Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
84 online now:
PaulK, Phat, Tangle (3 members, 81 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,347 Year: 4,459/6,534 Month: 673/900 Week: 0/197 Day: 0/30 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Neither Evolution nor Creation are
joz
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 72 (5710)
02-27-2002 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Robert
02-27-2002 2:40 PM


The quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those (genes) that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those (genes) that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations.

John McDonald from an article entitled, "The Molecular Basis of Adaptation" Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics vol. 14, pg. 93.


I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the author, he refers to those genes that lie at the basis of major changes as being constant WITHIN genetic populations.

This is an entirely different kettle of fish to those genes that lie at the basis of major changes as being constant BETWEEN DIFFERENT genetic populations which seems to be the meaning you have assigned to the words...

In fact what he says seems to be expected, the genes determining which population the organism belongs to are close to identical to those genes from other members of the population, while "Those (genes) that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes." ie the genes that are variable in a population determine things like red or brown hair, brown or blue eyes, height etc.......

It is interesting that he mentioned this as being a "Darwinian paradox" my guess is that this short quote relies for context on some preceeding portion of the original document.....

In short I think you made the mistake of assuming that genetic population refered to all life rather than distinct populations within this uberpopulation, if nothing else the use of populations plural should have allowed you to deduce that this was not the authors intent....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 2:40 PM Robert has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 03-01-2002 12:29 AM joz has taken no action

  
Robert
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 72 (5716)
02-27-2002 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Robert
02-27-2002 2:40 PM


Greetings:

There is much to reply to here and I do not believe that I will get to all of it. Here are some thoughts from evolutionists, non-creationists, and creationists concerning evolution and various aspects of evolution.

To show the scientific history of the denial of evolution: In 1871 St. George Mivart wrote this criticism:

What is to be brought forwarg (against Darwinism) may be summed up as follows: That "Natural Selection" is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures. That it does not harmonize with the co-existence of closely similar structures of diverse origin. That there are grounds for thinking that specific differences may be developed suddenly instead of gradually. That the opinion that species have definite though very different limits to their variability is still tenable. That certain fossil transitional forms are absent, whhich might have been expected to be present.... That there are many remarkable phenomena in organic forms upon which "Natural Selection" throws no light whatsoever.

from: Kauffman, S (1993) The Origins of Order, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, pg. xiii.

M. W. Ho and P.T. Sunders point out:

It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths, while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.

from an article printed in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (1979) vol. 78, pg. 589.

As I was reading most of the evidence produced here for the theory of evolution it follows in the same trail of "the minutiae of evolution" that Ho points out above.

In 1966 at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia a symposium was held with leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists. After arguing that there is insufficient time for evolution to occur they came to the following conclusion:

There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we beleive this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology.

article entitled "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" (1967) in the book Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution edited by P.S. Moorhead, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, pg. 75.

I am now going out on a limb and am going to quote some "juicy" ones that I have found in Creationist books. (I would like to remind those reading that I do not believe everything that creationists teach concerning the nature and beginnings of the universe).

D.M.S. Watson is quoted as saying:

Evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

Source of quote: article entitled "Adaptation" in Nature magazine, 1929, 124:233 as quoted in Refuting Evolution by Dr. John Sarfati (1999)pg, 16.

Professor Richard Lewontin a respected geneticist and evolutionist is reported to have said:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior-commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Source for this quote: article entitled "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review January 9, 1997, pg. 31. Quotation found in Refuting Evolution, Dr Jonathan Sarfati.

Theistic Evolutionist Dr. Philip Johnson - distinguished Berkley Professor of Law examines evolution through the lens of a lawyer in his book, Darwin On Trial. He domonstrates that there is no material evidence for the theory of evolution.

Non-Creationist Dr. Mishael Behe has written a devastating book on the theory of evolution. Here is a quote from his book:

Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. Lynn Margulis is highly respected for her widely accepted theory that mitochondria, the energy source of plant and animal cells, were once independent bacterial cells. And Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Proponents of the theory, she says, "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him ... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations), is in a complete funk"

article entitled, "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother by C. Mann(1991), in Science, 252, 378-381. As quoted in Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Michael Behe (1996) Simon and Schuster, pg. 26.3,

I have found an unbiased scientist (Mivart quoted above) saying that evolution is incompetant. I have an evolutionist (Ho and Saunders) saying that there is no evidence that backs up the major premises of evolution - just evidence that proves the "minutiae of evolution." I have two respected evolutionists admitting that the scientific data does not support evolution but they hold to the theory because the opposite is unthinkable! I have a theistic-evolutionist proving that the "evidence" currently provided for evolution cannot even stand up in a court of Law.

Finally, I have two highly respected non-creationist biochemists who claim that neo-Darwinism "is a complete funk".

And you guys want me to think that evolution is factual? I very much respect and admire you all, but at least you can now see the basis of my skepticism. I have not even produced 1/10th of what I could show concerning unbiased scientific investigation into the theory of evolution.

I have produced this as something for you all to think about as I digest all of your recent posts.

Again, I hold you all in the highest regard and thank you for your kind responses (though some did not seem too kind)

Robert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 2:40 PM Robert has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by gene90, posted 02-27-2002 4:59 PM Robert has taken no action
 Message 65 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-28-2002 12:15 PM Robert has taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3063 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 63 of 72 (5721)
02-27-2002 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Robert
02-27-2002 4:27 PM


That whole post is an argument from authority. Also, are you so sure Phillip Johnston is a theistic evolutionist? Secondly, even arguing from authority were acceptable, why would you consider an attorney to be an authority?

Now to go down the list and eliminate authorities that support evolution, just not Darwin's version...

Mivart:

A theistic Lamarckian evolutionist.

http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/lefa/Mivart.html

"Mivart, however, himself professed a theory of evolution; but he unhesitatingly and consistently asserted the irreconcilable difference between the inanimate and animate, as well as between the the purely animal and the rational. By maintaining the creationist theory of the origin of the human soul he attempted to reconcile his evolutionism with the Catholic faith."

Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10407b.htm

Kauffman, Stuart:

Was studying methods of testing evolution of molecules in 1995. Abstract:

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Abstracts/95-04-042abs.html

Lectures on his own theory of abiogenesis:

Lecture:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/Lecture-2.html

Wrote a book regarding the evolution of proteins as an example of information increases in complex systems:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/originstofc.html

P.T. Saunders:

Wrote:
"Evolution without Natural Selection: Further Implications of the Daisyworld Parable."
J. Theor. Biol. 166 (1994) 365-373.

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/staff/pt_saunders.html

He's opposed to neo-darwinism, not evolution. Looks like a fan of James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis.

He and MT Ho edited a book on Neo-Darwinism back in '86, the subtitle of the book was "An Introduction To The New Evolution"

Remember that being opposed to Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism is not necessarily equivalent to being opposed to evolution.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 4:27 PM Robert has taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 719 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 64 of 72 (5788)
02-28-2002 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by gene90
02-27-2002 11:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][b]There are genes (alleles if you prefer) in modern day chickens, that if active would cause the chicken to have a tail and teeth much more like (say) a dinosaur or lizard.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

This is a whopper the way it is stated, but I think I can help you a little on it.

Chicken teeth are gone, to the best of my knowledge, but some of the genes that are responsible to tooth production in embryonic chickens remain and can be artificially incited through introduction of mammalian hormones that incite tooth generation in embryonic mice.


Not sure how that's different from saying that the gene is there
and if active would cause the effect, but thanks anyhow for the
(broadly speaking) support.

May have misheard about the tails, but birds DO have a tail in
general (sort of), don't they ? Or is that just feathers ?

quote:
Originally posted by gene90:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list _uids=10954731&dopt=Abstract

I can also vouch for spontaneous evolutionary atavisms in aves in the form of wing claws and digits but as for tails you're on your own.

I also think that while we are discussing hybirds and speciation, maybe we should have discussed sympatric vs. allopatric speciation.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by gene90, posted 02-27-2002 11:24 AM gene90 has taken no action

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6817 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 65 of 72 (5817)
02-28-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Robert
02-27-2002 4:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
There is much to reply to here and I do not believe that I will get to all of it.

I annunderstand that - I'm busy too. I'm just going to cherry pick some points from this post of yours ... [b] [QUOTE]In 1871 St. George Mivart wrote this criticism:[/b][/QUOTE]

Mivart did actually believe in evolution. he had a particular problem, however, with the evolution of mankind, who he regarded to be morally unique and therefore, a priori, a product of special creation by God. Interesting trivial factlet - Darwin responded to Mivart's criticisms in the 6th edition of "Origin", and this was the first time Darwin used the word "evolution" in his book, following Mivart's use[b] [QUOTE]M. W. Ho and P.T. Sunders point out:[/b][/QUOTE]

An interesting pair. Saunders is a critic of neo-Darwinism, but proposes alternative formulations of evolution, particularly through his "Daisyworld" mathematical model which is one of the more interesting artificial life models. M W Ho is a fine scientists - one of the most trenchant critics of genetic engineering, especially of genetically-engineered farming. In one of her recent papers, she talks of the difference between the regulatory process of genetic engineering and the natural regulatory process of plants: "This regulatory system has evolved over hundreds of millions of years."
[b] [QUOTE]In 1966 at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia a symposium was held with leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists. After arguing that there is insufficient time for evolution to occur they came to the following conclusion:There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution[/b][/QUOTE]

Cool. Have you read the proceedings of the symposium? If you pick out little quotes from them as some of the creationist web sites have done you might draw the conclusion that they were rubbishing evolution. Very far from it - their conclusions concern the neo-Darwinist model and whether it sufficiently explains the observable evidence of evolution. This is similar to the position taken by Saunders. The symposium was headed by Peter Medawar, a Nobel prize winning mathematician who very clearly did believe in evolution. Have a read of his paper on the future mental evolution of man, it's quite interesting in itself and shows clearly enough his interest in evolutionary processes ... http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/Medawar/future-of-man.html.
Your quotes so far have underminded some of your previous arguments:
: shown that debate is lively in the field of evolution, though you were suggesting in an earlier post that debate is somehow stifled or monopolized;
: shown that people who disagree with the orthodox view can indeed work successfully in the field of science and indeed rise to its highest levels.
Your further quotes just show this even more.[b] [QUOTE]I am now going out on a limb and am going to quote some "juicy" ones that I have found in Creationist books. (I would like to remind those reading that I do not believe everything that creationists teach ...[/b][/QUOTE]

It's going to be a bit pointless digging into these then?[b] [QUOTE]Theistic Evolutionist Dr. Philip Johnson[/b][/QUOTE]

Oh boy! Evolutionist?! He's going to love for you that. And he's a lawyer too - if you need help with your defence fund, I'll contribute a dollar or two. [b] [QUOTE]Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. ... Proponents of the theory, she says, "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin[/b][/QUOTE]

Now what did we say in an earlier post about political uses of scientific theories?
Actually, Lynn Margulis is a very active and compelling proponent of the Gaia hypothesis and opposes neo-Darwinism on several grounds. If I can summarize her work in a sentence it would be that Darwinism is too competitive (thus the references to its capitalistic, cost-benefit approach) and that evolution is more likely the result of symbiotic relations between organisms. She talks of life as "a controlled artistic chaos, a set of chemical reactions so staggeringly complex that more than 4 billion years ago it began a sojourn that now, in human form, composes love letters and uses silicon computers to calculate the temperature of matter at the birth of the universe." I admire her work enormously, BTW.[b] [QUOTE]I have found an unbiased scientist (Mivart quoted above) saying that evolution is incompetant.[/b][/QUOTE]

Not unbiased - he believed a priori in the special creation of man.[b] [QUOTE]I have an evolutionist (Ho and Saunders) saying that there is no evidence that backs up the major premises of evolution - just evidence that proves the "minutiae of evolution." [/b][/QUOTE]

No. They say neo-Darwinism cannot explain it. Of course they think their own evolutionary mechanisms can.[b] [QUOTE]I have a theistic-evolutionist proving that the "evidence" currently provided for evolution cannot even stand up in a court of Law.[/b][/QUOTE]

But for calling him an evolutionist you might have to! [b] [QUOTE]Finally, I have two highly respected non-creationist biochemists who claim that neo-Darwinism "is a complete funk".[/b][/QUOTE]

Do read work by Lynn Margulis, please. She rocks! http://www.temple.edu/CFS/margulis.htm [b] [QUOTE]And you guys want me to think that evolution is factual? I very much respect and admire you all, but at least you can now see the basis of my skepticism.[/b][/QUOTE]

Oh do be a skeptic. Just apply that skepticism fairly to all alternatives. Special Creation collapses when examined with the same skeptical scrutiny as you are applying to Darwinian evolution.

Good post, Robert. I do hope you find time to follow up some reading at least on Margulis, Ho and Saunders, and Medawar.

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 4:27 PM Robert has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 66 of 72 (5854)
03-01-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Robert
02-27-2002 1:16 AM


quote:

Also, horses and donkeys are put together by artificial selection not natural selection: they do not willingly mate.

Here, you are quite incorrect.

They most certainly do willingly mate. Otherwise, we wou;dn't have mules before artificial insemination was developed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 1:16 AM Robert has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 67 of 72 (5856)
03-01-2002 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by joz
02-27-2002 3:02 PM


I did a Google search on the quote and came up with this Creationist site which lists a great many out-of-context quotes, including those of Dawkins and Gould.

"Misleading" would be a tactful, generous way to describe what is going on at this site:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/challenge9.html

Home page:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html

------------------
"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 61 by joz, posted 02-27-2002 3:02 PM joz has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Robert, posted 03-01-2002 11:50 PM nator has replied

  
Robert
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 72 (5941)
03-01-2002 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by nator
03-01-2002 12:29 AM


Greetings:

Since I have been accused of an "appeal to authority" I think I would have to answer that one first.

If I was making an argument against evolution based solely on what "such and such" said, then I think that the logical fallacy applies. However, I was not so arguing against evolution. My attitude is not an "attack" against evolution - so please do not be defensive and try to pidgeonhole me with creationists. I am not.

Allison accuses me of taking these quotes "out of context" but such a statement is incredibble. I hope she can prove it.

Dr. Mizar was certainly a Lamarkian, and Lamarkianism is not considered a viable "theory" of evolution. His criticism of darwinism is certainly relevant - even though his own theory is not. Ho and Saunders are both the same. Ho does believe in the Gaia hypothesis, which I think is a bit bizarre, but such a view does not irradicate his own criticism of darwinism and neo-darwinism.

The point is that if scientists who have studied Darwin's Theory and have found it "incompetant", "unsatisfying" and "in a complete funk" why then should I believe it? When evolutionists themselves state that there are no scientific reasons to believe in evolution why, then is it being forced down the throat of every schoolchild in America as "scientific fact"?

Mizar has laid down the exact problems found in Darwinism. Has any darwinian evolutionist even attempted to respond to his critique? What he said was over 150 years ago. Where is the evidence that evolution is true? Where are the "abundance of scientific facts"? Not simply the incidentals, but the meat and potatoe kind of facts that are necessary for you to say that "evolution is a scientific fact".

Some here seem to think that I should take the abiogenisis reference out of my definition of evolution, but I do not think so. The very title of Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" implies that his theory wants to describe the beginning of life. In the introduction to his book he writes:

In considering the Origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been indipendently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species ... Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained - namely, that each species has been independently created - is erroneous.

Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, Random House, 1993 pgs.19-20, 22-23.

If you do not believe that he was saying it outright, then it is very heavily implied that he wants to apply his theory to the beginnings of life on Earth.

Mark:

That was very interesting concerning M.xanthus, and I can see why you are excited about it. I am also interested in it. Does this new "organism" (if I can call it that) reproduce the same exact organism (or better)? I will not let my doubts try to modify your beliefs, but can this new multi-celled organism be considered a viable new species under the "survival of the fittest" mentality of Darwinism?

It is a very, very promising example, and I would like to hear more about it.

Allison points out a variety of goatsweed that has adapted itself to the North American environment. Since the new "species" is still considered a member of the goatsweed family I would say that the person writing the article is playing fast and loose with the word "species". A doberman and a schnauzer are still both considered "dogs".

John McDonald, at least from what I have read, seems to be saying that those genes within a species that are variable, "do not seem to lie at the basis of many adaptive changes." What that says to me is that those genes that are flexible in a species to create a doberman/schnauzer do not apply when an adaptive change is necessary to create a new species. And, those genes that do constitute those adaptive changes which are necessary are not flexible within the species.

As you are probably aware I have not responded to all of the posts here. To do so in one sitting is very exhausting - especially after coming home from a hard day at work. Please be patient with me.

Robert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 03-01-2002 12:29 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-02-2002 2:32 AM Robert has taken no action
 Message 70 by mark24, posted 03-02-2002 4:28 PM Robert has taken no action
 Message 71 by nator, posted 03-16-2002 7:23 PM Robert has taken no action

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6817 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 69 of 72 (5972)
03-02-2002 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Robert
03-01-2002 11:50 PM


Robert, I for one appreciate the time you take to reply courteously to a barrage of responses.

I'm not sure you can wriggle out of the accusation that you were "arguing from authority" in your previous post.

quote:
If I was making an argument against evolution based solely on what "such and such" said, then I think that the logical fallacy applies.

Indeed it would. Speaking for myself as one who responded to your post of quotations, I felt you were trying to undermine the principle of evolution by picking quotes - including some from a number of scientists who in fact were convinced that evolution does indeed occur and explains the diversity and forms of life we all enjoy and wonder at today.[b] [QUOTE]However, I was not so arguing against evolution. My attitude is not an "attack" against evolution - so please do not be defensive and try to pidgeonhole me with creationists. I am not.[/b][/QUOTE]

I think you'll see why we thought you were attacking evolution if you look at simply one phrase from your post.
[b] [QUOTE]After arguing that there is insufficient time for evolution to occur they came to the following conclusion:There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution[/b][/QUOTE]

The first half misrepresents their conclusions - they cocnluded that there was insufficient time for evolution by natural selection. By being so selective you twist their statement into an attack on evolution itself. I think this may be what Allison means by out-of-context, but she is well able to answer for herself.

I think that to take a stand against evolution in one post ("To show the scientific history of the denial of evolution" as you say) and then step back from that to say "My attitude is not an "attack" against evolution" is somewhat ambiguous at best.

I am surprised you say of Mivart "Has any darwinian evolutionist even attempted to respond to his critique?" In my own reply I pointed out that Darwin himself responded to Mivcart in the 6th edition of Origin of Species. Mivart's criticisms remain the most trenchant of all, and are certainly raised in the university level evolutionary biology classes I know of.[b] [QUOTE]The point is that if scientists who have studied Darwin's Theory and have found it "incompetant", "unsatisfying" and "in a complete funk" why then should I believe it?[/b][/QUOTE]

The point is surely that you should try to understand why they don't believe it and attempt to understand what it is they believe. Remember, much of what you quoted were attacks on Darwin's "natural selection" not "evolution." Evolution is not Darwin's.

I myself have serious doubts as to whether natural selection can account for the diversity of life we find today, though I should say I have little doubt it is the main element in ensuring "fitness." I certainly am not a Darwinian - but I do find the evolution of species absolutely convincing and wonderful.

[b] [QUOTE]When evolutionists themselves state that there are no scientific reasons to believe in evolution why, then is it being forced down the throat of every schoolchild in America as "scientific fact"?[/b][/QUOTE]

That's a strange statement and I think very misleading. Do you have an example of an evolutionist saying such a thing? Are you referring to the Lewontin quote?

If you would like to elaborate on this point, I would very much like to respond. I'll leave the others to respond to the points you raised regarding their posts.

Have a good weekend.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Robert, posted 03-01-2002 11:50 PM Robert has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4435 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 70 of 72 (6022)
03-02-2002 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Robert
03-01-2002 11:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
Mark:

That was very interesting concerning M.xanthus, and I can see why you are excited about it. I am also interested in it. Does this new "organism" (if I can call it that) reproduce the same exact organism (or better)? I will not let my doubts try to modify your beliefs, but can this new multi-celled organism be considered a viable new species under the "survival of the fittest" mentality of Darwinism?

It is a very, very promising example, and I would like to hear more about it.


Robert,

I'm not trying to show you an example of speciation, but of a potential transitional state (note, I'm not saying this is an ACTUAL transitional, leftover fron 2 bn years ago). In the case of M. xanthus, the offspring were M. xanthus. It only assumes this state when starving, so the offspring will be single celled, until such time as they starve too.

But if the multicellular state gets selected for in an already sexual eukaryote........

From your answer it seems you think I'm trying to provide a living example of macro evolution happening. I'm not. But, what would you accept as an example of a single to multicellular transitional state?

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Robert, posted 03-01-2002 11:50 PM Robert has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 72 (7056)
03-16-2002 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Robert
03-01-2002 11:50 PM


quote:
Allison points out a variety of goatsweed that has adapted itself to the North American environment. Since the new "species" is still considered a member of the goatsweed family I would say that the person writing the article is playing fast and loose with the word "species". A doberman and a schnauzer are still both considered "dogs".

You didn't read the example very well.

The new species of goatsbeard cannot breed with the parent species from which it evolved.

Dobermans and Schnauzers can still mate and produce fertile offspring, so the comparison is not valid.

Care to address this?

Perhaps you don't understand what species are, or what speciation is?

------------------
"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 68 by Robert, posted 03-01-2002 11:50 PM Robert has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4273 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 72 of 72 (7932)
03-28-2002 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Robert
02-24-2002 10:58 PM


If authority means some equation was used but not specified, I mean was not revealed, then the confusing issue of the theory would make any hypothesis that may have been linked by the unnamed equation difficult to authorize indeed. Further if thephilosophy wishes for some traditional reason to keep this information only in "higher" education it would be nigh incomprensible to understand this "science".

Though this could easily be ones experience, I simply do not read science like this and find that authors are subject to the same GOD as anly elite "authority" who merely has ability and rights to teach the same.

Interesting point, nonetheless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Robert, posted 02-24-2002 10:58 PM Robert has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022