Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 224 (6558)
03-11-2002 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by KingPenguin
03-10-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
the fact that humans havent speciated and arent beginning to. only natural selection and choice in breeding have affected the way our different cultures appear.

The ToE does not require all species to speciate.
OTOH, we are primates, and humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor.
We have speciated, just in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by KingPenguin, posted 03-10-2002 11:30 PM KingPenguin has not replied

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


Message 17 of 224 (6559)
03-11-2002 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by KingPenguin
03-11-2002 12:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
[b] i havent heard that mermaids have been discovered.[/QUOTE]
So, are you saying that the ToE predicts that humans will branch off into a different "mermaid" species?
If you think this, you have a very faulty understanding of the ToE.
[QUOTE]your last question has that circular problem in that you havent substantied enough evidence to prove beyond a doubt that we will.
[/b]
Nothing in science is proven at all.
Also, you have made the claim that because humans haven't speciated, and are not showing any signs that we are (according to you, at least), and then seem to imply that this indicated that speciation in humans could never happen.
Why not?
Also, what about observed speciation in other species? If you accept that microevolution occurrs in humans, just like other animals, what is the barrier which prevents speciation from happening?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 12:10 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 224 (6562)
03-11-2002 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Punisher
03-11-2002 7:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
All that shows is variation within the human race. They are still human, no?

True ... the point I was addressing was more the 'nor any sign of'
part.
Also trying to point out that similar yet geographically isolated
regions have developed different types of humans... tending to
support evolution not refute it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 7:32 AM Punisher has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 19 of 224 (6574)
03-11-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by KingPenguin
03-10-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
the fact that humans havent speciated and arent beginning to. only natural selection and choice in breeding have affected the way our different cultures appear.
It may be a bit early to say that lack of a divergent species from hom sap is evidence against evolution - wouldn't most expect it to occur over a much greater period than we have existed?
I tend to think further human evolution to the point of speciation is unlikely, for a simple reason: the greatest selective pressure leading to speciation appears to be environmental, but human beings are capable of artificially manipulating their environment in ways which reduce that selective pressure. The arctic need not speciate to survive in the cold - they need only develop warmer clothing and other technological adaptations. (Of course they may tend to be plumper - but that is a very minor adaptation.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by KingPenguin, posted 03-10-2002 11:30 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 03-11-2002 1:29 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 23 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 11:05 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 224 (6589)
03-11-2002 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mister Pamboli
03-11-2002 11:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
It may be a bit early to say that lack of a divergent species from hom sap is evidence against evolution - wouldn't most expect it to occur over a much greater period than we have existed?
I tend to think further human evolution to the point of speciation is unlikely, for a simple reason: the greatest selective pressure leading to speciation appears to be environmental, but human beings are capable of artificially manipulating their environment in ways which reduce that selective pressure. The arctic need not speciate to survive in the cold - they need only develop warmer clothing and other technological adaptations. (Of course they may tend to be plumper - but that is a very minor adaptation.)

Also the other side of the Punk Eeeek coin comes into play, i.e if mutations reach fixation faster in small isolated populations an obvious consequence is that a large population (global) requires more time for genes to reach fixation....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 11:44 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

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


Message 21 of 224 (6596)
03-11-2002 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mister Pamboli
03-10-2002 2:51 PM


That communication channels may be tuned resonantly to diverse and not common sender reciever gulfs. Sorry no explaination today. Mr. sir.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 2:51 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 2:27 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 22 of 224 (6597)
03-11-2002 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Brad McFall
03-11-2002 2:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
That communication channels may be tuned resonantly to diverse and not common sender reciever gulfs. Sorry no explaination today. Mr. sir.
Good to hear from you Brad. You've got me worried now, because I think I understood that post
You mean that it is unlikely that senders and receivers evolved across species? Will I regret hoping for an explanation in the future?
It's an interesting area. Do you know the work of Lynn Margulis on symbiotic evolution? Or recent work done on signal honesty (http://www.biology.ucr.edu/Bio160/lecture6.html)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 03-11-2002 2:09 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 03-12-2002 12:46 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 23 of 224 (6636)
03-11-2002 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mister Pamboli
03-11-2002 11:44 AM


Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
It may be a bit early to say that lack of a divergent species from hom sap is evidence against evolution - wouldn't most expect it to occur over a much greater period than we have existed?
-- i think that if we came this far from monkeys that we would have some major differences going around and that were would be the possibility of very select humans even more freaky than bigfoot.
I tend to think further human evolution to the point of speciation is unlikely, for a simple reason: the greatest selective pressure leading to speciation appears to be environmental, but human beings are capable of artificially manipulating their environment in ways which reduce that selective pressure. The arctic need not speciate to survive in the cold - they need only develop warmer clothing and other technological adaptations. (Of course they may tend to be plumper - but that is a very minor adaptation.)
--yes we are very different from other creatures which can lead to the assumption of Creation or ID.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 03-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 11:44 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-12-2002 1:02 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 24 of 224 (6640)
03-12-2002 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by KingPenguin
03-11-2002 11:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i think that if we came this far from monkeys that we would have some major differences going around and that were would be the possibility of very select humans even more freaky than bigfoot.
One of the most interesting features of humans as a species is our genetic homogeneity. An example often given is that even the most diverse humans are genetically much closer than, for example, two tribes of gorillas in the rainforest.
I do think my point of human technology has something to do with this, but depsite this, we really have been around for a very short period in evolutionary terms.
BTW, I rather like the idea of Bigfoot. Having moved to the Pacific Northwest I have a sneaking ambition to see him, even though in my heart of hearts I don't believe. I spent many days working and fishing on Loch Ness and never did see the monster.
[b] [QUOTE]yes we are very different from other creatures which can lead to the assumption of Creation or ID.[/b][/QUOTE]
I know there are many theologians who accept evolution but still reserve an element of direct special creation for the wonder of the human mind. I fully understand the sense of this view to a believer in a personal, directly interacting God - we do seem to be far more evolved than would be strictly necessary for mere survival, don't we?
Would any evolutionists care to comment on this? Why do you think human beings have evolved mental powers which seem far in advance of what might be needed for mere survival?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 11:05 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by joz, posted 03-12-2002 8:31 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 25 of 224 (6641)
03-12-2002 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mister Pamboli
03-11-2002 2:15 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[B] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[i]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I am interested in YOUR deductive reasoning; i.e., empirical mechanisms of how even just ONE "FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY" (FIC) could possibly have developed from a precursor. Not Behe's nor Darwin's reasoning, both of which are grossly oversimplified in this matter; neither having provided anything in the way of detailed mechanisms; the latter speculated nothing about 'punctuated equilibria' (sudden ‘hopeful’ mutations).
Consider any of the following FICs:
STELLAR: A vast mega-universe (itself a FIC) with innumerable sub-FICs if you will: The space-time continuum as we know it, a fine-tuned star system, solar system, galaxy-system, etc. Pick a FIC that first appears mundane: An asteroid, comet, lesser planet. Study it carefully, it probably is much more of a FIC then meets our existential senses.
GEOLOGICAL: (Too numerous) Depending on how you examine nature, it seems numerous systems would apply, not just the delicate hydraulic systems, O2 systems, ‘fields’ of nature, but also, peculiar lush land-masses, and any fruit(s) and any vegetation.
BIOLOGICAL: All life-forms (choose any), that each is a unique FIC despite the homologies.
PHYSIOLOGICAL: Cellular membranes (extremely complex), though you or I may dotingly argue that they graft easily. An EYEBALL (I know, not again) or any other species-specific sense, kidney, pancreas, heart, etc of almost any genus.
ANATOMICAL: i.e., A foot (or any other body member)
BIOCHEMICAL/MICROBIAL: (numerous): Blood cells, RBCs, WBCs, osteo and chondroblasts, tissues, etc.
PSYCHOLOGICAL: (alright, just one): Your last dream.
COMPUTERS: Your last program that you wrote.
Note: Doubtless many of you will argue that sharing of FICs among different species, invalidates them. This thread of logic is doting and cantankerous. The syllogisms seem more clearly presented here. I apologize if they are not.
In conclusion, like Aristotle, Luther, the Genesis logic of ‘like-kinds’, and other creationists here (please correct me JP if you disagree)
It immediately appears that there CAN BE NO INFERIOR PRECURSOR of any FIC and YOU AND I BOTH SEE THIS (at least to some extent) IS TRUTH.
Note how each FIC (analogous somewhat it appears to each Species-Proper) is essentially OF ITS OWN KIND with DIVERSE VARIANTS. No viable mechanism to date has been proposed that links or even chains one FIC into another as a precursor, because each FIC is too unique and complex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 2:15 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-12-2002 2:14 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 27 by Floris O, posted 03-12-2002 2:36 AM Philip has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 26 of 224 (6643)
03-12-2002 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Philip
03-12-2002 1:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
I am interested in YOUR deductive reasoning; i.e., empirical mechanisms of how even just ONE "FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY" (FIC) could possibly have developed from a precursor.
It's difficult for me to do this if you don't elaborate on what you mean by "fine-tuned." Probably you should also elaborate on "irreducible complexity" because I find your examples puzzling...
I can quite easily imagine space-time with dimensions missing - after all there is considerable debate about the dimensionality of the spacetime. In what way do you consider the universe to be irreducibly complex? In what way is a planet irreducibly complex?
You'll need to me enlighten me as to an irreducibly complex system in geology - I know of none, but I am a poor geologist. I'm not sure how fruits and vegetation fit into geology, BTW.
All life forms are irreducibly complex? Again, I have to ask in what way?
My dreams are certainly not irreducibly complex and I can easily formulate a model of dreaming that is tractably reducible to precursors in my concious mind. But I'm puzzled as to what you mean here.
My last computer program absolutely was built from precursors - I'm currently working on version 9!
I would dearly like to engage with your assertion that irreducible complexity cannot develop from precursors, but I can find nothing in your post to engage with. You assert it, but you do not explain it. You assert that the systems you mention are irreducibly complex, but you give no detail whatever of how they are so.
None of the systems you mention seem irreducibly complex and none of them seem "fine tuned", though I am still ucnlear about what that means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Philip, posted 03-12-2002 1:23 AM Philip has not replied

  
Floris O
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 224 (6645)
03-12-2002 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Philip
03-12-2002 1:23 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[B] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I am interested in YOUR deductive reasoning; i.e., empirical mechanisms of how even just ONE "FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY" (FIC) could possibly have developed from a precursor. Not Behe's nor Darwin's reasoning, both of which are grossly oversimplified in this matter; neither having provided anything in the way of detailed mechanisms; the latter speculated nothing about 'punctuated equilibria' (sudden ‘hopeful’ mutations).
Consider any of the following FICs:
STELLAR: A vast mega-universe (itself a FIC) with innumerable sub-FICs if you will: The space-time continuum as we know it, a fine-tuned star system, solar system, galaxy-system, etc. Pick a FIC that first appears mundane: An asteroid, comet, lesser planet. Study it carefully, it probably is much more of a FIC then meets our existential senses.
GEOLOGICAL: (Too numerous) Depending on how you examine nature, it seems numerous systems would apply, not just the delicate hydraulic systems, O2 systems, ‘fields’ of nature, but also, peculiar lush land-masses, and any fruit(s) and any vegetation.
BIOLOGICAL: All life-forms (choose any), that each is a unique FIC despite the homologies.
PHYSIOLOGICAL: Cellular membranes (extremely complex), though you or I may dotingly argue that they graft easily. An EYEBALL (I know, not again) or any other species-specific sense, kidney, pancreas, heart, etc of almost any genus.
ANATOMICAL: i.e., A foot (or any other body member)
BIOCHEMICAL/MICROBIAL: (numerous): Blood cells, RBCs, WBCs, osteo and chondroblasts, tissues, etc.
PSYCHOLOGICAL: (alright, just one): Your last dream.
COMPUTERS: Your last program that you wrote.
Note: Doubtless many of you will argue that sharing of FICs among different species, invalidates them. This thread of logic is doting and cantankerous. The syllogisms seem more clearly presented here. I apologize if they are not.
In conclusion, like Aristotle, Luther, the Genesis logic of ‘like-kinds’, and other creationists here (please correct me JP if you disagree)
It immediately appears that there CAN BE NO INFERIOR PRECURSOR of any FIC and YOU AND I BOTH SEE THIS (at least to some extent) IS TRUTH.
Note how each FIC (analogous somewhat it appears to each Species-Proper) is essentially OF ITS OWN KIND with DIVERSE VARIANTS. No viable mechanism to date has been proposed that links or even chains one FIC into another as a precursor, because each FIC is too unique and complex.[/b][/QUOTE]
You should read some books written by Dawkins, like the Blind Watchmaker. He explains perfectly well how the multitude of beings and complexity of life came to be this way. There have also been numerous astronomers, like Carl Sagan, who have emphasized that complexity can come out of simplicity, or small beginnings.
By the way, how do you define "fine-tuned"? When is a system fine-tuned and when is it not? In nature, there are various animals who have some clumsy way of making a living. Also, it happens quite often, on a geological scale timescale, that errors take place during the copying of genes. Also most mutations of genes aren't beneficiary but cause the new-born crfeature to die. All such things don't really contribute to the idea that the universe is "fine-tuned" or in "total balance."
[This message has been edited by Floris O, 03-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Philip, posted 03-12-2002 1:23 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Philip, posted 03-12-2002 3:29 AM Floris O has replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 224 (6649)
03-12-2002 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mister Pamboli
03-10-2002 2:51 PM


Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Over the last week the posts have wandered a little. So here is a nice focussed challenge:
What is the single most compelling argument that, for you, shows that the diversity of life today did not evolve from common ancestors?
(To keep focussed, I have posted another topic for arguments for special creation, so it would be good if you could avoid arguments of the form "I diagree with evolution because I find creation more persuasuive." What I am looking for here is arguments that directly challenge evolution.)
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION
or
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm!
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
***********************************************************************
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological researchpaleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biologyhas provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deityomnipotent chance."*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructsas has been repeatedly shownthe attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseenbelief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."*Arthur N. Field.
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity. . ."Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter endno matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin. . . "We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes. "George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anythingor at least they are not science."*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations. . . "Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological researchpaleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biologyhas provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.
Sometimes, the most compelling arguments against the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, etc., come from the very scientists whose work is used to support Darwinian fables.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm!
2021, 10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 2:51 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by wj, posted 03-12-2002 5:28 AM Jet has replied
 Message 40 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-12-2002 11:56 AM Jet has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 29 of 224 (6650)
03-12-2002 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Floris O
03-12-2002 2:36 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Floris O:
[B] You should read some books written by Dawkins, like the Blind Watchmaker. He explains perfectly well how the multitude of beings and complexity of life came to be this way. There have also been numerous astronomers, like Carl Sagan, who have emphasized that complexity can come out of simplicity, or small beginnings.
Been there, done that. Dawkins did not explain irreducible complexities mechanistically, but ended up with just another 'hopeful monster theory'. Sagan is too fearful for my faith/biases. At least Neische did not talk like star-trek. Whatever Sagan says just fills my hopes with doom and gloom. By the way, Sagan could have spent more time on relativistic cosmologies instead of Newtonian ones. Sagan adored UFO's; that goes completely against my faith/biases. What a stench to my 'fundismental' nostrils. What a cancer in my life-hopes and faith/biases! Yeeach.
Give me a mechanism of hope and joy which I currently see in computers, life-forms, and the rest of the 'creation'/'univers'. Don't fill me with Sagan-cancer and I won't fill you with Graham-crackers.
I tell you my faith/biases, please tell me yours directly.
What, you have no faith/biases ? Like the thousands of scienteests who are PAID to be evolutionists, they have no faith/biases, right ?
I'm not paid to be a 'fundy' with money, trust me on that.
Anyway, thanks for the response. Hope to get a better grip later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Floris O, posted 03-12-2002 2:36 AM Floris O has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Floris O, posted 03-12-2002 4:45 AM Philip has not replied

  
Floris O
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 224 (6652)
03-12-2002 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Philip
03-12-2002 3:29 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
Been there, done that. Dawkins did not explain irreducible complexities mechanistically, but ended up with just another 'hopeful monster theory'. Sagan is too fearful for my faith/biases. At least Neische did not talk like star-trek. Whatever Sagan says just fills my hopes with doom and gloom. By the way, Sagan could have spent more time on relativistic cosmologies instead of Newtonian ones. Sagan adored UFO's; that goes completely against my faith/biases. What a stench to my 'fundismental' nostrils. What a cancer in my life-hopes and faith/biases! Yeeach.
Give me a mechanism of hope and joy which I currently see in computers, life-forms, and the rest of the 'creation'/'univers'. Don't fill me with Sagan-cancer and I won't fill you with Graham-crackers.
I tell you my faith/biases, please tell me yours directly.
What, you have no faith/biases ? Like the thousands of scienteests who are PAID to be evolutionists, they have no faith/biases, right ?
I'm not paid to be a 'fundy' with money, trust me on that.
Anyway, thanks for the response. Hope to get a better grip later.[/B][/QUOTE]
That's a rather aggressive and threatening reply. You accuse me of filling you with "Sagan-cancer." You also use try to make Sagan unbelievable because he believed in UFO's - a common fallacy, you are forgiven for that. Then you demand that I must fill you with mechanisms of joy which you see in... computers? What the hell are you talking about? So you suggest that a mechanism should be rejected because of it not being joyful? No sensible engineer or whatever would employ a theory because he thinks it's joyful. What kind of nonsense are you preaching!
And what do you mean by the sentence "What, you have no faith/biases ? Like the thousands of scientists who are PAID to be evolutionists, they have no faith/biases, right?" Uhm, so you're saying that there's a huge bribing scandal going on. Thousands of scientists don't actually believe in evolution, they're just paid to do so. By whom actually? Atheists, the government, a conspiracy like in the X-files?
Just stop with these insane replies and give some sensible arguments. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Philip, posted 03-12-2002 3:29 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by quicksink, posted 03-12-2002 5:10 AM Floris O 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