Where is the evidence for evolution?

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 topiccheers,
M

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

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

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]

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

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

Dear Taz,Maybe you could point out where. Thanks in advance,Peter

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

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.

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

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

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

"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.

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]

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