting back to your quote mining: The reason these are quote mines is because they give a false impression of Gould's and Dawkin's views. Even in your quotes you seem disinterested in tying your beliefs to reality.--Percy

Yes --- that it's bollocks.One has read of the dangers of a little knowledge but I sometimes think that under certain circumstances a lot of ignorance might be even worse.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No - the cosmological constant was his gravest error, he admitted it.Perhaps you conflate that with what I mean about light being relative? I am saying that he proved that light, previously held as the most unchangeable, fixed thing, could be bent by gravity. That is A L L I am saying.

Thanks for your time. Kind regards, mike.

But what happens next, after falsification? Do we just pretend that the thousands of other pieces of evidence no longer exist? Poof...they are gone?Scientists in the real world try to understand the new findings. "We have new evidence....how does that fit with or change what we already have found?Falsification may may mean we have to completely scrap a theory or hypothesis, but more often in field as broad as Biology and the Theory of Evolution it means that we have to understand how the new findings change our knowledge of the subject.

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

That may be true, however there are another two factors which require consideration:3. Productivity
4. Amount of Trials#3
If a scientific theory or hypothesis is successfully used to produce work product which could not be generate through normal means, we can infer without experimentation, that the hypothesis is working correctly.In evolution, this is seen in both bacterial resistances and the battle against them. We can predict, and try and overcome, increasing resistances to antibiotics based on our knowledge of evolution.In the absence of evolution, there would be no threat and no need.Or, for another example, geologists use fossil evidence to date and identify strata which in turn helps them to locate mineral deposits. If the information that was generated by evolution about the fossil record were false, then those disciples which are relying on that information for successful work, would fail.#4
There comes a time when a theory has so much supporting evidence, is so thoroughly tested, that it becomes next to impossible to conceive that all the evidence and testing will suddenly vanish.Gravity is one such example. It's so absolutely unlikely that gravity is incorrect, that to continue "testing" it in an attempt to falsify it is a fools errand.Evolution is another example. The evidence is overwhelming.In fact, the only people questioning evolution are doing so based entirely on an outdated religious text. Talk about foolishness.

Perhaps everything you say was intended to mean something. And maybe some of it was even intended to relate to the post to which you were ostensibly replying.But if so then the actual execution of the post seems to have fallen short of your ambitions.

But you didn't write about the cosmological constant, did you. You wrote that light was a constant.Mike, if you had a lawyer he would be pleading with you to stop talking right now. You're just digging deeper and deeper holes. What, did Christmas mass renew your determination to combat evolution, thereby fueling this chain of errors from you today? It's great that you've got renewed enthusiasm for the fray, but there's no substitute for basing your arguments upon things that are actually true. Learn and think, then post. If you're telling us something true about the real world then you should be able to describe it without making constant errors.--Percy

The thing about it is that Dawkins himself would clearly admitt these things. I don't think the quotes are showing that those people do not believe or are persuaded in evolution, the intention is to show that they have more than just an acceptance of the theory.I mean, come on Percy - look at Dawkins' books, do you seriously think he merely accepts evolution because it is powerfully evidenced?The real world shows me design. Unfortunately this, by happenstance, is not always scientifically satisfying, but I can't change reality for you. Evolution is only powerful to believers in it. Honest evolutionists will freely admitt the problems such as the pre-Cambrian. Well, there's no error, all I done was put the general argument into the framework of a conditional implication. I have to in order to show how the logic works, therefore did I state, very elegantly and specifically, what he EXACTLY stated? No, ofcourse not, my point was to show how logical confirmation is viable. I'm afraid my thoughts are quite clear, and indeed, not to boast - but quite cleverly correct.I think this last inference stems from your opinions.If you want to remove reality from my eyes, you can show how DNA does not contain nucleotides, does not contain the maximum density of information, does not contain semantics, the difference between a thumb and a tail.These REALITIES are crystal clear. The truism of design, as per usual, is intact, despite the disputations.Thanks for your time, kind regards, mike.

Mike, you are aware that you sometimes work yourself into a fervor where discussion with you becomes impossible? Like now?--Percy

I assumed he was thinking of the cosmological constant, because my claim is that Einstein shown that light could be influenced, changed, by gravity, that it was not a constant.I have quote the rest of your post which only states ad hominem things against the person, in an attempt to make the claimant look silly, that his claims can be rejected, which is an uneccesary and dishonest course of action.If you are asking how much I know about physics - I can tell you already, very little, because physics has very little to do with my claims. You have to learn to discern as to read between the lines.The Einstein exampls is ONLY an example of a conditional implication. The merit of my claims are questionable ONLY IF you logically show that I am incorrect about the things I said, which do matter - the tollens falsification and the confirmation. You see, as a reasonable thinker of reason, a rational person, I can't say that I value the above ad hominem statement which bares no relevance to my ideas concerning science and logic.If you thought I was trying to show a scientific knowledge of physics, I can only tell the truth, I was not. I was only using my favourite real-time example of an implication.

No offense Percy, but I am not in the least in a fervor. Infact I am just enjoying putting some of my ideas across.You and the others haven't really give me anything to chew on. As far as I am aware, you agree with me about the logical rules in science, that I was correct, and you now somehow think I am touched in the head because I stated that Einstein predicted that the star would shift position at the eclipse.Am I missing something?

The constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, which is denoted by c, is actually a completely different thing from the "cosmological constant", which is denoted by Λ.Don't you sometimes wish that you were less ignorant? People knew that already. But General Relativity predicted that light would undergo twice as much angular deflection as it would in Newtonian mechanics. (See here.)And of course people also knew that this "unchangeable thing" could be bent by ordinary refraction.

--Percy

Not really. I think it's pretty clear. You would sure like to portray me as an incoherent oddball creationist I am sure, but unforunately I'm too clever to fall for it or listen to it.Admittedly I am not half as good at articulating things as I am thinking but it seems that short of using hand puppets, I cannot relate to you any clearer the meaning of my thoughts.I don't fall for the behaviour of you guys. I am wise to it, after watching it happen to people like Buz. It goes like this;1. The creationist is unitelligible (even if a ten year old could understand him)
2. The creationist is starting to say things I don't like.
3. It is time to get the ad-hominem weaponry out. We shall attack either his lack of credential (of which we have few), and we shall do our best to make the readers understand that this person is slowly losing his rag and his mind.Are these things supposed to convince me to perhaps heed your sayings, or are they meant for me to compound my belief in your religious ideological position?Why you have ever bothered to respond to my messages I don't know. It's like watching a monkey trying to play chess.