Discussion:
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
(too old to reply)
Peter Watson
2005-08-12 23:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Why the Missing Link Is Still Missing
Peter, read my lips, there is NO missing *link* humans ARE a species of
ape, in laymans terms, a member of the ape family. Peter you are an
ape, yeah I know that probaby hurt Peter, but its true.
Speak for yourself

That which distinguishes us from apes is the ability to reflect.
You appear to think I am consumed with fear with your terribly clever
answers. I am not.

And apes generally don't know how to prepare cooked food.
There is no *missing link* between fish, a snapper and a gold fish have
no missing link, a buffalo and a domestic cow have no *missing link*.
Uh huh
Evolution means ongoing, eg it is a fact that since the west have had
an influence in Asia, especially Japan, it is a fact that the average
Japanese face is now longer than it was 100 years (only four or five
generations) due to the development of stronger jaw muscles to eat red
meat.
Right.////////////////
and..................................................
My personal belief is that God was created by evolution.
The mystic's (Peter's) god is no more than a creation of the mystic's
mind.
Yep. You sure are right then. So you must be ok. Huh?
Who made you then?
--
Peter Watson
Peter are you now saying everything needs a maker, what made your god?
Nothing. He always was.
What made the matter that your god made the universe with?
He did.
What does it matter anyway Peter?
I could ask you the same thing/.
Why do YOU *need* a god (your crutch) for Peter?
Because i am unable to see any purpose otherwise/

It is a choice between nihilism or hedonism./
Michael Gordge
bye
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-12 23:17:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:06:15 +0100, Peter Watson
"Darwin on Trial is unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have
ever read. Professor Johnson combines a broad knowledge of biology with
the incisive logic of a leading legal scholar to deliver a brilliant and
devastating attack on the whole edifice of Darwinian belief. There is no
doubt that this book will prove a severe embarrassment to the Darwinian
establishment."
Dr. Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist
and author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
"Darwin on Trial shows just how Darwinian evolution has become an idol
of the contemporary tribe, and how deeply philosophical and religious
ideas enter into its status as part of the intellectual orthodoxy of our
day."
Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy
Notre Dame University
"Darwin on Trial is both an excellent and highly readable presentation
of the difficulties that Darwinians have yet to provide a convincing
answer to, and an eye-opening history of some of the recent attempts by
Darwinians to control the terms of the debate. I recommend it very
highly."
Peter van Inwagen, Professor of Philosophy
Syracuse University
"Phillip Johnson has done extremely well in making himself familiar with
evolutionary theory and biological ways of reasoning .... This book is
highly recommended as an introduction to the current controversy on
evolution."
Dr. Siegfried Scherer, Faculty of Biology
University of Konstanz, Germany
"Darwin on Trial is more than just a brilliant critique of the
neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. It is also an insightful analysis of
the strong philosophical bias for faith in evolution held by many of the
theory's leading advocates."
Dr. Walter Bradley, Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Texas A & M University
"In all the vast literature on Darwinism, evolution, creation, and
theism, one will likely not find a treatment so calm, comprehensive, and
compellingly persuasive as Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial. I
recommend it with enthusiasm."
Richard John Neuhaus, Editor, First Things
"Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the great intellectual
superstition of modern times. It does the soul good to see a Berkeley
professor attack it."
Tom Bethell, The Hoover Institution
Behe was enough to convince me that Darwinism is valuable but
inadequate to explain the origin and development of the species.
Nobel Laureate Sir James Crick believes the species were seeded by
extraterrestrials. I agree with him since it is the simplest
explanation of how intelligent design could come about.
Let's just hope that we aren't food for them.
Or as I have maintained we are the result of alien left overs from a
extra terrestrial picnic ;~) It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
mimus
2005-08-13 00:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Or as I have maintained we are the result of alien left overs from a
extra terrestrial picnic ;~) It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
Pratchett and Adams both?
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Anubis
2005-08-13 01:40:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:17:46 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
That would explain why there are so many leftist queers in Britain.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-13 08:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:17:46 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
That would explain why there are so many leftist queers in Britain.
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
AlanG
2005-08-13 11:50:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:20:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:17:46 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
That would explain why there are so many leftist queers in Britain.
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
Loading Image...
e***@gmail.com
2005-08-13 11:54:41 UTC
Permalink
It's a THEORY. Everything in science (even the poorly-named Gravity
Law) is only a theory..... to be expounded upon & enhanced as we
experiment & gain more knowledge.



The real question should be - Is there a better explanation for our
existence on earth? The answer presently is no.

troy
Anubis
2005-08-13 12:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
Post by Paul Hyett
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
http://www.nativetexan.com/images/Jack/2005/09/Pig425.jpg
One of Alan's Northumberland breed.
AlanG
2005-08-13 15:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by AlanG
Post by Paul Hyett
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
http://www.nativetexan.com/images/Jack/2005/09/Pig425.jpg
One of Alan's Northumberland breed.
Pure texan according to the site.
Got 12 nipples just for you
Anubis
2005-08-13 12:54:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:20:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
Anglo-Saxon and Germanic are the two most prevalent for Anglos.
Spanish and Indian are the most prevalent for Hispanics. Tree apes and
reptiles represent other minorities.

.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 00:25:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Science is not frequently wrong. If it were we could not make any
progress because each accomplishment based on previous science would
have to be declared wrong and people would have to start over.
If physics is "frequently wrong", then how did we place men on the
Moon with such precision? They could not have gotten there without
physics. So let's say that you are right and we discover that the
physics of that era is wrong. Does that mean those men landed on the
Moon by sheer luck. Asinine.
**Incorrect. The first Moon (and all subsequent) Moon landings were made
via
the extensive use of Newtonian physics. Einstein proved that Newtonian
physics is wrong. The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty
physics.
Now that IS bullshit.
Newtonian physics is NOT wrong.
**Sure it is.

It explains things within it's
limits.
**Correct.

When two cars collide, we can calculate the energy using
Newtonian physics, because it's every day.
**No, you cannot. If one (or both) of those cars happens to be travelling at
a substantial fraction of the velocity of light, then Newtonian physics is
out the window.

You can also calculate the
energy by using the much more accurate (but unnecessary in this case)
Einstein physics.
**Depends on the velocities.
You are willfully ignorant.
**Nope. Just pedantically accurate. Anubis made a stupid comment. I was just
demonstrating that he was wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 01:05:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:25:10 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Science is not frequently wrong. If it were we could not make any
progress because each accomplishment based on previous science would
have to be declared wrong and people would have to start over.
If physics is "frequently wrong", then how did we place men on the
Moon with such precision? They could not have gotten there without
physics. So let's say that you are right and we discover that the
physics of that era is wrong. Does that mean those men landed on the
Moon by sheer luck. Asinine.
**Incorrect. The first Moon (and all subsequent) Moon landings were made
via
the extensive use of Newtonian physics. Einstein proved that Newtonian
physics is wrong. The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty
physics.
Now that IS bullshit.
Newtonian physics is NOT wrong.
**Sure it is.
It explains things within it's
limits.
**Correct.
When two cars collide, we can calculate the energy using
Newtonian physics, because it's every day.
**No, you cannot. If one (or both) of those cars happens to be travelling at
a substantial fraction of the velocity of light, then Newtonian physics is
out the window.
Which is why you are an idiot. Cars don't travel at relativistic
velocities. Newton still applies within the limits.
Post by Trevor Wilson
You can also calculate the
energy by using the much more accurate (but unnecessary in this case)
Einstein physics.
**Depends on the velocities.
You are willfully ignorant.
**Nope. Just pedantically accurate.
Nope. Within measurable limits, Newton is not wrong, moron.

Learn physics before you post something as stupid as "newton is wrong"
again.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Anubis made a stupid comment. I was just
demonstrating that he was wrong.
--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 07:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally Anglesea™
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:25:10 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Science is not frequently wrong. If it were we could not make any
progress because each accomplishment based on previous science would
have to be declared wrong and people would have to start over.
If physics is "frequently wrong", then how did we place men on the
Moon with such precision? They could not have gotten there without
physics. So let's say that you are right and we discover that the
physics of that era is wrong. Does that mean those men landed on the
Moon by sheer luck. Asinine.
**Incorrect. The first Moon (and all subsequent) Moon landings were made
via
the extensive use of Newtonian physics. Einstein proved that Newtonian
physics is wrong. The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty
physics.
Now that IS bullshit.
Newtonian physics is NOT wrong.
**Sure it is.
It explains things within it's
limits.
**Correct.
When two cars collide, we can calculate the energy using
Newtonian physics, because it's every day.
**No, you cannot. If one (or both) of those cars happens to be travelling at
a substantial fraction of the velocity of light, then Newtonian physics is
out the window.
Which is why you are an idiot. Cars don't travel at relativistic
velocities.
**There is no reason to assume that an automobile could not travel a such
velocities. Given an adequate power source and absence of frictional losses.
I will certainly acknowledge that it would be impossible for a vehicle
powered by an internal combustion engine, travelling within the Earth's
atmosphere, to approach relativistic velocities. However, it is not
impossible, under appropriate circumstances, just very, very unlikely.

Newton still applies within the limits.
Post by Wally Anglesea™
Post by Trevor Wilson
You can also calculate the
energy by using the much more accurate (but unnecessary in this case)
Einstein physics.
**Depends on the velocities.
You are willfully ignorant.
**Nope. Just pedantically accurate.
Nope. Within measurable limits, Newton is not wrong, moron.
Learn physics before you post something as stupid as "newton is wrong"
again.
**I know enough physics to realise that Newtonian physics are wrong. They're
adequately accurate, for most circumstances, but they're not correct. Only
an approximation of correct. And certainly adequate for NASA to get men to
the Moon, despite those provable, measurable inaccuracies.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Anubis
2005-08-13 01:38:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong. It is limited. Relativity extends it.
The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty physics.
LOL

You are a very funny troll.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 03:45:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong.
**Yes, it is. Provably, measurably wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 05:59:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:45:32 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong.
**Yes, it is. Provably, measurably wrong.
You actually don't understand physics, do you?

Care to come into the sci.physics newsgroups, and tell us all why
Newton is wrong?

--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 06:20:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:59:25 +1000, Wally Anglesea™
Post by Wally Anglesea™
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:45:32 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong.
**Yes, it is. Provably, measurably wrong.
You actually don't understand physics, do you?
Care to come into the sci.physics newsgroups, and tell us all why
Newton is wrong?
BTW, I have no idea why I'm arguing with you :-)
--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Mitchell Jones
2005-08-13 15:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Regarding the thread title, the answer is all three.

"Evolution" refers to a natural language description of a visualizable
causal process (that organisms with some traits are more likely to
reproduce than are organisms with other traits) and thus is a theory.

"Evolution" has been demonstrated via logic and, in addition, massively
empirically confirmed; hence it is a fact.

"Evolution" is a valid principle of broad and fundamental importance in
a scientific discipline (i.e., biology) and hence is a law.

Enough said.

--Mitchell Jones
Mike
2005-08-13 19:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Jones
Regarding the thread title, the answer is all three.
"Evolution" refers to a natural language description of a visualizable
causal process (that organisms with some traits are more likely to
reproduce than are organisms with other traits) and thus is a theory.
"Evolution" has been demonstrated via logic and, in addition, massively
empirically confirmed; hence it is a fact.
"Evolution" is a valid principle of broad and fundamental importance in
a scientific discipline (i.e., biology) and hence is a law.
Enough said.
--Mitchell Jones
And well said. Natural selection has broad applicability as a problem
solving methodology. See for instance:

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol1/hmw/article1.html

Here is a hypothesis for your consideration. "Intelligent Design" is
being pushed by many not as science but as part of a cultural war. The
two sides in this conflict are those who believe that "Man is the
measure of all things" vs. those who believe that "God is the measure
of all things".

This cultural war has broad implications. If man [as in man and women]
is the final measure than right and wrong is what man, and by extension
what governments, decide they are. "Natural rights" do not exist.
There are no constraints on behavior since right is what Man decides.
This position can best be summed up as "freedom from religion".

If God is the final measure of all things than there are inherent
constraints on Man's behavior. Rights are not what governments decide
but rather flow from a Creator. This is the sentiment expressed in the
United State's Declaration of Independence.

Both sides are using science as a weapon. Evolution is being used by
some to justify a cultural position that minimizes the role of a God in
the universe. The other side is simply hitting back with Intelligent
Design.

I personally wish that both sides would agree to leave science out of
it.

--Mike Jr.

Pakuranga Observer
2005-08-13 02:34:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:06:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Free will comes from quantum mechanics which decribes unknowable
aspects of physical processes. That actually leads to a better
Universe.
"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong,
then you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of
grit will cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are
utterly random, nothing can make them more disordered. Complete
randomness at the heart of things is the most stable situation
imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels
Would you rather be a drone?
Evolution is a farce.
Anubis
2005-08-13 06:37:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:34:33 +1200, Pakuranga Observer
Post by Pakuranga Observer
Evolution is a farce.
Not that bad. It does explain some phenomena. It's problem is that it
is insufficient to explain all the phenomena. It take a lot of
pontification, bluster and junk science to rationalize its
inadequacies.

The reason anyone even bothers defending it is because it is part of
the atheist agenda. To a man, zealous proponents of Darwinism are
atheists.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-13 12:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:34:33 +1200, Pakuranga Observer
Post by Pakuranga Observer
Evolution is a farce.
Not that bad. It does explain some phenomena. It's problem is that it
is insufficient to explain all the phenomena. It take a lot of
pontification, bluster and junk science to rationalize its
inadequacies.
The reason anyone even bothers defending it is because it is part of
the atheist agenda. To a man, zealous proponents of Darwinism are
atheists.
Idiot, there is not nor ever has been a "atheist agenda", "atheist
movement" or "Atheist conspiracy". There is however a long history of
religious nutbars conducting witch hunts for anyone they can blame for
the failure of their own twisted right wing policies.
Anubis
2005-08-13 14:26:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:08:08 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Idiot,
You are the idiot around here.
Post by Ford Prefect
there is not nor ever has been a "atheist agenda"
Yes there is an atheist agenda. It is the same as the leftist queer
agenda. The main goal is to extend the reach of the godless
collectivist state so everyone is enslaved.

Religion teaches the opposite, that man is a sacred individual in the
eyes of God and not a worthless drone of the perverted state. That's
why atheists have to promote junk science like Darwinism.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-13 15:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:08:08 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Idiot,
You are the idiot around here.
Post by Ford Prefect
there is not nor ever has been a "atheist agenda"
Yes there is an atheist agenda. It is the same as the leftist queer
agenda. The main goal is to extend the reach of the godless
collectivist state so everyone is enslaved.
Religion teaches the opposite, that man is a sacred individual in the
eyes of God and not a worthless drone of the perverted state. That's
why atheists have to promote junk science like Darwinism.
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition. The only ones with an
agenda are the religious fundamentalists whose whole organization is
bent on attacking anyone who does not agree with their dogma.
Anubis
2005-08-13 17:05:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:28:10 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition.
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-13 17:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:28:10 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition.
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
Bullshit, get yourself a dictionary and use it. Atheists do not believe
any god exists, period. Mysticism is the belief that direct knowledge of
God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through
subjective experience (as intuition or insight).
mimus
2005-08-13 18:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:28:10 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition.
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
Bullshit, get yourself a dictionary and use it. Atheists do not believe
any god exists, period. Mysticism is the belief that direct knowledge of
God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through
subjective experience (as intuition or insight).
Yer tryin' to reason with someone who believes that metaphysics is science
. . . .
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Anubis
2005-08-13 18:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Yer tryin' to reason with someone who believes that metaphysics is science
That's because metaphysics is a science. It is not physical science,
but then if you were educated in the liberal arts you would know that
not every science is a physical science.
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-13 07:33:07 UTC
Permalink
He cannot violate the law of contradiction.
Oh so your god can tie a not that he cant untie? (I can) But dont you
mystics reckon your god to do any and everything?


Michael Gordge
Anubis
2005-08-13 12:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
He cannot violate the law of contradiction.
Oh so your god can tie a not that he cant untie? (I can) But dont you
mystics reckon your god to do any and everything?
God cannot be required to do something that results in a
contradiction. That's because what is being required does not exist in
objective reality.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 07:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Evolution is a physical force. It is provable through scientific
experimentation. It can be seen in the breeding of dogs and horses.
It can be seen in the ability of viruses to become resistant to
anti-biotics. There are a million billion pieces of evidence to
support evolution as a physical force.
Micro or macro? There is a big difference. You are only speaking of
adaptation.
Whether "evolution" is totally responsible for the existence of life,
however, is much more complex. But evolution is still the likeliest
explanation. There are millions of pieces of fossil to support it.
There are almost none. The fossil record is not going to help argue the
theory of macro evolution.
Why the Missing Link Is Still Missing
The missing link - The fossil record vs.
the Charles Darwin theory of evolution
**Whoops. Old Charlie biy has fucked up in the title. Charles Darwin did not
propose the "theory of evolution". Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of
Species. His theory was that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which
Evolution operated. Of course, old Charlie (Colson) would not want to let
some actual FACTS get into his little piece of fiction, would he?
by Charles Colson
Email article to a friend
A store specializing in vintage political paraphernalia displays a
campaign button that reads, "Ronald Reagan is the missing link." It's a
joke that scientists can appreciate, because a century and a half after
Darwin, the missing links in the fossil record are still...missing. The
missing link is the big hole in Darwinism.
**Nope.
And a book by biologist Jeffrey Schwartz recommends ditching Darwin
altogether, and looking for a new explanation of how life developed.
The standard Darwinian theory is that new species arise by the gradual
accumulation of tiny mutations.
**Nope. That is ONE possible explanation. There are others.

The theory predicts that the fossil
record will reveal hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils linking
each species to the next one.
**Nope. Fossils form only under the most extraordinary circumstances.
But the fossil record shows no such thing. Instead, new species appear
suddenly--virtually overnight. As Schwartz puts it, fins turn into legs
suddenly, without a trail of intermediate forms. Similarly, he says, "You
don't see gradual evolution of feathers. You either have feathers or you
don't."
**You don't see a gradual evolution of feathers, for several reasons:
* Feathers do not survive fossilisation.
* Fossils are rare.
Even eyes appear out of nowhere. The Darwinian idea "that an eye evolves
slowly over countless generations through painstaking accumulations of
tiny mutations--that's wrong," Schwartz says.
**Points:
* I don't believe that Darwin ever said such a thing.
* Rudimentary light sensitive organs are found on many animals.
* Animals which live underground often don't have eyes.
No wonder he entitles his book Sudden Origins. And no wonder he's in hot
water in the scientific community.
**Huh? Hot water? With whom?

Ever since Darwin, many biologists
have clung to the hope that the gaps in the fossil record would eventually
be filled in, the missing links discovered. But Schwartz is saying that
the gaps will never be filled in--because the missing links never existed.
He urges biologists to start searching for a new theory to explain the
sudden origins of organic structures.
**Biologists are ALWAYS searching for ways to explain evolution. That is the
nature of science. To question. It is the nature of fundies to accept abject
nonsense, from people who seek to exploit their stupidity.
Schwartz himself thinks that he has found such a theory based on the
action of so-called "homeobox" genes--regulatory genes that switch on and
off during the development of embryos. The theory is that even a small
mutation in a homeobox gene at early stages of development would lead to
major changes later on, as the organism grows.
But most biologists find Schwartz's theory implausible. "It seems a pretty
wild hypothesis," says biologist William McGinnis. Mutations in the
homeobox genes do result in drastically different forms within a species,
McGinnis says, but most often these animals die or are very sick.
You see, to originate a new species by mutations would require a huge
number of coordinated changes all at once.
**No, it would not.

A fish that suddenly develops
lungs, for example, had better develop legs at the same time or it will
simply drown.
**Are you familiar with Axolotls, or lungfish?

A giraffe that develops a long neck must at the same time
develop a specialized heart to pump blood up its long neck.
**Actually, the giraffe has specialised valves, to control blood flow
through its neck. More importantly, however, is that a giraffe has EXACTLY
the same number of vertebrae as a human. We are related species.
But in Schwartz's naturalistic theory, there's no directing force to
coordinate all those changes, so the new forms of life would go
nowhere--except to a graveyard.
Schwartz does do us a favor by pointing out the failure of Darwinism, but
his substitute theory of evolution is no better. Living things exhibit
levels of engineering and design that scientists are only beginning to
grasp--which logically suggests that they are the creation of a great
Engineer, a Divine Designer.
**Nonsense. Living things are not evidence of a "Divne Designer". Living
things are evidence of the power of the DNA molecule.
The theory that best fits the facts is one that starts with an intelligent
cause behind the wonderful complexity of living things
**Nope. The theory that best fits, is the one which looks at all the
available data.
On the other hand, "creationism" or "intelligent design" has virtually
no evidence whatsoever to support it.
That is simply untrue.
**An opinion you are entitled to.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/design.htm
more there than you could deal with in a lifetime
The only "evidence" is a bible
story, which may have even been a metaphor.
Not true
**Yes, true. None of the people who wrote the Bible had any scientific
training.
My personal belief is that God was created by evolution.
Who made you then?
**I can't speak for the other respondent, but my parents made me. If you
know of another system, let us know.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Paul Hyett
2005-08-13 08:17:30 UTC
Permalink
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Hey, back up - if you'd bothered to read beyond the first sentence,
you'd have found he was actually *supporting* science!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
e***@gmail.com
2005-08-13 11:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
It's a THEORY. Everything in science (even the poorly-named Gravity
Law) is only a theory..... to be expounded upon & enhanced as we
experiment & gain more knowledge.



The real question should be - Is there a better explanation for our
existence on earth? The answer presently is no.

troy
Anubis
2005-08-13 12:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@gmail.com
The real question should be - Is there a better explanation for our
existence on earth? The answer presently is no.
The question is whether it is an adequate explanation. The answer is
no. Evolution is an insufficient theory.
1Z
2005-08-13 15:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Not possible. If you accept the Principle of Causality,
Although there is no reason why you should. It is neither a observed
nor a logical truth.
LOL
Things just happen, do they? All those predictions of physics were
just random happenings, are they?
Learn some physics before you make a complete idiot of yourself.
Where there is evidence for causality, ie prediction, then it is an
observed fact. There is no "law" to the effect that causality must
exist even in the absence of evidence. What we learn from physics,
when we learn physics, is that some events do not occur
deterministically.
1Z
2005-08-13 15:20:28 UTC
Permalink
P.S.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/Determinism.pdf
Anubis
2005-08-13 16:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1Z
P.S.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/Determinism.pdf
All quite interesting, in particular the distinction between ontology
and epistemology, something ET Jaynes emphasized.

I can recommend Greg Chaitin's take on all this although I do not
agree with his equating ontological with epistemological. But then
Greg is a mathematician, and we know they do not understand physics
the same as a physicist.

I remind you that before you can engage in meaningful discussions of
metaphysics, you must declare the Worldview you have adopted that
forms the axiomatic foundation for your rational system of argument.
The two most important Worldviews are Realism (Aristotle) and Idealism
(Plato). They are incompatible. For example, Realism demands
consistency whereas Idealism does not. Realism demands causality
whereas Idealism does not. Realism demands objective existence whereas
Idealism is purely subjective.

If you do not have a clear understanding of the Worldview in advance
of a discussion, you and your correspondent will wander aimlessly.

Physics demands the Worldview of Realism. Causality of one of the
major tenets of Realism. There is no way the external world can behave
in an ordered manner without causality. Of course, the subjective
world based on the Worldview of Idealism can display order without
causality. But that world is not the same as the objective world of
physics.
mimus
2005-08-13 16:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Physics demands the Worldview of Realism. Causality of one of the
major tenets of Realism. There is no way the external world can behave
in an ordered manner without causality.
Better to say that there could be no world at all without order, and
causation-- regular and specific spatiotemporal successions of phenomena--
is one kind of order in the world.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Anubis
2005-08-13 17:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Better to say that there could be no world at all without order, and
causation-- regular and specific spatiotemporal successions of phenomena--
is one kind of order in the world.
Is there any other kind of order?

Without causality, there is no mechanism for anything to happen.

More importantly, without causality nothing could exist.
mimus
2005-08-13 18:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Better to say that there could be no world at all without order, and
causation-- regular and specific spatiotemporal successions of phenomena--
is one kind of order in the world.
Is there any other kind of order?
Well . . . yes . . . take a look at my standard "Organization" header . . .
.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...