Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 8:32 AM
33 online now:
Hyroglyphx, jar, kjsimons, RAZD, Stile, Tangle (6 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,846 Year: 9,882/19,786 Month: 2,304/2,119 Week: 340/724 Day: 3/62 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   Neither Evolution nor Creation are
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5750 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 16 of 72 (5509)
02-26-2002 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Robert
02-25-2002 11:11 PM


Robert, you’re obviously serious and I was facetious– I apologise. Let’s look at your suggestions seriously. I’ve re-ordered some of your quotes to suit the flow of my counter-argument.

[b] [QUOTE]
Whenever a theory is labelled "scientific" it carries an authority that cannot be denied by the common man. [/b][/QUOTE]

Society as a whole tends to seek authority for its views – most people frankly can’t be bothered thinking through everything for themselves. Sometimes it’s the church, sometimes it’s Science, sometimes it political dogma. And you know, it’s pretty cool to have people look up to you and respect your authoritative views … scientists are only human and fall for it as much as churchmen and politicians. Frankly, I prefer a position of complete skepticism of authority of all kinds.

[b] [QUOTE]
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "science" is defined as: "...A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain..."[/b][/QUOTE]

This is only one of the 5 main definitions the OED gives, but it is a reasonable one to choose and I won’t quibble overly, though I think the OED definition is inadequate for modern usage. I don’t have access to a recent copy to see if it has been updated. Your own specific use of the definition also led me to mistakenly interpret the points you were trying to make.

[b] [QUOTE]
According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal (obviously such an "observation" is impossible!) Neither have evolutionists demonstrated that a single-celled animal has the ability to "create" a multi-celled animal.[/b][/QUOTE]

You do emphasize the “observation” don’t you? And you use “demonstrated” in a context that implies scientists would need to show a single celled animal becoming multi-celled in order to be scientific valid. But that is not what the definition says about demonstration – it does not say science is about demonstrating, but about “a connected body of demonstrated truths … more or less colligated by being brought under general laws.”

In the case of evolution, a “demonstrated truth” could well be the demonstrated relationship of species, the succession of forms over a time scale sufficient for their evolution, colligated by chemical and physical laws governing genetic order, fossilization, dating and so on. “Trustworthy methods” would naturally include the inferential logic used in other fields of science and proven by observation and demonstration to be suitable for the “discovery of new truth” in those domains.

It’s pretty scientific by the definition you have chosen.

[b] [QUOTE]
Awarding themselves PhD's and grants and prestigious positions in colleges and universities [/b][/QUOTE]

To me this does suggest a collusion or conspiracy. Perhaps you menat something more innocent, but your tone belies this.

[b] [QUOTE]
Evolutionists have created their own type of fundamentalism. [/b][/QUOTE]

What do you mean by this? I’m really not sure. Do they take texts literally?

[b] [QUOTE]
What got me thinking about this is the recent PBS series on Evolution. I noticed that little or no evidence was produced that scientifically (that is observation or demonstration) proved evolution. [/b][/QUOTE]

Yeh, I saw this too – it was pathetic. I thought it was just the poor editorial standards of American television. But its discussion of evolution was no worse than CNN’s coverage of the current “war” or some of the so called factual documentaries on the History channel. I think this is just a case of incompetence rather than conspiracy.

[b] [QUOTE]
Apparently I am being labelled a "Creationist" here[/b][/QUOTE]

Surely you can forgive us for that – you made no particular distinction between your position and the creationist one in your post.

[b] [QUOTE]
At least the "Creation Scientist" is following a more noble goal[/b][/QUOTE]

Can you give a definition of “noble” that fits? If so, post it back and I’ll get started on this one – it should be fun.

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-26-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Robert, posted 02-25-2002 11:11 PM Robert has not yet responded

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 72 (5514)
02-26-2002 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Robert
02-24-2002 10:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
At least the "Creation Scientist" is following a more noble goal - that of declaring the glory of God in creation. Such men are usually subject to the whim of the evolutionist who have co-opted most, if not all, of the research funds and hold most of the seats of authority in education and science. Certainly, they cannot be criticizing evolution because they want to protect their own jobs!

Apart from the rest of your post (which I didn't quote) I find this last paragaph incredible. I can't see anything more 'noble' about what creationists do than what evolutionary theorists do. Both sides, supposedly, are seeking the truth, whatever that might be. That one side thinks the truth is, basically, 'god' doesn't change the fact that both are chasing the truth - unless, like creationists, you pre-suppose that the truth IS 'god'. If you do (and it seems you do) you are as guilty as they are of not practicing science, or anything scientific, unlike evolutionary theorists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Robert, posted 02-24-2002 10:58 PM Robert has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 72 (5532)
02-26-2002 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Robert
02-25-2002 1:15 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert:
[b]Greetings:

Mark asks for an example of a Scientific theory? Einstein's General Relativity Theory.

Gene wants me to be more clear about Evolutionary theory. OK. How does Evolution explain the jump from original single-celled animals in the primordial goo 10 billion years ago to multi-celled animsals. Can they (or you) demonstrate that such can happen? You say that there is an abundance of evidence for it - well? Show me!

Schrafinator does not seem to comprehend that all of the biologists he is referring to would be out of a job if the theory of evolution was found to be false.[/QUOTE]

Um, hardly. It would be an even more exiting and dynamic era in Biology and other fields as well if the ToE was shown to be wrong. You know, Physicists didn't lose their jobs when Einstein came along and revolutionized basic physics beyond Newton. The point is, if you show a scientist good evidence, they will change their views. You are under the wrong impression that scientists are upholding an unchangeable dogma, similar to what religions do. Science is evidenciary in nature, not dogmatic.

quote:
He then compares their salaries to oddballs like Bakker, Schuller et all. I was hoping for a more intelligent response, because I was thinking of men who are in the science field like Russell Humphreys, or Michael Behe.

You are losing track of what the point is. The point is, you said that the reason Biologists need to "protect" the ToE is because of money. I countered that most Biologists don't make a lot of money. Do you still contend that most Biologists make a lot of money?

quote:
Strange, that all of you who think you know so much cannot even respond intelligently to the most basic of questions:

Be careful where you point that finger, Robert. So far, you are in the lead in the Evading and Ignoring Questions race.

quote:
Where is your evidence that single-celled animals behave in a way that produces multi-celled animals?

Here you go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

At the very beginning Evolution fails the test.

Robert[/b][/QUOTE]

1) Why didn't you reply to my comment on your misrepresentation of the theory, Robert? Here it is again:

quote:
Are you saying that Darwinism does not say that life started in the oceans 10 billion years ago with the first formation of single-celled animals in the primordial goo?

Allison (quoting myself): This is better, and more a accurate representation of the theory. This is not what you said in your first post, however. You said:

quote:
quote: According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal.

Allison(quoting myself): Evolutionary theory does not predict that single celled organisms would give birth to multi-celled animals.

2) You have not answered my request to explain your claim about the "scientificness" of the ToE. Here it is again:

quote:
Allison: Now, considering that the ToE has (copious) positive evidence to support it, potential falsifications which have not been
observed, and many, many testable hypothesese, how is it not scientific?

I also notice how you, without any comment, have dropped all of your political talk. I am happy about that, but tell me, why did you think it had any relevance in the first place, and do you see that your representation of communism was rather off-base?

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Robert, posted 02-25-2002 1:15 PM Robert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 9:03 AM nator has responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 1996 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 19 of 72 (5533)
02-26-2002 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by joz
02-26-2002 1:08 AM


Hah, Joz, did you have to give him the answer?

10 billion years is more than twice the age of the Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 1:08 AM joz has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 72 (5534)
02-26-2002 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
02-26-2002 8:41 AM


quote:
Robert-
Are you saying that Darwinism does not say that life started in the oceans 10 billion years ago with the first formation of single-celled animals in the primordial goo?

quote:
Scraf-
Allison (quoting myself): This is better, and more a accurate representation of the theory. This is not what you said in your first post, however.

Schraf I think you are missing the fact that 10 billion years ago is (aproximately) when the big bang happened and the Earth only formed about 4.5 billion years ago........

I don`t think there were even oceans let alone primordal goo 10 billion years ago....

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-26-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 02-26-2002 8:41 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by gene90, posted 02-26-2002 9:24 AM joz has not yet responded
 Message 30 by nator, posted 02-26-2002 10:10 PM joz has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1996 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 21 of 72 (5536)
02-26-2002 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by joz
02-26-2002 9:03 AM


Also "Darwinism" does not specify a timeframe nor does it specify an origin of life. It simply begins when life appears, because the existance of life and hereditary are fundamental assumptions. The question of the origin of life is dealt with by the theories of abiogenesis. Besides, are we talking about the general model of evolution here or are we discussing Darwinism specifically? And I have to ask why "Darwinism" and the current interpretations of the fossil hierarchy are being confused. Where does Darwinism say that a single celled lifeform gave rise to metazoans? We seem to be discussing many differe things compounded into one, and it is generating some confusion. These individual concepts are:

--The age of the Earth and the age of terrestrial life

--The origin of terrestrial life

--The origin of multicellular life

--The current picture of the history of life on Earth

--Strict Darwinism (as opposed to Modern Synthesis) and the validity thereof

When we talk about Darwinism we talk about the proliferation and non-proliferation of mutations as dictated solely by natural selection (as opposed to factors like genetic drift). We're not dealing with any particular scenarios of the evolution of life on Earth, simply a principle of biology. The scenarios, like other concepts listed above, should be discussed separately.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 9:03 AM joz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 11:36 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Robert
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 72 (5546)
02-26-2002 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by gene90
02-26-2002 9:24 AM


Greetings:

I thank you men for correcting various aspects of my position. If I do not answer all of your objections at once it is because I am on a limited timeframe. There seems to be some confusion here about details and I must admit it is my own fault.

First, the number 10 billion was a number I used simply to make a point. Over the past 10 years I have heard many different ages for the universe. Back in the mid-80's Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos series, said that the universe was 100 billion years old. I have also heard others say that 10 billion is far too short a time for evolution to work. Be that as it may I will accept whatever timeframe you wish to make for the ages of the Earth and the universe. The timeframe is unimportant I am interested in knowing if there is any demonstrated proof for the theory of evolution.

Schrafinator accuses me of dodging an issue, but the post he quotes does not seem to contradict what I have said. In fact, he says that I "have improved upon" my original statement about evolution (which he claims is erroneous). All he says is that my statement was erroneous. If he showed me why it was or if he in fact "corrected" my statement with one of his own, then I feel a reply is necessary. He then directs me to two different websites as "proof" that single-celled animals can become multt-celled animals. Here is a quote from one of them:

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

This is a rather self-serving statement nor is it true. Those alleles which are necessary for between species change are unable to change whereas those alleles which are capable of changing are not responsible for between species change. A dog, for example, whether it is a doberman or a schnauzer is still a dog. Evolutionists have not demonstrated that between species change is possible, nor have they shown any type of example where it has actually been accomplished.

Darwin in the first chapter of his infamous book points out how powerful domestic variation has been in the hand of man: creating better race-horses, improving livestock, making more serviceable animals. There is even an example of this in the Bible (Genesis 30:41). Variation within a species is undeniable. Variation between species is impossible.

A popular example among evolutionists today is how viruses change in response to drugs used to kill them. However, this is the same change as a doberman is to a schnauzer. Clearly, the two are radically different, but they are still the same species.

The second post that schrafinator uses to "prove" evolution has been responsibly answered by creationists.

I must again say that I appreciate all of your comments. That I have not been able to reply to all of them is simply a matter of limited time. I must also apologize for my "erroneous" statements about evolution. I can only remark on those things that I have learned in High School, College, and other sources concerning the theory of evolution. I would be more than happy to read a "correction" though rather than just told that my statement is wrong? I will then re=phrase my question in more appropriate language.

Nevertheless, my question still remains unanswered: How does a single-celled animal "create" a multi-celled animal over time? Can you demonstrate this for me?

Robert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by gene90, posted 02-26-2002 9:24 AM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 12:01 PM Robert has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 12:43 PM Robert has responded
 Message 31 by nator, posted 02-26-2002 10:16 PM Robert has not yet responded
 Message 47 by toff, posted 02-27-2002 3:13 AM Robert has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 72 (5549)
02-26-2002 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Robert
02-26-2002 11:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
1)This is a rather self-serving statement nor is it true. Those alleles which are necessary for between species change are unable to change whereas those alleles which are capable of changing are not responsible for between species change....

2)...Evolutionists have not demonstrated that between species change is possible, nor have they shown any type of example where it has actually been accomplished.
Robert


1)Why can`t those alleles change? Which ones are they? What evidence do you have that these "species alleles" are a) different from the plain old garden variety, and b) unable to change?

Or is it an off shoot of some a priori notion that speciation cannot occur?

2)Well lets define species as organisms that can breed sucsessfully to produce fertile offspring....
Are horses and donkeys the same species? they can mate to produce hybrid offspring but those offspring are sterile... Surely if they were the same species they would produce fertile offspring....

So I`d advance the example of horses and donkeys as an example of a recently diverged (speciated) (macroevolved) line........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 11:36 AM Robert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 02-26-2002 10:25 PM joz has responded

  
Robert
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 72 (5553)
02-26-2002 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Robert
02-26-2002 11:36 AM


Greetings:

Mr. Pemboli has responded to me very graciously of which I thank him for his remarks.

Yes, I agree that it is "cool" for someone to look up to you and respect your authority. However, such can be abused, and it is the abuse that is wrong.

There are 5 definitions of "science" in the OED, and I use this particular definition because it is neutral and it is catagorical in its phraseology. More "modern" definitions of science tend to be biased in the sense of materialism. Since you do not quibble neither will I.

I will have to take odds with you about this quote of yours:

In the case of evolution a 'demonstrated truth' could well be the demonstrated relationship of species, the succession of forms over a time scale sufficient for their evolution...

There are clearly similarities and differences between species. It is begging the question to say that because there are similarites between species that evolution must be true. The differences could be irreconcilable. As to the second part, the succession of forms is purely a biased reading of the fossil record. If, for example, one hundred years from now a scientist digs up the skelaton of the Elephant Man he could conclude that he has found a new species. Misreading the fossil record to "prove" evolution is symptomatic of a fundamentalist mindset: Nebraska Man, Neanderthal, and Lucy are classic examples.

"...physical laws governing genetic order..." woould be a good demonstration of evolution if such can be proved. So, again, I will rephrase my question:

How can you genetically prove that a single-celled animal can become a multi-celled animal over time?

Inferential logic used in other fields of science? Someone here accused me of misrepresenting communism though I have never mentioned it, but applying Darwinian logic to Political Science has had a devastating effect on government. Are you claiming that Social Darwinism is valid? If so, then Hitler's references to Evolution are legitimate? As well as Stalin? Mao? and Mussolini?

I want to emphasize that I have never used Social Darwinism as a means of refuting Evolution, but your statements seem to indicate that evolution has some kind of responsibility in inciting some of the greatest buthers history has ever seen.

I can see why you thought I was making a "conspiracy theory" argument. I must say that it was the farthest thing from my mind.

Fundamentialism is more than taking a text literally. It is a closed mindset that only sees the world thought its rather limited set of presupposed values. There is also a narcissistic tendency to repudiate critics of those values as less than human. Evolutionists have defined "science" within their own limited values, thus, that which criticizes or disagrees with evolution is distinctly non-scientific.

I can also see why you assumed that I was a creationist. I thought that my criticism of the position in my initial post would be clear enough.

A noble person is one who strives for something outside of his own selfish ends. In seeking to serve God by submitting to the ridicule of their fellow scientists it seems that Creationists are serving a more noble goal. Evolutionists, on the other hand, seem only interested in defending the status quo. As I understand it there are many objections to evolution in the biological sciences, but many of these scientists are too afraid of being labelled "creationists" or "non-scientists" by their peers.

Cheers

Robert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 11:36 AM Robert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 12:51 PM Robert has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-26-2002 5:24 PM Robert has not yet responded
 Message 33 by nator, posted 02-26-2002 11:19 PM Robert has responded

  
Robert
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 72 (5554)
02-26-2002 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Robert
02-26-2002 12:43 PM


Greetings:

Do we now have a new species of mules who can reproduce on their own? Your example does not fit your assertions concerning evolution.

As to the other part I will look up my references and get back to you.

Thanks again

Robert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 12:43 PM Robert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 1:07 PM Robert has not yet responded
 Message 34 by nator, posted 02-26-2002 11:35 PM Robert has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 72 (5555)
02-26-2002 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Robert
02-26-2002 12:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
1)Do we now have a new species of mules who can reproduce on their own? Your example does not fit your assertions concerning evolution.

2)As to the other part I will look up my references and get back to you.
Robert


1)Are you being deliberately obtuse? First as I pointed out in my post mules are sterile hence not a new species. Secondly mules are not a species they are a hybrid, the species involved are horses and donkeys....

2)You mean that despite a grand claim that alleles responsible for an organisms species cannot change you cannot back this statement up with an identification of which alleles are the special ones and why they can`t change? Alarm bells are ringing Robert....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 12:51 PM Robert has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 27 of 72 (5578)
02-26-2002 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Robert
02-25-2002 1:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:

Mark asks for an example of a Scientific theory? Einstein's General Relativity Theory.


Robert,

My point regarding definition of science, is there are, as you are aware, more than one definition. What goes on in a physics class is science, even if nothing in particular is meeting the scientific method. However, when you bring in what you & I understand as scientific theories, we mean something else. Science applies a rigorous method to hypothesis', the scientific method. So, General Relativity would be science as it meets the standards of this method, so would Boyles Laws, Newtonian Motion, Quantum Mechanics etc. So when talking about evolution as a scientific theory, we must be in context with our definition. So, does the ToE meet the standard of the scientific method? The criteria that science itself applies to define a theory as scientific? Yes, it does. Ergo, The ToE is a scientific theory.

It is dishonest to try to apply a non contextual definition to something. Not that I claim you did this deliberately, but other creationists do.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Robert, posted 02-25-2002 1:15 PM Robert has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 72 (5579)
02-26-2002 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Robert
02-25-2002 1:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:

Gene wants me to be more clear about Evolutionary theory. OK. How does Evolution explain the jump from original single-celled animals in the primordial goo 10 billion years ago to multi-celled animsals. Can they (or you) demonstrate that such can happen? You say that there is an abundance of evidence for it - well? Show me!


Robert,

You seem to have accepted that macroevolution won't be observed in our lifetimes, so I assume you don't want to see a single celled to multicellular transition occur under your nose?

Assuming you don't, what would you accept as evidence of a single to multi-cellular transition?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Robert, posted 02-25-2002 1:15 PM Robert has not yet responded

    
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5750 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 29 of 72 (5584)
02-26-2002 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Robert
02-26-2002 12:43 PM


[QUOTE][b]Yes, I agree that it is "cool" for someone to look up to you and respect your authority. However, such can be abused, and it is the abuse that is wrong.[/QUOTE]

[/b]
Sure – and the abuse of authority by churches and religious bodies is wrong too, if and when it occurs? I presume you agree.
[QUOTE][b]I will have to take odds with you about this quote of yours:
In the case of evolution a 'demonstrated truth' could well be the demonstrated relationship of species, the succession of forms over a time scale sufficient for their evolution...
There are clearly similarities and differences between species. It is begging the question to say that because there are similarities between species that evolution must be true. The differences could be irreconcilable.[/QUOTE]

[/b]
I agree completely. I didn’t say that the similarities prove evolution - I said the relationship of species could be a demonstrated truth. Much more is needed – including general laws governing the possible processes, observations etc.

It could be the case that a demonstrated truth of related species could not be connected with other demonstrated truths and other observations and could not be colligated with these under general laws.
[QUOTE][b]As to the second part, the succession of forms is purely a biased reading of the fossil record. If, for example, one hundred years from now a scientist digs up the skelaton of the Elephant Man he could conclude that he has found a new species. [/QUOTE]

[/b]
He would be a very poor scientist indeed if he did – but it’s just a bad example! The taxonomy of fossils is an extremely detailed study which proceeds using the same techniques as have been applied to living species - it “includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain” from our OED definition. (DNA “fingerprinting” has revolutionized the techniques of taxonomy for living species – sadly not applicable for fossil species.)

Identification of species isn’t really the problem – identifying the relationships between species found is the issue, especially related species found at exclusively different time periods. There are those (generally Young-earthers) who argue that the time periods are illusory – and there are those (transformed cladists) who argue that even if true, no inference of descent can be drawn.

However, in the first case the Young-Earthers must reject methods which have proved trustworthy (not foolproof, but trustworthy) in other fields, which fall under general laws, and which are to some degree demonstrably accurate.

In the second case, transformed cladists have to reject inferential reasoning which has proven trustworthy – not foolproof in other fields. (Personally I have a lot of time for transformed cladists: the approach appeals to my skepticism.)

To reject evolution as mistaken is one thing – as “unscientific” is quite another. I think the above examples clearly show that evolution is assessed on a scientific footing. The processes used in studying evolution seem scientific in every respect.
[b] [QUOTE]"...physical laws governing genetic order..." woould be a good demonstration of evolution if such can be proved. So, again, I will rephrase my question:

How can you genetically prove that a single-celled animal can become a multi-celled animal over time? [/b][/QUOTE]

The physical laws I was referring to cover such things as the chemical bonds in DNA. I was trying to point out that genetics is governed by these laws proven in other fields, thus the study of genetics in evolution is colligated under (not proved by) these laws. Thus, if I claimed that evolution depended on a process that required one atom of Hydrogen to bond to 4 of Carbon, I would be unscientific because I was breaking “laws” which govern the process.

Special creation tends to break such physical laws because it requires interactions with supernatural forces not which – by definition – can not be colligated. This is one of the reasons special creation as an explanation is not “scientific.”

Inferring that a single-celled animal can be become multi-celled is not unscientific. But let me be clear, I have no concern to “prove” evolution – I am concerned with whether the processes used to infer it, study it and evaluate it are sound. Perhaps someone else will answer your question with an answer rooted in genetics: it’s not an area I have much interest in.

[b] [QUOTE]Inferential logic used in other fields of science? Someone here accused me of misrepresenting communism though I have never mentioned it, but applying Darwinian logic to Political Science has had a devastating effect on government. Are you claiming that Social Darwinism is valid? If so, then Hitler's references to Evolution are legitimate? As well as Stalin? Mao? and Mussolini?[/b][/QUOTE]

Firstly I am not at all sure what you mean by “Darwinian Logic” - if you elaborate I will respond. Perhaps a separate thread for the “logic of Darwinism”?

Secondly, you get to this topic via “inferential logic used in other fields of science” – this is one of the reasons I half-heartedly objected to your use of the OED definition of “science.” For example, recent definitions in the Encarta dictionary give “study of the physical world,” “systematic body of knowledge,” and “something studied or performed methodically.” With this one can more accurately delineate “Political Science” from “Physical Science.”

Thirdly, the political implications. You mentioned this in an earlier post on another topic and I thought hard about whether to respond. I decided it best not to as I assumed you were lashing out thoughtlessly at being flamed. But I cannot ignore this now, can I?

Looking carefully at your comments in this mail, I am not sure you even have a point to make here – though you seem to be trying to suggest that I hold Darwinism responsible for some political ills:
[b] [QUOTE]I want to emphasize that I have never used Social Darwinism as a means of refuting Evolution, but your statements seem to indicate that evolution has some kind of responsibility in inciting some of the greatest buthers history has ever seen. [/b][/QUOTE]

I assume this is an honest mistake and you have either misread me or confused me with someone else who did suggest that the theory of evolution has some kind of responsibility. It’s easily done in a busy forum, so a simple word of apology will suffice.

(Counts to 100 before continuing …)

You will understand that there is no “logic” in moving from a descriptive statement to a prescriptive statement. “American kids are fatter than Scottish kids” has no implication whatsoever unless one adds new premises to it – such as “being fat is a bad thing” and “something should be done to mitigate bad things.” But none of this follows from the purely descriptive statement “American kids are fatter than Scottish kids.” And of course, even the new premises contain no information that can “logically” say what to do about it.

If Hitler or anyone else adds premises to an argument then they are responsible for the truth of the additional premises and the validity of the resulting new argument that follows from adding a new premise.

If Hitler or anyone else wishes to move from description to prescription, that is their responsibility alone.

Evolution is a purely descriptive science – it includes no prescriptions for living.

So, can I ask, do you have a point to make about the application of Darwinism by politicians – tyrants especially? Is there a difference between Hitler’s use of Darwinism and the use of holy scripture by the inquisition, the witch-hunters, the conquistadores, or Cromwell in Ireland amongst others?

[b] [QUOTE]Fundamentialism is more than taking a text literally. It is a closed mindset that only sees the world thought its rather limited set of presupposed values. There is also a narcissistic tendency to repudiate critics of those values as less than human. Evolutionists have defined "science" within their own limited values, thus, that which criticizes or disagrees with evolution is distinctly non-scientific.[/b][/QUOTE]

Are you saying that evolutionists have a “tendency to repudiate critics of those values as less than human”? You cheeky monkey!

I think we can both agree that evolutionists can be arrogant and pompous – like any other group of our fallen species. I don’t know of any evolutionists who would even begin to think along the lines of “that which criticizes or disagrees with evolution is distinctly non-scientific.” There are certainly criticisms of evolution which are non-scientific – special creation for one, but any evolutionary biologist worthy of a degree should be able to comprehend the possibility of scientific objections to evolution.

[b] [QUOTE]A noble person is one who strives for something outside of his own selfish ends[/b][/QUOTE]

.

Sounds fine to me. Churchmen and scientists of many persuasions (including palaeontologists) and biologists, have often striven to achieve knowledge at the expense of their health, welfare and careers.

[b] [QUOTE]In seeking to serve God[/b][/QUOTE]

Ah – not “seeking objective truth”, then.
[b] [QUOTE]by submitting to the ridicule of their fellow scientists it seems that Creationists are serving a more noble goal.[/b][/QUOTE]

The argument from bathos is not one I have come across in the field of evolutionary debate before. However, I would like to start another thread on this issue of the motivation of scientists – I’ll think of a first post and get it started tomorrow.

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-26-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 12:43 PM Robert has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 72 (5617)
02-26-2002 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by joz
02-26-2002 9:03 AM


You're right, of course.

I was in a hurry (lame excuse).

Alliso


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 9:03 AM joz has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019