Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6556 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 349 of 367 (34735)
03-20-2003 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
03-19-2003 12:35 PM


Re: Crab
Hi Taz,
I agree with you completely. I am also willing to entertain some fairly radical ideas,I am personally working on a few that are probably totally wrong , but if they are not falsifiable or contradicted by scientific evidence (especially from multiple disciplines)then I have no possible reason to take them seriously. Behe falls squarely into the camp of those that make either non-falsifiable statements or statements not supported by scientific evidence. It is surprising that Behe admits that ID is non-falsifiable because it therefore confirms that his agenda is political/religious and not scientific.
Well, before I drag the thread any further off topic
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-19-2003 12:35 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 350 of 367 (34745)
03-20-2003 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Zephan
03-19-2003 7:20 AM


Hi Zephan,
Your posting privileges have been restored.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Zephan, posted 03-19-2003 7:20 AM Zephan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 351 of 367 (34809)
03-20-2003 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by derwood
03-19-2003 10:00 AM


The level of your discourse indicates that you, like sonnike, have a minimal desire to actually learn anything, but unlike sonnike, you are angry and belicose.
First you slap me on one cheek, then kiss me on the other
p.s. belicose?? is that a made up word? can't find it.
S

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by derwood, posted 03-19-2003 10:00 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Coragyps, posted 03-20-2003 6:01 PM DanskerMan has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 352 of 367 (34810)
03-20-2003 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by DanskerMan
03-20-2003 5:49 PM


belicose?? is that a made up word?
Try bellicose - from the Latin bellus, IIRC. Means warlike or argumentative. I prefer folks that are callipygian, but you can never tell that online.
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 03-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by DanskerMan, posted 03-20-2003 5:49 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by DanskerMan, posted 03-23-2003 8:41 PM Coragyps has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7746 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 353 of 367 (34820)
03-20-2003 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Admin
03-18-2003 7:25 AM


Hi Admin,
I didn't even no I was suspended! Why I wonder? Theory in trouble?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Admin, posted 03-18-2003 7:25 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-20-2003 9:42 PM peter borger has replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3297 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 354 of 367 (34823)
03-20-2003 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by peter borger
03-20-2003 9:12 PM


Trouble!!!
Peter, you mean your theory is in trouble, fancy that .
Sorry I just could not resist .
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by peter borger, posted 03-20-2003 9:12 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by peter borger, posted 03-20-2003 10:01 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7746 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 355 of 367 (34825)
03-20-2003 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
03-20-2003 9:42 PM


Re: Trouble!!!
Dear Taz,
Maybe you could point out where. Thanks in advance,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-20-2003 9:42 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Mammuthus, posted 03-21-2003 4:04 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 359 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-21-2003 8:26 AM peter borger has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6556 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 356 of 367 (34850)
03-21-2003 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by peter borger
03-20-2003 10:01 PM


Re: Trouble!!!
Not to speak for Taz but A) You have no "theory" B) you cannot even define your ideas in an understandable manner much less consistently C) to point out where your "theory" is in trouble please refer to any post you have ever written on this board

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by peter borger, posted 03-20-2003 10:01 PM peter borger has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2250 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 357 of 367 (34866)
03-21-2003 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Mammuthus
03-19-2003 9:53 AM


Re: Crab
quote:
Second, you would think that if someone is supposedly so passionately opposed to a theory they would make damn well sure they know as much about it as possible.
You would think that, wouldn't you?
However, it is apparent to me (and I am sure it is to you, too) that when people accept religious absolutism as a valid way of thinking/believing for themselves, the idea of "learing first and deciding what you will accept as probably true second" is a completely foreign concept.
They already "know" the "truth" without any study or thought or understanding or hard work, so why bother trying to learn anything?
I have also found that the skill or ability to learn anothers' position or understand a concept without neccessarily believing or accepting it is something that many Creation 'science' followers seem to utterly lack.
They have no stomach for open inquiry and their minds are constantly on guard against anything that might threaten their feeling of being right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Mammuthus, posted 03-19-2003 9:53 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Mammuthus, posted 03-21-2003 7:06 AM nator has not replied
 Message 360 by Admin, posted 03-21-2003 9:57 AM nator has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6556 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 358 of 367 (34868)
03-21-2003 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by nator
03-21-2003 6:52 AM


Re: Crab
It is also interesting to see how many (not all..some exceptions are even on this board) creationist paint both their own religions and science as monolithic entities with completely invariant views..it seems the absolutists don't even really know much about their OWN position much less understanding anybody elses.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by nator, posted 03-21-2003 6:52 AM nator has not replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3297 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 359 of 367 (34885)
03-21-2003 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by peter borger
03-20-2003 10:01 PM


Re: Trouble!!!
Hi Peter, I do not have much time this morning but my biggest problems with your stated theory are:
1)that it mis-uses randomness/probability in that you appear to be mixing pre-determined with increased probability and they are not the same, and
2)that you provide no evidence for either the existence or mode of action of your "creatons" or your "morphogenic fields", as well as little in explaination for what they are.
For example, I am just satrting Dr. Caporale's book but I am getting the general gist of it already (actually I also got it form literature for the last couple of years). When she discusses random vs non-random mutations she is in actuallity discussing varying degrees of probability over time at specific sites, she also provides data and mechanisms for the means of action. This is largely what you appear to lack. Not to mention that some of your early examples did not appear to back up your assertions, namely the biosynthetic pathway for ascorbic acid which you later abandoned, and the studies on australian mDNA which appeared to go against your stated theory.
Got to go, running lots of (as in far to damn many) gels and westerns today
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by peter borger, posted 03-20-2003 10:01 PM peter borger has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 360 of 367 (34895)
03-21-2003 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by nator
03-21-2003 6:52 AM


Re: Crab
Schraf writes:
They have no stomach for open inquiry and their minds are constantly on guard against anything that might threaten their feeling of being right.
I think this is as true of you and me and other evolutionists as it is of Creationists, particularly the part about resisting that which threatens our belief systems. But even the part about open inquiry is true of us. Would you be interested in donating to the "Search for Noah's Ark" fund? Why not? Because you know it is myth? How do you know that?
We both know you have good reasons for skepticism about Noah's ark, but Creationists have good reasons for being skeptical of evolution. They're not usually scientific reasons, but they have reasons.
I think what often makes these discussions take a frustrating turn is that thinking scientifically is not something that can simply be explained. It's a skill that takes a long time to develop, and just as some are gifted in music or sports or theology, others are gifted with a scientific outlook. Explaining science to those who have neither the background nor the gift is far more difficult a task than we often realize.
I know we probably don't agree on all I just wrote, but I'd just like to ask you to go a little more gently on the judgmental stuff.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by nator, posted 03-21-2003 6:52 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Mammuthus, posted 03-21-2003 10:52 AM Admin has not replied
 Message 362 by nator, posted 03-23-2003 7:37 AM Admin has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6556 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 361 of 367 (34910)
03-21-2003 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Admin
03-21-2003 9:57 AM


Re: Crab
"I think what often makes these discussions take a frustrating turn is that thinking scientifically is not something that can simply be explained. It's a skill that takes a long time to develop, and just as some are gifted in music or sports or theology, others are gifted with a scientific outlook. Explaining science to those who have neither the background nor the gift is far more difficult a task than we often realize."
Just to point out, as opposed to many creationists who imply that they know much more about natural history, genetics, population biology, and evolution than practicing scientists, most people do not go to a world class opera singer, sports figure etc. and tell them that they have no talent and should be forbidden from performing. But I do agree that explaining science is difficult and the scientific community as a whole does a miserable job of it imo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Admin, posted 03-21-2003 9:57 AM Admin has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2250 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 362 of 367 (34989)
03-23-2003 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Admin
03-21-2003 9:57 AM


Re: Crab
quote:
I think this is as true of you and me and other evolutionists as it is of Creationists, particularly the part about resisting that which threatens our belief systems. But even the part about open inquiry is true of us. Would you be interested in donating to the "Search for Noah's Ark" fund? Why not? Because you know it is myth? How do you know that?
The thing is, I WOULD be interested in donating money for Noah's Ark (or similar) research if I could be assured that it would be conducted in a scientific manner and not just used to promote religion.
I don't "know" it is a myth. I have no reason to believe it is more than myth, but if real evidence came forward, I would have to adjust what I believe.
I truly do not think that I am so wedded to anything in science that good research to the contrary couldn't change my mind.
quote:
We both know you have good reasons for skepticism about Noah's ark, but Creationists have good reasons for being skeptical of evolution. They're not usually scientific reasons, but they have reasons.
However, I was talking about science and scientific inquiry only.
There is no good scientific reason to be skeptical of evolution, and there are good scientific reasons to be skeptical of the existence of Noah's Ark.
I don't care one bit if people explain their belief in Noah's Ark by saying, "I know there's no evidence, but I just believe it." I would actually respect (not understand, but respect) that a great deal more than all of this pseudoscientific intellectual contortionism that goes on.
quote:
I think what often makes these discussions take a frustrating turn is that thinking scientifically is not something that can simply be explained. It's a skill that takes a long time to develop, and just as some are gifted in music or sports or theology, others are gifted with a scientific outlook. Explaining science to those who have neither the background nor the gift is far more difficult a task than we often realize.
I actually don't agree! I think that basic critical thinking skills are something that everybody can learn. We are human. It is in our nature to want to figure stuff out. The scientific method is just a more refined way of doing that which recognizes our human biases and weaknesses.
I also believe that if someone decides they are going to argue about science or a scientific concept that they then open themselves up to criticism concerning their understanding of science and said scientific concept.
quote:
I know we probably don't agree on all I just wrote, but I'd just like to ask you to go a little more gently on the judgmental stuff.
No problem.
I hope you include the "jugdemental stuff" from Creationists as well.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Admin, posted 03-21-2003 9:57 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Admin, posted 03-23-2003 8:24 AM nator has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 363 of 367 (34996)
03-23-2003 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by nator
03-23-2003 7:37 AM


Re: Crab
Schraf writes:
I hope you include the "jugdemental stuff" from Creationists as well.
The Change in Moderation? thread is discussing such issues now. It's an old thread, but a new discussion has developed in response to concerns about overmoderation beginning at Message 13.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by nator, posted 03-23-2003 7:37 AM nator 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