Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
I forgot to mention. I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge, so ping me when you've started the thread. (I rarely have need to go in there).
-------------- TTFN - Kent
"I forgot to mention. I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge ..." I'm already way ahead of you on that. "I forgot to mention." Well, no, you did mention. I said I was going to open a new topic, but I didn't say in which forum. You *assumed* I had indicated the Lounge and your prior statement reflects that assumption. "I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge ..." And this highlights a certain double-standard ... a hypocrisy ... in the thinking of so many denizens of the Lounge (one is tempted to say "Lounge Lizards" to refer to all who frequent in the Lounge). What is this double-standard, this hypocritcal thinking? Just this: "I (the self-proclaimed "rational" thinker, i.e. the 'atheist') may spout off any ignorant thing I wish in the Lounge, no matter illogical or irrational it is on top of its reflection of ignorance; but you, you ignorant, stupid, anti-rational Christian, you are not allowed to point out the ignorance of what I said, much less point out its illogic or irrationality. If you wish to do that, you must do it in The Soapbox, where I may ignore it and thus continue to pretent to be a rational thinker."
-
Ilíon wrote:
I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting.
Uhm, you know it's a public forum right? Between that, and the natural tendency of Lounge posters to post ... let's call it "lounge style". I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread. I'm also not convinced there's benefit on stomping on all the gophers that will pop up, especially with gophers who pop up harder if you try to pop one down. It's not like it's the debate club Web site or anything.
Ilíon wrote:
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true
If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Ilíon: "I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread ..." Kent Sharkey: "Uhm, you know it's a public forum right? Between that, and the natural tendency of Lounge posters to post ... let's call it "lounge style". I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread." Did you even *read* what I wrote? Firstly, let me point out (this shouldn't *have* to be said) that I do not claim that everything I write is crystal-clear, incapable of being misunderstood. However, I do strive for, and I generally attain, precision in what I write. Now, sometimes what I write is verbose (and often that is for effect), but generally, I aim for succinctness. And, as an interesting and odd side-effect, I am often criticised, and often by the same persons, for being too verbose and for being too succinct. What I wrote is precise and succinct. Contained in those 15 words is already the acknowledgement of that "natural tendency." Contained in those 15 words is already the acknowledgement that these are public forums -- and let me point out in passing that quite a number of the local "rational free-thinkers" acknowledge that only when it suits them. Contained in those 15 words is already the acknowledgement that it *isn't* possible to prevent irrational and/or illogical "replies" to the argument I will present. Ilíon:
But, there is another, and more important, issue than focus; and that is *reason.* I predict that certain partisans will make irrational and illogical posts which will serve only to disrupt the discussion. When that happens, I *expect* you to come down as hard on them as I might (do it in your own way, of course). This is not a matter of "defending" me or of you signaling assent to my argument; this is a matter of defending reason and reasoned argument.
Kent Sharkey: "I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread. I'm also not convinced there's benefit on stomping on all the gophers that will pop up, especially with gophers who pop up harder if you try to pop one down." How will you ever know the worth of trying to help others lift themselves out of irrationality if you never try?
-
Ilíon wrote:
I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting.
Uhm, you know it's a public forum right? Between that, and the natural tendency of Lounge posters to post ... let's call it "lounge style". I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread. I'm also not convinced there's benefit on stomping on all the gophers that will pop up, especially with gophers who pop up harder if you try to pop one down. It's not like it's the debate club Web site or anything.
Ilíon wrote:
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true
If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Ilíon:
- When you say "That's true, that would work as well ..." are you not implicitly agreeing that my statements are true that:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false ... There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them.
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true ... or, give reasons why these statements (in part, or in whole) are not actually true.
Kent Sharkey: "If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another." I don't think you're getting the point. And, I don't think you're yet thinking clearly and non-contradictorily.
Ilíon: There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them.
What I said here is true and indisputably true. I want you to *admit* that this is true. Or, I want you to show, using logical reasoning, that it is false. Because, after all, you have tried to assert exactly the opposite:
Kent Sharkey: I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn
We have here two opposing claims. Only one of them can be true. I want you to *defend* your claim, or abandon it. I want you to think clearly and non-contradictorily. Kent Sharkey: "If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another." No one ever disproved Lamarck's theory. I realize you were taught otherwise, but you were taught a falsehood. And, to this day, 'modern evolutionary th
-
Ilíon:
- When you say "That's true, that would work as well ..." are you not implicitly agreeing that my statements are true that:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false ... There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them.
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true ... or, give reasons why these statements (in part, or in whole) are not actually true.
Kent Sharkey: "If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another." I don't think you're getting the point. And, I don't think you're yet thinking clearly and non-contradictorily.
Ilíon: There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them.
What I said here is true and indisputably true. I want you to *admit* that this is true. Or, I want you to show, using logical reasoning, that it is false. Because, after all, you have tried to assert exactly the opposite:
Kent Sharkey: I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn
We have here two opposing claims. Only one of them can be true. I want you to *defend* your claim, or abandon it. I want you to think clearly and non-contradictorily. Kent Sharkey: "If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another." No one ever disproved Lamarck's theory. I realize you were taught otherwise, but you were taught a falsehood. And, to this day, 'modern evolutionary th
Ilíon wrote:
This whole "best explanation" thing is charade, it's a shell-game, it's a distraction ... and it's meaningless. The phrase "best explanation" literally means nothing, it has no meaning, it is meaningless.
It is far from meaningless or a distraction, or any other perjorative you care to add. Outside of mathematics or physics, there are rare items that provide Truth. If you walk into a room and switching on the light has no effect, you must come up with a number of theories why the light didn't come on. If after applying the observations to the data you decide that it's because the light bulb is burnt out and change it. Light comes on, you decide your theory was Truth. However, that bulb burns out after 20 minutes. You now have more observations that seem contradictory and should either refine your theory or supply a new one. I later found that the socket had a poor connection to the wires and the act of tightening and loosening the bulb would enable the light to come on. The original bulb was fine. Is that now Truth? Short of inspecting all the wiring in my house, I will never be absolutely certain. The theory of the loose wire is the best explanation of the data.
Ilíon wrote:
No one ever disproved Lamarck's theory. I realize you were taught otherwise, but you were taught a falsehood. And, to this day, 'modern evolutionary theorists' are more Lamarckians that Lamarck himself was, just as Darwin was.
I haven't a clue where you're getting this.
Ilíon wrote:
What I said here is true and indisputably true. I want you to *admit* that this is true. Or, I want you to show, using logical reasoning, that it is false. Because, after all, you have tried to assert exactly the opposite: Kent Sharkey: I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn
That second one was due to the inevitable exasperation I (and Chris, and probably a number of others) feel when we're forced to defend this theory innumerable times.
Ilíon wrote:
I don't think you're getting the point. And, I don't think you're yet thinking clearly and non-contradicto
-
"I forgot to mention. I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge ..." I'm already way ahead of you on that. "I forgot to mention." Well, no, you did mention. I said I was going to open a new topic, but I didn't say in which forum. You *assumed* I had indicated the Lounge and your prior statement reflects that assumption. "I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge ..." And this highlights a certain double-standard ... a hypocrisy ... in the thinking of so many denizens of the Lounge (one is tempted to say "Lounge Lizards" to refer to all who frequent in the Lounge). What is this double-standard, this hypocritcal thinking? Just this: "I (the self-proclaimed "rational" thinker, i.e. the 'atheist') may spout off any ignorant thing I wish in the Lounge, no matter illogical or irrational it is on top of its reflection of ignorance; but you, you ignorant, stupid, anti-rational Christian, you are not allowed to point out the ignorance of what I said, much less point out its illogic or irrationality. If you wish to do that, you must do it in The Soapbox, where I may ignore it and thus continue to pretent to be a rational thinker."
Ilíon wrote:
What is this double-standard, this hypocritcal thinking? Just this: "I (the self-proclaimed "rational" thinker, i.e. the 'atheist') may spout off any ignorant thing I wish in the Lounge, no matter illogical or irrational it is on top of its reflection of ignorance; but you, you ignorant, stupid, anti-rational Christian, you are not allowed to point out the ignorance of what I said, much less point out its illogic or irrationality. If you wish to do that, you must do it in The Soapbox, where I may ignore it and thus continue to pretent to be a rational thinker."
Read into it whatever you want (as you already have). However, Chris has asked that *any* discussions of politics, religion or similar "touchy" subjects be discussed in the Soapbox. This discussion only ended up in the lounge as it was a discussion of an Insider post, but most people felt it should have been continued in the Soapbox.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
One certainly sees why some intrepid partisan thinks Mr Fisticuffs' posts worth a '5' and mine merely a '1.' For, after all, in my posts I always strive to be logically consistent; whereas, in his posts ... well, clearly, he does not. Or, perhaps it is the case that the person doing this really bizarre voting is not actually an intrepid partisan, but rather has a highly-evolved ironic sensibility. Perhaps the reader will be interested in a comparison of statements from Mr Fisticuffs: "You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk." followed in his next post and compared to: "... I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response ..." Perhaps the reader will note (if he cares to read the prior posts) that *I* did not anywhere accuse Mr Fisticuffs of "avoiding honest discourse," but rather I insinuated that he may not "have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence."" These are, of course, two quite different matters. Perhaps the reader will note that, in fact, it is now Mr Fisticuffs himself who is accusing his own self of "avoiding honest discourse!" Perhaps the reader may be forgiven for beginning to wonder just *who* is the "Jerk." "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes: " At the risk of perhaps being thought too derivative, please allow me to remark that I WILL, CH*MP :omg:
You are amazingly self righteous. Boost yourself some more. So far, most of the posts by you that I've read resort to attacking people, by accusing them of being stupid. Goading them to emotional reactions. What is your point in taking this stance. Are you really that self-important?
Ilíon wrote:
For, after all, in my posts I always strive to be logically consistent; whereas, in his posts ... well, clearly, he does not.
Quite the opinion. Too bad not everyone shares your view of yourself and the others debating with you.
Ilíon wrote:
but rather I insinuated that he may not "have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence.""
Ok, what's the point here? Do you expect honest discourse when the only point of this tactic is to offend the other? Is that really honest discourse?
Ilíon wrote:
Perhaps the reader may be forgiven for beginning to wonder just *who* is the "Jerk."
You both are being jerks in this debate. Although, in this case, I would state that Fisticuffs is more founded.
This statement was never false.
-
At last, a demonstration of the "better part of valor." Would that Mr Fisticuffs had been a bit more volorous a bit sooner. For, after all, if one has nothing to say, one does well to say nothing at all.
Would be nice to see you take your own advice.
This statement was never false.
-
Mo-o-o-m! That ol' meanie is pickin' on my religion (aka "Darwinism")! You people are such children. You like to dish out snide one-liners -- which just happen to generally not be true -- against Christianity, and it's congratulations all around. But let someone return the favor towards your religion -- with snide one-liners which just happen to generally be true -- and you throw a snit-fit.
You just can't get over yourself can you? Now you're responding to your own posts? Get over it man.
This statement was never false.
-
Ilíon wrote:
This whole "best explanation" thing is charade, it's a shell-game, it's a distraction ... and it's meaningless. The phrase "best explanation" literally means nothing, it has no meaning, it is meaningless.
It is far from meaningless or a distraction, or any other perjorative you care to add. Outside of mathematics or physics, there are rare items that provide Truth. If you walk into a room and switching on the light has no effect, you must come up with a number of theories why the light didn't come on. If after applying the observations to the data you decide that it's because the light bulb is burnt out and change it. Light comes on, you decide your theory was Truth. However, that bulb burns out after 20 minutes. You now have more observations that seem contradictory and should either refine your theory or supply a new one. I later found that the socket had a poor connection to the wires and the act of tightening and loosening the bulb would enable the light to come on. The original bulb was fine. Is that now Truth? Short of inspecting all the wiring in my house, I will never be absolutely certain. The theory of the loose wire is the best explanation of the data.
Ilíon wrote:
No one ever disproved Lamarck's theory. I realize you were taught otherwise, but you were taught a falsehood. And, to this day, 'modern evolutionary theorists' are more Lamarckians that Lamarck himself was, just as Darwin was.
I haven't a clue where you're getting this.
Ilíon wrote:
What I said here is true and indisputably true. I want you to *admit* that this is true. Or, I want you to show, using logical reasoning, that it is false. Because, after all, you have tried to assert exactly the opposite: Kent Sharkey: I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn
That second one was due to the inevitable exasperation I (and Chris, and probably a number of others) feel when we're forced to defend this theory innumerable times.
Ilíon wrote:
I don't think you're getting the point. And, I don't think you're yet thinking clearly and non-contradicto
Kent Sharkey wrote:
And I imagine I never will until you hear me say, "Oh, my. You're absolutely right." Which you likely never will. I typically will rarely debate anything, this was certainly an exception. However, I've reached the end of my endurance on this one. Toodles. Enjoy your Truth.
Ah, I see I misjudged you; please forgive me. Clearly, you cannot approach this matter scientifically, much less rationally. Clearly, I was misguided in thinking you could. This is a disappointment, to be sure. But, better to know it now than later.
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
And I imagine I never will until you hear me say, "Oh, my. You're absolutely right." Which you likely never will. I typically will rarely debate anything, this was certainly an exception. However, I've reached the end of my endurance on this one. Toodles. Enjoy your Truth.
Ah, I see I misjudged you; please forgive me. Clearly, you cannot approach this matter scientifically, much less rationally. Clearly, I was misguided in thinking you could. This is a disappointment, to be sure. But, better to know it now than later.
Ilíon wrote:
Clearly, you cannot approach this matter scientifically, much less rationally. Clearly, I was misguided in thinking you could.
No, it was just that I wasn't hearing any "scientific" proofs out of you, only complaints that people were misreading your messages, thinking 'unclearly' or voting your messages as 1s. If you feel you can disprove evolution, create the thread, I'd love to see your evidence. If you want to continue to complain, feel free to go elsewhere, I have little patience for it.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
And I imagine I never will until you hear me say, "Oh, my. You're absolutely right." Which you likely never will. I typically will rarely debate anything, this was certainly an exception. However, I've reached the end of my endurance on this one. Toodles. Enjoy your Truth.
Ah, I see I misjudged you; please forgive me. Clearly, you cannot approach this matter scientifically, much less rationally. Clearly, I was misguided in thinking you could. This is a disappointment, to be sure. But, better to know it now than later.
Ilíon wrote:
Clearly, you cannot approach this matter scientifically, much less rationally. Clearly, I was misguided in thinking you could.
More abusive Projection. Can you even discuss something without the abusive insults? Try it. I dare you.
This statement was never false.
-
Thanks. I'll send you my e-mail address. You may delete your previous message if you want, to avoid spammers! :)
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
Thanks. I'll send you my e-mail address.
Juan, just in case you have tried to contact me and were wondering why I hadn't responded, it would be because I've not seen the note (assuming you sent one). But, if not, that's ok, too; I just didn't want to to think I was ignoring you.
juanfer68 wrote:
You may delete your previous message if you want, to avoid spammers!
My good friends down in the SoapBox are spamming me, so I suppose a bit more spam couldn't hurt.
'Dhimmitude' is a state of mind.
-
The definition of a new species is a very human task as it is simply a label we hang on groups of animals to identify them. Defining what makes a new species is a common activity of high school teachers. It usually boils down to, "two populations of related animals that do not interbreed." However, if we stuck with this definition, many animals we consider to be of the same species would be separate: the transient and resident schools of Killer Whales, for instance, or salmon that breed on different years. The species we put something into is a little like the way people classify music. I may call one band "Industrial", while someone else may call them "Metal" and a third may just call it "That Damn Racket". The way we identify animals depends on our best available knowledge at the time, and may change as we learn more. For example, the Polar bear was Thalarctos maritimus when I first learned their scientific name, but are now identified as Ursus maritumus as we learned they are genetically closer to bears than initially thought (Polar-grizzly hybrids have been found). Having said that, we have observed a few incidents of speciation events. One classic example[^] are the Gulls of the Northern hemisphere. These form a chain of populations that can interbreed with one another, but at the "ends" of the chain, the two populations cannot interbreed.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent, I apologize for the delay in replying to your e-mail. Thanks for the clarification about the definition of species. Talking about the gulls, could this be an example of evolution, taken in the sense of gulls slowly becoming something else than gulls? Is their DNA gaining or loosing information if it is confirmed that they are going through a process of change? Regards, Juan
Juanfer
-
OK, pulling said second paragraph from Wikipedia:
In the larger sense, religion is a communal system for the coherence of belief—typically focused on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion can also be described as a way of life.
Taking the last line of that paragraph, anything could be described as a way of life, and therefore following a political party of even the Atkin's Diet could be a religion using that weak sentence. Taking the paragraph as a whole it begins to become a better description of most religions as it brings in "an unseen being, person or object." With this, the scientific method (and therefore our current understanding of evolution) cease to qualify. The scientific method does not require any practices, values, etc. other than the endless cycle of observation, hypothesis, proposal, test, theory. Few theories have reached the realm of Law: momentum, gravity, etc. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. However, it is not a theory in the sense that lawyers or others commonly use it, but as working scientists define it. In this sense it is a much stronger, heavily tested concept. On the whole religion vs. science non-battle, I give you my old Molecular Evolution professor. The professor I had for that final year course at University was a devout Mennonite. He believed in evolution, as science as observed and tested and refined the theory for > 100 years. He believed, however, that it was a mechanism of God. For him, and many others, this is a perfectly rational explanation. Science would not dispute this, as there is no way to prove (or disprove) God on the basis of the scientific method. I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent,
Kent Sharkey wrote:
The scientific method does not require any practices, values, etc. other than the endless cycle of observation, hypothesis, proposal, test, theory.
I understand how we have come to assume this to be the case, but this is not accurate for these disciplines require the exercise of our faith in the principles of causality and induction. Please follow this link and the interactions that followed to identify a few core beliefs upon which any scientist builds up the practice of his profession (note that Chris avoided the point by accusing me of trying to remove causality): http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=1901714#xx1901714xx
Kent Sharkey wrote:
I give you my old Molecular Evolution professor. The professor I had for that final year course at University was a devout Mennonite. He believed in evolution, as science as observed and tested and refined the theory for > 100 years. He believed, however, that it was a mechanism of God. For him, and many others, this is a perfectly rational explanation.
I cannot question the sincerity of what your professor believed, but truth is independent from our particular opinions and these must be tested in some way to see if they conform to it. Even though any kind of test will necessarily start with faith (which I hope you have already accepted), it must be consistent with reason and evidence. In his case, I would present the same challenges about his worldview and how he can rationally and consistently arrive to a conclusion different from his God's revelation.
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis.
Please note from my original post that the attack was not on 'some facet' but on several points (not at all an exhaustive list) of the evolutionary theory. These points should make evident to any rational individual that the whole package is an exercise in philosophical absurdity, a castle built on thin air. The alternate hypothesis has already been presented in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. This hypothesis is perfectly consistent with all the available evidence and does not contain any of the inconsistencies I pointed out. You may disagree with this but, if t
-
Ilíon wrote:
I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting.
Uhm, you know it's a public forum right? Between that, and the natural tendency of Lounge posters to post ... let's call it "lounge style". I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread. I'm also not convinced there's benefit on stomping on all the gophers that will pop up, especially with gophers who pop up harder if you try to pop one down. It's not like it's the debate club Web site or anything.
Ilíon wrote:
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true
If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent,
Kent Sharkey wrote:
If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data.
I think this is what I did in my original post. In consistency with your premise you should at least acknowledge that evolution is not the best explanation for the data. Other evolutionists have done it, like Prof. Jerome Lejeune, internationally recognized geneticist: "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…" -- modified at 10:25 Saturday 17th March, 2007
Juanfer
-
Ilíon wrote:
Clearly, you cannot approach this matter scientifically, much less rationally. Clearly, I was misguided in thinking you could.
No, it was just that I wasn't hearing any "scientific" proofs out of you, only complaints that people were misreading your messages, thinking 'unclearly' or voting your messages as 1s. If you feel you can disprove evolution, create the thread, I'd love to see your evidence. If you want to continue to complain, feel free to go elsewhere, I have little patience for it.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent, It looks like the conversation between you and Ilíon is a little heated at this point and I was at first hesitant to reply, but I hope you take it as it is intended. Before talking about one possible proof, please consider first my previous post on the foundational faith required even for requesting one. Mathematics and physics are no exception to this principle. Take for example this statement from a discussion about set theory: "There is a further, very serious obstacle, which is that, as Gödel showed, it is impossible to prove the consistency of ZF within ZF. This means that we have to take the consistency of our axioms on faith". http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/settheory.html Now to the proof. Nobel Prize winner George Wald (1906–1997): "There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." (George Wald, "Origin, Life and Evolution," Scientific American (1978). Quoted in Joe White and Nicholas Comninellis, Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take the Heat (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 46.)
Juanfer
-
Kent, I apologize for the delay in replying to your e-mail. Thanks for the clarification about the definition of species. Talking about the gulls, could this be an example of evolution, taken in the sense of gulls slowly becoming something else than gulls? Is their DNA gaining or loosing information if it is confirmed that they are going through a process of change? Regards, Juan
Juanfer
Hi Juanfer, I would see it as an example of evolution, yes. There are differences in the DNA of the gulls, currently enough that they (at least at parts of the circle) have ceased to interbreed. With time, and selective forces, they could easily become "something other than gulls."
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Kent, It looks like the conversation between you and Ilíon is a little heated at this point and I was at first hesitant to reply, but I hope you take it as it is intended. Before talking about one possible proof, please consider first my previous post on the foundational faith required even for requesting one. Mathematics and physics are no exception to this principle. Take for example this statement from a discussion about set theory: "There is a further, very serious obstacle, which is that, as Gödel showed, it is impossible to prove the consistency of ZF within ZF. This means that we have to take the consistency of our axioms on faith". http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/settheory.html Now to the proof. Nobel Prize winner George Wald (1906–1997): "There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." (George Wald, "Origin, Life and Evolution," Scientific American (1978). Quoted in Joe White and Nicholas Comninellis, Darwin's Demise: Why Evolution Can't Take the Heat (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 46.)
Juanfer
Apart from the fact that the origin of life is not part of the study of evolution, I agree that the origin of life is one of the questions we do not have the answer to. This is part of the reason why I'm willing to accept the belief of some people that an external agent "drives" evolution. Having said that, the spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved is not the same as that proposed by those that believe in a chemical origin of life. There have been a number of fairly elegant experiments (by Fox and others) that show that amino acids, sugars and other core molecules of life can and are created by simple reactions. Could these chemicals have made the leap to self-reproduction? I haven't a clue, but I will repeat -- this is not part of the theory of evolution and would be a little akin to pointing out an unknown fact in physics as being a flaw in mathematics.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Kent,
Kent Sharkey wrote:
If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data.
I think this is what I did in my original post. In consistency with your premise you should at least acknowledge that evolution is not the best explanation for the data. Other evolutionists have done it, like Prof. Jerome Lejeune, internationally recognized geneticist: "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…" -- modified at 10:25 Saturday 17th March, 2007
Juanfer
As for Dr. Lejeune: I disagree that it is a bad theory, but I can see (I think) where he is coming from. I think the important parts are not the knee-jerk "it's a bad theory", but better explained in the later half of that quote, "Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…" He is not saying that there is no evolution, merely that the current explanation does not fit his critera of a great theory. Now, let's go back to your original proof:
- Billions of years ago, the universe exploded into being; why? We don't know but as Sagan once said: we don't need to go there.
Physics/cosmology, not evolution. I will agree that it's a good question, and I'm far from convinced by Hawking's latest, "It just appeared."
- After that, matter organized itself, even though all subsequent observed explosions evidently produce disorder… Boy, this one was singular(ity)! (Check evolutionist Fred Hoyle's analogy of the Boeing 747)
While still not evolution, this one seems understandable. The "cooling" of the energy produced matter, the matter organized using gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
- Uniform matter then became diverse. How?
Not sure what you mean by diverse. Do you mean different types of matter, or that it spread? (either way, still not evolution).
- Some matter formed stars while other formed planets and it just happened that the earth was a very special case, as there must be many others elsewhere.
Gravity, and probably the initial momentum of the material (material orbiting the accreating star might have too much of an orbital velocity to collapse into said star). As we have observed planets orbiting other stars, this seems to have happened in many locations.
- Simplicity then became complexity and many different compounds were formed. How? Do we not in the lab expect always the same results out of the same components and conditions?
Many of the compounds that exist today are observed in stars. Remember that they're not just pretty sun-tan inducing objects, but nuclear furnaces. They generate various chemical materials, some of which end up being spread throughout the solar system. In unrelated (probably also nuclear) reactions, carbon and similar materials have been observed in comets and other solar system bodies.
- Some complex compounds started interact
-
Hi Juanfer, I would see it as an example of evolution, yes. There are differences in the DNA of the gulls, currently enough that they (at least at parts of the circle) have ceased to interbreed. With time, and selective forces, they could easily become "something other than gulls."
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I understand what you mean. On the other hand, it is precisely the nature of those 'selective forces', their source and the direction in which they operate what is in question. These 'forces' along with the use of terms like 'could', 'maybe', 'probably', etc. are ubiquitous in almost every statement I have found in favor of evolution; these terms could easily be associated with eastern mysticism. If we try to make a case for evolution as science, we must be ready to apply the full rigor of the term to it. In other words, the fact that we can conceive of something does not make it real. If we assume (again, by faith) that such 'selective forces' exist, we still need to answer our belief about how 'easy' it really is for them to cause beneficial changes, particularly in spite of Haldane's Dilemma, which has yet to be satisfactorily resolved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma Walter ReMine seems to have found a clarification to the dilemma, but his paper is apparently rejected on unscientific grounds: http://saintpaulscience.com/a_tale_of_peer-review.htm Regards,
Juanfer