Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
We live in a world closer to type:
#1 23%
#2 5%
in between 11%
don't know 58%

Votes: 17

 Some major flaws in Evolutionary Theory

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Nov 13, 2001
 Comments:
One of my hobbies is finding flaws in stuff-- machines, bureacracies, music records, theories hailed as great achievements of mankind, you name it. The more respected the object examined and the bigger and more numerous the flaws, the more the fun.

Evolutionary theory has been rightly hailed as having brought about a revolution both in science and philosophy. Still, as currently practiced, it has some fairly serious flaws. Accompany me and we shall uncover some.

[editor's note, by em] We are testing a new feature for Adequacy.org stories: the Adequacy.org Keyword-Triggered Informational Value Electronic Resource Evaluator and Linker, AKTIVEREL. We welcome comments on the quality and relevance of the generated hyperlinks.

animals

More stories about Animals
Pet Ownership - Killing Through Kindness
Obesity and the Jennifer Lopez Message
What are Ruminants Fed (and what is a ruminant anyways)
Don't Go In The Water
Urban Scavengers
Animals: Food for Thought

More stories by
em

Yumi bai spikim Tok Pisin nau!
The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Garlic
The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Capsaicin
German, the language of the Nazis
Women responsible for society's ills
Chile to bomb the U.S.A.
Review: Fred Fortin, 'Le Plancher des Vaches'
The Adequacy.org Guide to Airplane Hijacking in the Post-WTC Era
Hijacked plane crash destroys Canary Wharf; Shocked Americans ask, `What's Canary Wharf?'
Review: Willie Col?n, `Lo Mato'
Starving Afghanis Flock to Bombing Targets for Free Food
Genetic Warfare and Matrilineal Cultures
Classic rerelases: Caf? Tacuba, Les Cowboys Fringants
The sky: a revisionist examination
The Adequacy.org Guide to the Cuisines of the World: Poutine
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, terrorism, and decolonisation
An instance of Western cultural chauvinism
On criminal language and the word `hacker'
On why Pearl is not like natural language (Part I)
World Music Review: Ozomatli, `Embrace the Chaos'
I must clarify my position before I start. This is will not be yet another creationist argument. My essay will not push any alternative theory as to why the universe is the way it is. I will merely point out problems, and grave ones.

One of the reactions I expect will come up can roughly be stated as follows: "Hey, the theory is not perfect, but it is scientific, and it's the best we have!" To which my answer, let it be known beforehand, is the following:

If Evolutionary Theory truly is the best theory we have to explain the diversity of species, then it can only mean that all our theories suck.
With this out of the way, let's dive into the suckiness.

Is Natural Selection a tautology?

The short answer is: it depends on what you take the relationship between mathematical and logical truth to be. Of course, this only reveals that the question is the wrong one to ask. The correct question is rather the following: is Natural Selection an empirical theory? And the answer is a clear and resounding no.

Of coruse, defenders of evolutionary theory, by presenting a refutation of a couple of weak arguments that Natural Selection is a tautology, leaves its readers thinking that the principle has some actual empirical content. But this is plainly false, as follows from their own argument.

Let's quote their own words:

The current understanding of fitness is dispositional. That is to say, fitness is a disposition of a trait to reproduce better than competitors. It is not deterministic. If two twins are identical genetically, and therefore are equally fit, there is no guarantee that they will both survive to have equal numbers of offspring. Fitness is a statistical property. What 'owns' the fitness isn't the organism, but the genes. They will tend to be more often transmitted so far as what they deliver is better 'engineered' to the needs of the organisms in the environment in which they live.
The mathematical model being invoked implicitly here is a generational model, where each gene is marked with a fitness value, and this value determines its expected number of sucessors in the following generation. Within such a model, it logically follows from the laws of probability that the genes with the higher tendency towards leaving offspring will command a higher share of the total population in each successive generation. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever empirical in this argument-- it is a purely mathematical proof. Natural Selection is mathematically true. Thus, it is impossible to present empirical evidence against it, and this disqualifies it as a scientific theory.

Please note what this argument is not. It is not an argument that specific hypotheses about how a species evolved are unfalsifiable. Such arguments invoke contingent hypotheses or facts in addition to Natural Selection, and thus are subject to refutation. For example, the famous early peppered moth experiments fall clearly within the range of empirical science. But, contrary to what is claimed, they never provided any sort of empirical support to Natural Selection nor did the principle run the risk of being refuted if the experiment failed. Had the experiment failed, the theorists would have had to reject some assumption(s), but rejecting Natural Selection is tantamount ro rejecting the laws of probability and statistics themselves!

Can Natural Selection really change organisms as extensively as claimed?

A very common complaint of the skeptic against Evolutionary Theory, and in particular to the very peculiar claim that all life is derived from a common ancestor, is to question the possibility that Natural Selection can actually produce all the change in populations over time that the theory would require to account for the current diversity in organisms. In layperson terms, can Natural Selection really take some claimed ancient lizards, and through a series of mutations that inflict gradual changes on its offspring, through an extended period of time, turn the lizards into dinosaurs, birds, and human beings, and all through the process, keep the intermediate forms well adapted to their environments?

This has to do with the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. One can accept the first without having to accept the second. Indeed, the first one is supported by facts quite extensively and convincingly; even creation scientists accept it. But can we question macroevolution?

A typical evolutionist answer is to laugh away the question by claiming that the person asking it "does not grasp the enormity of the time scale involved", or by subtler arguments:

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.
I'm sorry, but this is clearly among the worst arguments ever made in support of anything. Instead of answering the challenge with an actual model of how gradual microevolutinary change can result in macroevolutionary change, not only do the evolutionists decline responsibility for doing so, but to top it off place the responsibility of showing that their unsupported process can't happen on the people who point out that it's unsupported!

This is simply ridiculous. If you want people to believe you that X happens, you actually have to offer evidence that it does happen. You can't claim that unless the skeptics can prove that it doesn't happen, then it happens. It is intellectually dishonest, and logically inconsistent.

Sure, the talk.origins crowd has put forward more detailed arguments about why you should believe in macroevolution. But don't bother reading that document just yet. Not until you read my next section, which outlines the fallacy underlying all evolutionary reasoning, and will enable you to refute it point-by-point yourself.

Do greater than chance similarities prove common origin?

One of the classic arguments in favor of the evolutionist claim that all species have a common origin is that species show all sorts of similarities which can't be due to chance. Indeed, the enormous mass of odd similarities that he found in his studies of nature around the world is what convinced Darwin of the common origin of all species, and he didn't know half of the similarities that we know today. Thus, the standard evolutionist argument is: If all those species are much more similar than mere chance would allow, then they must be related.

However, a greater than chance similarity between organisms only proves precisely that: greater than chance similarity between organisms. There exist other possible non-evolutionist explanations for the same facts, the most popular of which is that species were designed by some kind of ultra-powerful being. However, we don't need to go to such extremes to put the argument under stress.

An aside: Historical Linguistics

Let's start out by discussing a different but methodologically related field: Historical Linguistics. This is the original branch of modern linguistics; it started with the discovery in the late 18th century of systematic (way greater than chance) sound-meaning correspondences between the vocabularies of Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. This led to the theory that the three languages are descended from a common ancestor language, Proto-Indoeuropean. As the topic was explored during the 19th century, more and more languages were shown to belong to the family, additional families were discovered, and a powerful method arose for proving such relations: the Comparative Method.

If you strip away the linguistic details, the comparative method looks suspiciously alike to the methods of evolutionary biology. This is no surprise, since Darwin actually was inspired and influenced by the methods of Historical Linguistics, and mentions their methods and findings as an important analogy to his theory.

But there is a question that remains unasked here: how do linguists actually know that the systematic correspondences observed in the relevant languages are actually due to common descent, and not due to some other reason? For example, could it just not be the case that the correspondences are due to some undiscovered natural relationship between certain sounds and meanings?

The answer to this is three-fold:

  1. We actually have records of one language diverging over time and geography, with several distinct languages as a result. We have ample documentation of this happening in Latin, to give only one example.
  2. Linguists ahdere to a theoretical principle called the abritrariness of the linguistic sign, due to Ferdinand de Saussure, which states that the relationship between sound and meaning is arbitrary.
  3. More crucially, we have thousands of languages for which one can't show common descent. We even know about at least one language that is not related to any other, Nicaraguan Sign Language

This last point is very important. Having languages that are very different from the languages of one family shows indeed that the similarities in the related languages can't be due to chance. If we had no languages that differed wildly from the Indoeuropean ones, we would have no empirical basis for the arbitrariness principle. The fact that such languages actually outnumber the Indoeuropean languages boosts the likeliness of the common descent explanation.

What does this mean for Evolutionary Theory?

So here comes the point: evolutionary biology has nothing corresponding to the three factors just mentioned:

  1. The fossil record is famously incomplete.
  2. Biologists have not explicitly formulated a theoretical principle that states that the relationship between phenotypes and genotypes is arbitrary enough for historical explanation to be the preferred option. For all we know, this relationship could be tighter than appreciated due to some undiscovered natural law (the hypothetical biological analogue to the rejected linguistic hypothesis of "Iconiciy", which states that sound and meaning stand in a natural rather than arbitrary relation), and the genotypic similarity of organisms with similar phenotypes is explained by this law, not common descent.
  3. Biologists, by insisiting that all species are related, can't bolster their arguments about relatedness by pointing to unrelated species, like linguists can do with languages.
The argument is essentially a challenge based on probability theory: evolutionists claim that the probability of what we observe is much greater than chance in order to support their theory. But there is something which is left implicit, unaddressed, yet is crucial to such an argument: to be able to assess the probability of a particular outcome in some event, you need to know what is the set of possible outcomes. Yet evolutionists make their arguments without examining the structure of possibilities within which their argument should be framed. But, just as you need to know how many sides a die has in order to know how likely one particular number is to be rolled, you need to know the structure of possible heredity/phenotype pairings in order to claim that a certain pattern is unlikely to arise by chance.

Let's do a thought experiment to clarify this further. First, we shall conceptualize the range of heredity (genotype), environment and phenotype as multi- or infinite-dimensional spaces, in which each dimension represents some variable among which genotypes, developmental environments or organism traits can in principle differ. This gives us a measure of "distance" for each of these domains.

Now, we consider the range of possible mappings from genotype-environment pairs to phenotypes. Now, there are two relevant poles towards which such mappings can tend:

  1. A mapping could be such that for each phenotype we may find wildly differing genotype-environment pairs which map to the same phenotype.
  2. On the other hand, a mapping could be such that only a very restricted set of proximate genotype-environment pairs could code for a given phenotype.

Each of these mappings gives an undelying structure of possibilities within which the question of whether correspondences between organisms are due to common heredity can be posed. But the answer in each case is different:

  1. If the structure of possibilities is indeed like #1 (as it is demonstrably the case for natural languages), then the most likely explanation is common origin. For if you were to take two very similar organisms at random, then the mapping gives you relatively little information about what genotype and enviroment could have produced it-- very different combinations of these could have produced each of the two organisms.
  2. On the other hand, if the structure is more like #2, then the historical argument is weakened, and the most likely cause is just eternal laws of nature. Phenotypes are highly informative about genotype and environment, and indeed, to the degree where you can actually explain genetic similarity on terms of phenotypic similarity.
Which underlying structure of possibilities does our world resemble the most, #1 or #2? We don't know. This is a question the evolutionists simply don't talk about; they just assume #1. But then, the crucial problem is that to assume #1 almost amounts to assuming that common descent is the right explanation for similarities between species, which is the "conclusion" they claim to be supporting! It is not a tautology, however, since the whole argument is probabilistic; first of all, #1 and #2 are not discrete possibilities, but rather extremes in a scale; second, both explanations are available in each kind of world, it's just their relative plausibility that shifts. Still, the assumption biases the whole research project in favor of their preferred answer.

Another linguistic diversion

Recently, but still after I developed the argument I just presented, I became aware of the dissertation work of the linguist Brett Kessler on Estimating the Probability of Historical Connections Between Languages (published by CSLI Publications under the title The Significance of Word Lists), which, as it turns out, deploys an argument similar in spirit to mine, but in the field of Historical Linguistics. Kessler argues that historical linguists have no mathematical methods for estimating the chances of similarities between word lists for languages, which leads to controversies: what one linguist will take to be uncontrovertible evidence of a relationship, another will dismiss as resulting out of mere chance. Kessler investigates methods of actually making such calculations. This, of course, requires making mathematically explicit what the evolutionists don't: you have to make explicit assumptions about what the range of forms and meanings is, how likely one form or meaning is to mutate into a different one, and so on. In other words, you have to make the structure of possibilities explicit; only then can you make any sort of calculation about how likely a relationship is.

Biologists would do well to pick up an introduction to Historical Linguistics or two. After all, that's where the evolutionist's methods came from.

Conclusion

Clearly we are before yet another instance of the post-Enlightentment scientistic ideology, intent on the rape of nature for profit, and used to support some of the worlds most disgusting politics.

Behind all these unfounded theories of blind watchmakers is simply a refusal to acknowledge that the range of our knowledge is limited. There are plenty of things we will simply never know about our world. How life arose (if it ever did, of course; it could have been around forever for all we know) and why it is so diverse and similar is simply one of them.

But the scientists, in their drive to "understand", control, and bend nature to their will, will have none of that. And since science is performed by those in power, it will be used to maintain the status quo, building flimsy story upon flimsy story upon flimsy story to keep the people down.


Holy Shit (2.50 / 2) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 11:13:07 AM PST
is this LONG!

How on earth do you expect me to have the attention span to read something that is a) this long and b) has so many big words in it?




We don't (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by dmg on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 11:33:50 AM PST
How on earth do you expect me to have the attention span to read something that is a) this long and b) has so many big words in it?

If you have ADD then adequacy is not for you. Adequacy aims to discuss controversial ideas of the day, in an in-depth and intelligent fashion. This means some articles may not be chopped into the convenient bite-sized pieces that you are used to from your MTV Gen-X no-attention-span conventional media.

If you cannot cope with the intellectual demands of the site, you owe it to yourself to go elsewhere. The average US college student has a seven-second attention span. Suffice it to say that we at adequacy are somewhat on a higher plane that the average US college student.



time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

hey dmg (none / 0) (#32)
by Husaria on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 07:44:13 PM PST
I take insult to that (is a cs major at UB taking Evolutionary Bio)
Maybe I should print this and bring to to bio tomorrow
Sig sigger

Would you, please? (none / 0) (#38)
by nathan on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 08:59:19 PM PST
Pretty, pretty please?

*pant pant*

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
*yawn* (3.00 / 1) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 07:53:06 PM PST
Right, I have ADD and I had no problem getting through this peice of drivel. I'd hardly call it intellectually challenging.

This is a well-trodden argument that's not really all that interesting. First paragraph:
"Natural Selection is mathematically true. Thus, it is impossible to present empirical evidence against it, and this disqualifies it as a scientific theory."

Special and General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum Mechanics are all also mathematically true, and weren't derived from direct observation. Rather, they were mathematically derived, and found to be *consistent* with reality. Similarly, natural selection plus mutations is a mathematical model that has been shown *consistent* with reality. To deny that the mathematical model can have empirical validation is to deny the entirety of modern science.

Similarly, the premises of the second section are flawed, "In layperson terms, can Natural Selection really take some claimed ancient lizards, and through a series of mutations that inflict gradual changes on its offspring, through an extended period of time, turn the lizards into dinosaurs, birds, and human beings, and all through the process, keep the intermediate forms well adapted to their environments?"

You presume that evolution is *required* to produce such a things. There may have been any number of paths through the fitness landscape. Look at any number of genetic and evolutionary algorithms in computer science. Given different runs, you can produce many solutions, but no one solution *must* be produced. You presume that the current state of the planet is the only possibility, which is quite fallacious. Mr em's attempts to force a divergence between micro and macro evolution are an excercise in diversion, somewhat remnescent of arguing "Sure we observe small change in pictures, but that doesn't prove that a long series of pictures produce the appearance of motion". Similarly, very minor phenological changes treated as "frames" would produce *some* appearance of motion over time, even if you don't accept that it can produce new species. It just so happens that when we look at the "frames" of the evolutionary movie that we do have, we see species changing into new species.

Mr em's third section emphasizes chance in evolution. Indeed, statistical analysis and cladestic play a large role in producing a tree of life, and that tree does change over time. I do not see this as significant as Mr em believes. As he alludes, there is the possibility of creator being. However, this falls to the very argument he is making, that there is no *empirical* evidence to support such a hypothetical, and that any investigation into the mechanics of such a creation rely on the very statistical techniques that he is criticizing.

Mr em then finishes his shining example of Popular Science level understanding of biology by continuing on the probability argument, with such bizarre assertions such as "Biologists, by insisiting that all species are related, can't bolster their arguments about relatedness by pointing to unrelated species, like linguists can do with languages." However, ask any biologist what a potential falsifier for natural selection + mutation would be, and most will tell you a) find a rabbit in a Cambrian fossil bed, or b) find species that *don't* share a genetic heritage.

"Biologists would do well to pick up an introduction to Historical Linguistics or two. After all, that's where the evolutionist's methods came from."

Mr em would do well to do some study into population genetics and molecular biology, which would not exist without an evolutionary context to interpret them. He bemoans the lack of an objective mathematical context, while accusing evolution of being mathematical only; establishes a flawed analogy to linguistics and a false dichotomy of the relationship between genotype and phenotype; and presents nothing but contrived thought-experiments and extraneous links while not once addressing the *facts* that support evolution, preferring to keep to the shadows of the philosophy of science.

That's the meat of his argument, the "philosophy of science". I once read a very apropos description of "philosophers of science". They are the janitors of the workshop, cleaning up the dust after the real work is done. They might suggest that the workers do their task differently to make the mess smaller, but they're biased torwards cleanliness rather than results, and should be given due respect in getting useful results.

Let me invite anyone who wants to have their questions answered to post on the message board at www.infidels.org. There are plenty of biologists and others well versed in evolution for you to educate and correct. Or, if you'd prefer to argue philosophy, there is a rather good philosophy forum there as well.


Nialscorva


sir.. (none / 0) (#35)
by Husaria on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 08:15:22 PM PST
ADD does not exist, it is just a farce for poor disciplined people
Sig sigger

 
you miss the point, repeatedly. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by em on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 08:37:19 PM PST
Special and General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum Mechanics are all also mathematically true

Please derive the theories from the axioms of real analysis, then. Thousands of people will be impressed.

Rather, they were mathematically derived, and found to be *consistent* with reality. Similarly, natural selection plus mutations is a mathematical model that has been shown *consistent* with reality. To deny that the mathematical model can have empirical validation is to deny the entirety of modern science.

You seem not to understand what "mathematically true" means.

Natural Selection is "consistent" with reality because it *logically follows* from the underlying mathematics (probability theory). The other theories you mention were induced from facts, and do not follow from mathematical premises alone.

There may have been any number of paths through the fitness landscape. Look at any number of genetic and evolutionary algorithms in computer science. Given different runs, you can produce many solutions, but no one solution *must* be produced. You presume that the current state of the planet is the only possibility, which is quite fallacious.

Strawman. The argument is not that one evolutionary path must be taken and not other possible ones, but rather that it has not been established that there really can be an evolutionary path for the kind of change that has been claimed.

Mr em's attempts to force a divergence between micro and macro evolution are an excercise in diversion, somewhat remnescent of arguing "Sure we observe small change in pictures, but that doesn't prove that a long series of pictures produce the appearance of motion".

With a film, you can observe *all* the stages. Any contiguos sequence of frames which produces the appearance of motion proves the point.

Same applies to evolutionary stages. The problem is that, simply, nobody has "frames" spaced closely enough to produce the appearance of motion in anybody, save for those that want to believe in it in the first place.

However, ask any biologist what a potential falsifier for natural selection + mutation would be, and most will tell you a) find a rabbit in a Cambrian fossil bed, or b) find species that *don't* share a genetic heritage.

No, those would not falsify natural selection + mutation. They would falsify specific claims about how life evolved on Earth, namely (a) the claim that rabbits (and thus, mammals) didn't exist in the Cambrian period, and (b) monogenesis.

Daniel Dennett once said that if evolutionists were presented with proof that the current variety of species could have evolved on Earth in the conditions given, they could always retreat to the claim that life came to Earth from space. This, of course, goes back to Kuhn's incomparability of scientific paradigms idea-- if your theory fails to explain some data, you can *always* make up some story to explain it away.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


Occam? (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 10:31:45 PM PST
"if your theory fails to explain some data, you can *always* make up some story to explain it away."

Isn't that largely what your article accomplishes? It admits to the existance of microscopic evolution, but denies that the same principle applies to larger changes. Occam's razor would insist that the simplest explanation (i.e. the identical nature of micro and macro evolution) is most probably correct.

--Milton


not quite (none / 0) (#42)
by em on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 10:40:24 PM PST
Isn't that largely what your article accomplishes? It admits to the existance of microscopic evolution, but denies that the same principle applies to larger changes. Occam's razor would insist that the simplest explanation (i.e. the identical nature of micro and macro evolution) is most probably correct.

You are assuming that one has accepted the existence of macroevolution in the first place. But the point is precisely to put this "fact" (as evolutionists like to call their theory) in question.

More explictly: evolutionists claim natural selection made, over time, organisms of a hypothesized type A end up with remote offspring of observed type B. Unless they can support that the process can make those changes, then we should be skeptical about the existence of organism A.

Also, since organism A is hypothetical, claiming it exists also goes against Occam's Razor.

Anyway, appealing to "Occam's Razor" is kinda problematic. It is an ultimately unjustifiable philosophical principle.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


Non-hypothetical organisms (none / 0) (#103)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 08:50:19 AM PST
Let's get specific about how science works. Whales, for example, are related to other mammals. All the earliest mammals have four legs and walked on land. Therefore, according to the ideas of common descent, whales undoubtedly had a legged ancestor. What would an intermediate whale look like? And where would it be found? According to the ideas of common descent, a transitional ancestor should have intermediacy in the loss of legs useful for motion on land (as is also the case in the independently marine seals and manatees) -- there should exist some ancestor whose form identifies them as whales, but which also have legs. Now such fossils have been found. They are not hypothetical. Indeed, they clearly demonstrate that the modern whales arose from ancient artiodactyls, since the useless (for walking, they could have been used as sexual claspers) hind legs on some of these intermediates have hooved toes. Recent finds have presented ancient 'legged' whale fossils with the uniquely identifying artiodactyl ankle. Moreover, analysis of DNA and protein sequences also *independently* show that hippos, in particular, are the whales closest living kin. Hippos and whales also share some very similar adaptations to underwater hearing that are probably ancestral to both.

A similar 'legged' fossil Sirenian (manatee) has been found. The 'intermediate' status of seal limbs (neither fully adapted to the marine nor to land motility) is obvious to any that look carefully.

Other real (rather than hypothetical) theoretically expected intermediates have been found: feathered theropod dinosaurs, therapsid reptilian-mammals.

Occam's razor is a core philosophical principle of natural science. It is not a core philosophical principle of theology. So perhaps you would be more satisfied by going into theology. You might be better at that discipline anyway.


More on Occam's razor (none / 0) (#108)
by Mendax Veritas on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:08:41 AM PST
Occam's razor is a core philosophical principle of natural science.
Occam's razor -- "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity" (Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate), or, in somewhat degraded popular form, "The simplest explanation is probably the right one" -- is strictly a tool of convenience; it cannot prove anything. It is a good basis for preferring, for example, a heliocentric model of planetary motion to a geocentric model, simply because it is easier to calculate planetary motion with simple ellipses than with the much more complex figures required by a geocentric model. But either model will work. (Another benefit, of course, of a heliocentric model is that it harmonizes nicely with the theory of gravity. But this is a separate issue; the fact remains that it is quite possible to calculate planetary motions using a refined Ptolemaic model, even though actually doing so would be more of a clever stunt than a useful technique.)

So, while it is perfectly legitimate to invoke Occam's razor as a justification for preferring one of a set of theories, any of which are equally supported by physical evidence, it is not a viable tool for claiming that one theory is "correct" and the others are "wrong". Only an analysis of whether the theories are consistent with the available evidence can do that, and then only provisionally, subject to revised analysis when more evidence becomes available.


Ockham's Razor (none / 0) (#154)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 08:04:14 AM PST
I agree entirely that Occam's Razor does not determine which hypothesis is "true". It only determines which hypothesis is "better". I have, as you know, done exactly what you ask. I have presented several hypotheses that are consistent with the evidence: evolution, the magic poofer of species who does so in a pattern mimicing a historical record, and the god who made the world last thursday with false evidence of a past that never existed. One of these hypotheses does not require (but also does not deny) the presence of unevidenced supernatural omnipotent powerful agents acting by unknown mechanisms to produce very complex features. That makes it the "better" hypothesis by Occam's Razor. I would be happy to entertain alternative hypotheses that are also consistent with the evidence for common descent and that are also simpler than modification of pre-existing organisms (by mechanisms of neutral drift, founder effects, natural selection) to produce slightly different organisms.
The ball is in your court. You need to present a hypothesis or explanation for the fossil record, the DNA sequence record, organismal relatedness in the present (despite your confusion, there is absolutely no question but that whales are mammals and thus are related to them -- anyone who would think otherwise is very, very confused) that is more consistent with the evidence and is simpler.


 
Vastly more ancestors are hypothetical than fossil (none / 0) (#122)
by em on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:01:04 PM PST
Let's get specific about how science works. Whales, for example, are related to other mammals.

So, science works by assuming the conclusion you want to arrive at?

All the earliest mammals have four legs and walked on land. Therefore, according to the ideas of common descent, whales undoubtedly had a legged ancestor.

This is not "undoubtedly"; historical argument is of a probabilistic nature: "The similarity is such that is is more likely to arise from common ancestry than from chance". You are sorely misstating your argument.

The way it goes is that you state a set of similarities between whales and species that you have already classified as mammals. Then you examine the similarities, and discard those which are likely to arise from chance (e.g. the fact that the direction in which they move is the same direction in which their feeding mechanism is, the fact that sensory organs like eyes are at that end, etc.). To the degree that the whales then share remaining similarities to mammals, then they are more or less closely related to those mammals. If they are more closely related to mammals than to fish, reptiles and birds, then they must be mammals.

Another sort of argument you are invoking is that by which you reconstruct the form of the ancestor. It is by that argument (which I don't know much details about in biology, but know a fair amount when it applies to languages) that you conclude that proto-mammals were more likely to have legs than not.

I know all this. I still believe it is far from convincing. Why? Because the critical assumption that range of possibility is such that the similarities must be attributed to ancestry.

Occam's razor is a core philosophical principle of natural science. It is not a core philosophical principle of theology.

You may want to check who Occam was.

Again, evolution posits countless hypothetical organisms, given that it requires a continuous line of descent that connects a common ancestor to all observed life; one observed fossil is just a drop in an ocean. Note that in my account, the account of similarity in world types #1 and #2 replace one sort of hypothetical entity with another; in world type #1, the hypothetical entities are common ancestors; in world type #2, the hypotheticals are laws of nature. If we are in a #2 type world, then evolution violates Occam's Razor.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


 
what point? (none / 0) (#75)
by NialScorva on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 12:51:44 PM PST
You seem not to understand what "mathematically true" means.
Natural Selection is "consistent" with reality because it *logically follows* from the underlying mathematics (probability theory). The other theories you mention were induced from facts, and do not follow from mathematical premises alone.

There are two parts to any mathematical model of reality, the mathematical representation (syntactical and lexical representation, and their relations with each other), and the isomorphism by which we map the empirical experience to the model, and vice versa. The former piece is soley tautological, in that it generates no truth that is not already present in it's axioms. For example, given F=ma and a=ds/dt, the truth of F=m*ds/dt is contained within the truth of the axioms and the rules of manipulation. This is the mathematical consistency and truth of the situation. "F=m*ds/dt" is a theorem of the system, and is mathematically true.

The latter half of a logical model is the empirical process of forming a valid isomorphism between what we observe, and what is mathematically true. Physics does this by observing that the force required is indeed related to the mass and acceleration, and that the mathematically true theorems have valid isomorphism to true observables.

General relativity and special relativity were inspired by the the inadequacy of Newtonian physics for explaining phenomenon such as the orbit of Mercury. A new model (paradigm if you would like to be Kuhnian) was needed to replace the inadequacy of the former one. A model was developed, and mathematically true consequences of the initial assumptions have been repeatedly verified. Modern evolutionary theory, darwinian or punctuated equilibrium, is similar. It makes predictions such as "we should find fossils with characteristics of species both before and after it in the geological record" and we continue to find such fossils. "We should find similar genotypical features in species with similar phenotypical lineages", which again, we do. Even if you don't see these features as leading to evolution, you cannot deny that they are consistent with evolutionary predictions. Further refinement of those predictions is irrelavent, change does not invalidate the paradigm, it merely makes it more consistent with empirical observation.

Strawman. The argument is not that one evolutionary path must be taken and not other possible ones, but rather that it has not been established that there really can be an evolutionary path for the kind of change that has been claimed.
What kind of change are you refering to? I haven't seen you make any definate claims as to which transition paths are impossible. You seem to aknowledge "microevolution", perhaps you'd care to define the difference between micro- and macro- evolution?

Generic objections to an oversimplified "lizards into dinosaurs, birds, and human beings" evolutionary pathway aside, we do see the existence of such pathways still existing. Take many known ring species, where there is a clear path of related and interbreeding populations occupying a circle of fitness plateaus, with either end of the circle being different species for any possible definition of the word. Yet, there is an existing connection of breeding animals between the two. This is completely consistent with evolutionary predictions. Not only that, but it is a living record of the film strip-like change in a population.

Ah, but that's micro-evolution, right? How about higher order records of change such as the evolution of cetaceans or hominid skulls (and more). A quick search on the net will turn up many more. Now, the differences between those records are barely larger than the variation that we see within some populations. This is evidence. Not necessarily of evolution, but there's definately something fishy going on here. The question is how do those peices fit together, and the only answer we have right now is evolution.

Daniel Dennett once said that if evolutionists were presented with proof that the current variety of species could have evolved on Earth in the conditions given, they could always retreat to the claim that life came to Earth from space. This, of course, goes back to Kuhn's incomparability of scientific paradigms idea-- if your theory fails to explain some data, you can *always* make up some story to explain it away.

And back to the philosophy of science...
Funny you should mention Kuhn, I'm more of Quinean myself, with a dash of the logical positivists (yes, I know it's a bad word). Not too many people seem to like those traditions. The reason I think it's funny is that Kuhn argued that the dominant paradigm stays dominant until a sudden overthrow by a new paradigm. How does that apply here? There *is no* new paradigm which evolution is in conflict with. Right, wrong, indifferent, Kuhn's philosophy of sciencedoes not support you in the slightest. Kuhn differentiated between the tweaking of a paradigm and the complete overthrow of a paradigm, you have not done so.

Do you have a reference for that Dennett quote? Was this the same man who said:
"The evidence of evolution pours in, not only from geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy (Darwin's chief sources), but from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant -inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write. Doubts about the power of Darwin's idea of natural selection to explain this evolutionary process are still intellectually respectable, however, although the burdern of proof forsuch skepticism has become immense..." --Daniel C. Dennett, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ (1995)
--- NialScorva

You're still confused about mathematical truth. (none / 0) (#87)
by em on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 03:44:59 PM PST
For example, given F=ma and a=ds/dt, the truth of F=m*ds/dt is contained within the truth of the axioms and the rules of manipulation. This is the mathematical consistency and truth of the situation. "F=m*ds/dt" is a theorem of the system, and is mathematically true.

No, it's not mathematically true. F=ma and a=ds/dt are not mathematical nor logical axioms. If you want to claim otherwise, you will have to cite an axiomatization of real analysis where those formulas are taken to be axioms.

Again, you are confusing the notions of a mathematically true statement and that of a statement true in virtue of an extramathematical set of axioms. This relation is akin to the relation between, say, the axioms of first order logic and the Peano axioms for arithmetic; the Peano axioms are extralogical relative to those of logic (unless you're a logicist, like, say, Russell and Whitehead), and likewise, the "axioms" of a physical theory are extramathematical relative to those of real analysis.

Generic objections to an oversimplified "lizards into dinosaurs, birds, and human beings" evolutionary pathway aside

Heh. You toss aside the whole argument in order to "refute" it?

Whatever you may say about ring species is besides the point (your salamanders look like a likely case of microevolution, FWIW). Can natural selection account for the changes that are claimed for it?

There *is no* new paradigm which evolution is in conflict with. Right, wrong, indifferent, Kuhn's philosophy of science does not support you in the slightest.

The point in bringing up Kuhn is simple. In the absence of such a paradigm, evolutionists can keep up making stories to patch up their

BTW the Dennett comment is from the same book. And Dennett just sounds like raving lunatic in the quote you give.

May I ask you what you think of Dennett's characterization of Natural Selection as an "algorithm" in that book? It essentially makes my point about NS being mathematically true, although in a very contrived and unperceptive way.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


 
What Natural Selection Is (none / 0) (#159)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 07:11:20 AM PST
Natural selection started out as a simple observation of the way biological organisms work. It was observed, even by pre-scientific societies led by goat-herders, that organisms in the same species vary in their phenotypes. This variation was also observed to be, in part, heritable (although no mechanism was known for this heritablity). It was also an observation, clearly made even by pre-scientific societies, that not all organisms born survive. And it was a further observation of nature that the organisms least able to perform the functions of life were the first to die off. It is these basic observations of how nature works that led to the modern ideas and mathematical description (which are subtlely different from the crude pre-scientific observation) of natural selection.

In the same way, it was observed that gases expanded when heated and contracted when cooled well before this was described mathematically in the gas laws. And it was observed, as a matter of "objective reality" that when people walk out the 23rd story window (or off a cliff), they did not levitate indefinitely, but rather went in a rapid descent (until abruptly stopped by a surface) well before the mathematics of gravity's effect were worked out.

From those initial observations grew the current understanding of natural selection. It did so by being tested and looking at what appeared to be anomolous findings. In particular, observations of sexual selection pointed out that "survival" was not the real goal of the selection process, "reproductive success" was. That evolutionary relevant selection only affected that part of phenotype that is genetic. The finding of phenotypes that are favored in one environment and disfavored in another showed that the findings of selection are conditional upon the environment. There are also other findings that demonstrate frequency-dependent selection. For example, in some plants, having a new variant for a self-sterility surface factor is highly favorable, but only so long as the factor is rare.

One remaining open question in understanding selection is whether there is group selection as opposed to selection acting on the level of the individual organism (as most selection seems to work).

In short, NS started out, like many scientific ideas, as a crude observation of reality (nature favors some phenotypes over others), but that crude definition has changed and NS has become refined to the point where it can be described mathematically and fits a broader spectrum of observations such as sexual selection and frequency-dependent selection. The conditions under which it occurs (the need to specify a specific environment) and the conditions under which selection will have an evolutionary effect (the phenotypic differences must have an underlying genetic basis) also have become better understood.


 
Too Much Thinking (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Right Hand Man on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 11:30:14 AM PST
You have clearly thought far too much about this issue. For the life of me I cannot understand why some people have to complicate matters that are so simple.

Read the bible. The first book will explain all of this stuff. God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them, how hard is that to understand? Of course, I am not railing against the author of this piece, because his heart is in the right place, I just don't see why anyone would need to read a piece this deep to believe in something that is explained in the Good Book in just a few paragraphs, without all of the examples and comparisons and such.

The maniacal drive to rid everyone's life of God is what brought about this argument against creation, not sound thinking. That should be obvious to anyone who even glances at the facts. The people who espouse these blasphemous theories should be languishing in a home for the criminally insane rather than standing at the front of a lecture hall.



-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

This is tripe (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 02:26:32 PM PST
I might agree with you, if your "Good Book" had any sort of credible evidence in its favor.


Or (none / 0) (#15)
by westgeof on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 02:57:25 PM PST
Or if this book didn't contradict itself right from the beginning. (i.e., in exactly what order do you think the various things were created?)
As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

 
the point of the story (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by momocrome on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 04:36:32 PM PST
the point of the story is that there is no credible evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is, however, credible evidence of veracity in the Holy Scriptures.

The testimony of say, the indefatigable and unimpeachable Moses cannot be casually dismissed. Or take your pick: Ibraham, Jesus, Isaac, Ezekiel, John, John TB, Tomas Aquinas, Dante Aligheiri, Isaac Newton etc are some of the wisest and revered men in all of history. Each of these men offer voluminous (copious) amounts of perfectly acceptable testimony in favor of the explanation proffered in the Holy Bible throughout the scope of their life's works. Detractors of your ilk are merely skirting around with the circumstantial evidence and heresay, while many of the abovementioned men of good name have direct knowledge of the events and concepts in question.

On the flip side, we have one 19th century Isrealite Pedant after another offering 'plausable hypothoses' like evolution, theories that in reality do little more than justify the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent enslavement of countless millions in the service of impersonal 'corporations' therewith.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didn't exist, and you my friend are buying the whole thing COD, gulping down the heady broth of diabolic justification like a parched mudskipper. I pity your soul, but moreover, I pity the innocents you will surely corrupt over the course of yor life with such seemingly entrenched conceptions in the service of pure evil.

Please think before you spout off thx.


Religion, the USA and the civilized world (3.33 / 3) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:22:11 PM PST
I assume you're USian.

Here's something to ponder:

Nowhere else in the developped world do you see so much exposure for creationism and related idiocies. Nowhere. In Europe, creationists are relegated in the same niche as tin-foil helm wearers, flat earthers and the like.

As for your bible junk -- I say junk because I'm an atheist and I believe it to belong to the same corner of the library as "Mein Kampf": the Hate, Racism, Lies, Myths and Intolerance corner ... Well as far as the bible is concerned, here's a newsflash for you: John Paul II, head of the Catholic church, who is recognized as their spiritual leader by hundreds of millions of christians, has publically recognized the theory of evolution as being both valid AND compatible with christianity.

Tell me, how do you think you're better at that bible business than the pope himself? Oh yeah I guess he's the antichrist or something according to your degenerate protestant bullshit.

So there you go. The world vs the USA. Science vs. Idiocy. Fundamentalism vs. Humanism.

Creationism is not a fraud, it's an insult to humanity, it's an insult to intelligence, it's a shame on the USA.


"civilized." (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by nathan on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:30:11 PM PST
Oh, boy. I'm so sorry that the gentle ways of Jesus aren't good enough for you. I guess turning the other cheek and loving your neighbour are too wimpy and effete for you.

Listen, buddy, your aggressive, atheistic materialism isn't for me. If all there is to life is conquering and destroying, we might as wll call a spade a spade and embrace nihilism (as did the USSR and the Roman Empire.)

You just go ahead and bomb Afghanistan. Your violence and wrath sickens me. Just remember that you can change by letting God into your heart. I'll pray for you.

Nathan

PS - I am not and have never been an American.

--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I'm pretty sure... (none / 0) (#93)
by noah Oneye on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 09:56:54 PM PST
the guy bombing Afghanistan is a Christian. And I reckon Jesus's teachings were dead on, unfortunately I've yet to find a church who agrees.


"...and in your free time you can make me sandwiches..."

 
my friend, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by nathan on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:24:20 PM PST
The best evidence for the existence of God is the behaviour of those who deny Him. Materialism has taken us to the edge of the abyss.

Good books make good men. Darwin makes monkeys out of us. Are you a man or a monkey? Choose wisely, I implore you.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Man or Monkey? (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 07:44:55 PM PST
Personally, I'd rather throw in my lot with monkey than man. Man's tendancy to slaughter his brother a thousand at a time has always put me ill at ease. It seems a good deal more pleasant to lounge about in the trees all day, dealing with the occasional territorial dispute, gathering fruit, and copulating at will. Monkey, after all, has the doctrinal upper hand on man; he is unfallen!

And far better to live without knowledge of good and evil than to misuse that knowledge as it has here been misused to such ill effect. What harm is there in seeking further knowledge? This need not have become a doctrinal debate. Where does the original article, here under discussion, reference religion in more than a passing fashion in order to provide an alternative to the evolutionary viewpoint. Instead of proceeding in an academic fashion, this discussion quickly degenerated to a level most base and irrelevant.

Is it necessary to call someone evil under these circumstances? Certainly it is no evil to disagree, and, if it be sin, sin is man's original folly, so what of it? Certainly I think you evil, for your cruel and hurtful words. For one who quotes "turn the other cheek," certainly your cheek could here have been turned without causing undue distress, without rudeness, and without un-Christian virtue.

Sadly, your perception of evil has turned to face you, and you have become, in this case, its instrument. And while I, pronouncing you evil, may paint myself a hypocrite, remember, as Milton says, that only God can truly distinguish hypcrisy from earnesty. I am thus bound to commit this folly of man by my very nature. I am, after all, only human.

--Milton


This kind of thing (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by nathan on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 08:56:47 PM PST
is exactly what Augustine was to repent of when he got older. I'm referring, of course, to sophistry. Sophistry is the subversion of logical evaluation through rhetoric, and boy is it ever all over this post.
  • Monkeys are not 'unfallen,' they lack free will. I'm assuming you're aware of the distinction, because otherwise you wouldn't be quoting Milton (who was a Puritan, if you'll recall, and quite familiar with the Bible.) Monkeys are not capable of becoming saved, any more than are bugs, grass, dirt, or bacteria.
  • Knowledge of good and evil is the problem, because for evil to exist, we must already have separated from God. Trying to 'extend' this knowledge is monstrous, because it's turning away from God and trying to become your own god. This is not the same thing as attempting to extend scientific knowledge, which is merely exercising our God-given stewardship over the material world.
  • Your paragraph about turning the cheek doesn't make any sense at all. We're not called on to turn our lower cheeks on evil and walk away. We're called to accept abuse unflinchingly in order that we might spread the Good News. That's what I'm trying my best to do here, with God's help, of course.
  • My reading of your last paragraph is that you claim that my knowledge of good and evil has led me to commit evil acts. Of course, the knowledge of good and evil is already all the evil that one could imagine, and of that we're all guilty, but I don't see how I'm evil just because I stand up for truth and salvation.

    Your flippant post wasn't nearly as smart as it was trying to be. I assume that you ren't trolling, because Adequacy.org has a very strict no-trolling policy. In future, I advise you to be a bit more civil to your elders, and to approach the discussion as seriously as I am. There's more at stake than you may be willing to admit.

    Yours in love,
    Nathan

    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

  • No Troll. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 10:14:35 PM PST
    Just a little sparring, with a point. Your evil act, as I see it (of course committed with knowledge of good, and, it seems, with, presumably, intent to do good -- I don't wish to call anyone a monster) was to respond with an accusation, or, more precisely, an implication out of proportion to the context of the discussion. The leap from a discussion of the credibility of the Bible to an accusation wherein someone is labeled as "evil" is quite prodigious.

    Surely you recognize that Moses, a biblical source, cannot be seen as a source of authentication for the Bible, as he is contained within it. And, if you point to historical accounts of the man, it is as easy to point to the Bible's encapsulation of many Historical elements, none of which prove the rest of its content. Certainly Fredrick Douglass's autobiography draws its basis from fact, though many of the events within it were exaggerated and/or fictionalized. Certain truthful elements do not prove the whole. And, while proof denies faith, you seem to indicate that there is proof through many of these sources. I would say that equal proof exists through multiple learned sources for a number of different views of the universe, including all the world's great religions.

    The earlier "Anonymous Reader" (and I am not that reader, in case you had thought otherwise) hadn't framed his argument so neatly, but that, I imagine, was the crux of his point. However, instead of responding with civility, as you did to my post (which I honestly appreciate), you attacked his character and accused him of deluding masses into the service of Satan, which seemed a little disproportionate, and quite tactless. I acted to correct a percieved wrong.

    And it was a wrong. You knew enough to spot sophistry in my arguments; certainly you recognize the condescending tone in your own. The attacking one's character and insulting one's core beliefs is not an effective method by which to "spread the word" -- in fact, that person probably now harbours an even deeper resentment for the Christian faith than he or she did before. No post which had the best interest of the addressee at heart would have been phrased in that way. Your knowledge of my rhetorical tactics certainly betrays a knowledge of them on your part, as well, and they were at work here with a profoundly negative intent, whether intentional or not.

    And while I do not appreciate the lecture about civility, or your assumptions about my age (isn't the internet supposed to be about an egalitarian exchange of ideas, regardless of "real world" identity?), I do, believe it or not, respect your opinions and arguments, as I hope that you accord at least a passing respect to mine.

    --Milton
    (with apologies for the left turn this has all taken. . . my original version of this post was much closer to the original evolutionary topic, but it rambled and was weighted down with theological idealism. This, hopefully, speaks much more to the now-tangental point.)


    IMHO (none / 0) (#48)
    by momocrome on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 12:16:34 AM PST
    it's a simple question of whether or not you think you are calling *Moses* a liar. Moses is the single most respected human in all of history.

    RES IPSA LOQUITUR: There is no civilized culture or peoples worth mention that do not hold this simple truth dear to heart. You mean to say I should believe Carl Sagan or Charles Darwin over Moses? I don't get that at all.


    Moses (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 05:53:45 AM PST
    No he is not.


    Linux Torvalds (none / 0) (#64)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 08:21:47 AM PST
    Yes he is. How many people read the bible? The Internet that Linux built? I rest my case.


     
    Darwin & Sagan (none / 0) (#80)
    by rodjk on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 01:53:44 PM PST
    You mean to say I should believe Carl Sagan or Charles Darwin over Moses? I don't get that at all.


    When it comes to biology, I would believe Darwin over Moses. When it comes to general science knowledge and astronomy, I would believe Sagan over Moses.
    Rodjk




    convenient for you, but... (none / 0) (#85)
    by momocrome on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 02:40:21 PM PST
    my point is, when the parties differ in statement, it seems wise to trust in the more respectable party. This is the very essence of Judiacal Theory, and thus the foundation of civilization itself.

    Claims of 'expertise' in various 'fields' notwithstanding- if either of those populizers of science flatly contradict the most respectable human to have ever existed, and their characters are suspect (re:Darwin and homosexuality or Sagan and drug abuse), what makes the most sense when trying to figure out who's right?

    You got it, the more righteous and goodly should always be held above the lesser individuals. And so my point stands: clearly, in the dispute between the Bible and Science, moreover the testimony of Moses or Darwin, the truth is surely to be found with the more unblemished character.


    Darwin gay (none / 0) (#111)
    by rodjk on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 12:49:34 PM PST
    Ok references for this claim.
    Why would you say Darwin is gay.
    In fact, why would this in any way affect his scientific research, which was top notch?
    Sam with Sagan's use of MJ.
    And why do you insist on using abusive terms like abuse and addict?

    To answer your general question, no matter how well thought of someone is, they may be wrong.
    The evidence is the deciding factor.
    Since Darwin has the evidence on his side, that is what I chose. Easy enough.
    Rodjk


     
    Monkeys have empirically demonstrated free will (none / 0) (#47)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 11:49:02 PM PST
    To suggest that higher order primates lack free will is absurd in a scientific context. Their has been a wealth of verifiable evidence published to demonstrate that they posess an intellect *at least* as complex as a young/retarded human. The Church's stance on this has been exceedingly hypocritical: how does one claim the existence of "free will" in a human who has not the mental capacities of many apes. While I would enjoy claiming that this is an attempt to cut corners (i.e. save the money involved in sending sign-language-using missionaries into the ape kingdom), I cannot with empirical evidence. What this does do, however, is clearly make the Church's old position just that: archaic. The definitions, as they stand, have no validity given our understanding of the world.


    I'll tell you what's hypocritical. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by tkatchev on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 01:29:32 AM PST
    True hypocrisy is when someone who can't even get straight his 5th grade spelling and grammar has the gall to challenge 2000 years of Christian intellectual tradition.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    er... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 02:14:21 AM PST
    how is that hypocritical? How does ignorance make somebody's statements less than sincere?


    Ignorance. (none / 0) (#52)
    by tkatchev on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 04:44:26 AM PST
    Ignorance isn't bad. What's bad is when ignorant people try to put down intellectual achievements they cannot even hope to approach.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    Creationists (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 05:51:54 AM PST
    Creationists are not part of "2000 years of Christian intellectual tradition". They are a demented atavistic cult of fuckwits who degrade what intellectual reputation Christianity still retains.

    There is only a conflict between evolution and christianity if you believe in the literal truth of the creation account in Genesis.

    And if you do that, you are a fundamentalist idiot.


    right. (none / 0) (#61)
    by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 07:32:18 AM PST
    The Church Fathers were Unitarians. St. Paul doesn't hold together unless you believe in a literal Adam.

    Face it, your prejudices are driving you away from your religion.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Pope JPII supports evolution theory (none / 0) (#94)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 03:53:54 AM PST
    "The theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis" -- Pope John Paul II

    How do you think you know better than him, fucktard?

    Yeah, I know, you're some kind of degenerated protestant heretic.

    But what makes you think you know better about Paul, the holy Trinity and all that shit than the Pope?


    Gentlereader, I suggest a lighter hand (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Adam Rightmann on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 07:47:50 AM PST
    if you wish to draw the heretical Protestants back into the folds of the true Chruch. Harsh words tend to harden hearts, and we are talking about eternity, here.


    A. Rightmann

     
    unwarranted assumptions. (none / 0) (#101)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 07:52:53 AM PST
    First of all I am not a Protestant. And I must say, if you are trying to make a case from the Catholic perspective, you might do well to emulate Mr. Adam Rightmann's polite, decent manner, rather than cursing at me.

    I have no idea why you suddenyl claimed the Pope as a scientific authority. And I have even less idea why you are accusing me of being a rabid creationist in a thread about free will. For the record, my point still stands that only humans are capable of free will - something on which I am quite confident the Catechism backs me up.

    As far as I know, Mr. Tkatchev is not a Protestant either. There are other churches in the world, not to mention other religions.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    didn't JPII meet with hawking also? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 09:03:54 AM PST
    i seem to recall that JPII spoke with hawking ~1980 and the pope wasn't averse at all to the big bang. hrmm...


     
    free will (none / 0) (#60)
    by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 07:30:52 AM PST
    Free will is not a matter of intelligence. I mean, show me how Martin Luther's will was more free than some idiot's will. Free will is a trait of being human.

    Sic transit ignominia mundi.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    You are confusing intelligence with free will (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Adam Rightmann on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 07:40:30 AM PST
    I won't deny that monkeys are intelligent, but God has never awakened free will in them; they do not know the difference between good and evil, and thus do not need to free will to chose between good and evil.


    A. Rightmann

    quibble (none / 0) (#63)
    by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 08:00:30 AM PST
    Isn't it the case that humans lack spiritual free will, except through rebirth in Christ? Strictly speaking, Adam's free will wasn't to choose good or evil, but obedience or disobedience.

    I know it seems trivial, but theologically it is nontrivial.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Yes, you are more correct (none / 0) (#65)
    by Adam Rightmann on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 08:31:57 AM PST
    I was guilty of simplifying things for many of the readers here who lack critical thinking skills.


    A. Rightmann

    understandably so (none / 0) (#66)
    by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 08:38:13 AM PST
    It's difficult to know what to do when your interlocutors aren't really interested in a close reading of what you have to say.

    All the best,
    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    apes and free will (none / 0) (#70)
    by rodjk on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 09:17:59 AM PST
    I won't deny that monkeys are intelligent, but God has never awakened free will in them; they do not know the difference between good and evil, and thus do not need to free will to chose between good and evil.

    Monkeys are not apes.
    That said, they do indeed have "free will".
    They often show a willingness to suffer for the good of each other that would make a human ashamed. Please do not spout off this stuff if you know nothing of the research on monkeys and apes.
    Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" is a good start.
    Rodjk #613


    confusing (none / 0) (#71)
    by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 09:23:25 AM PST
    By free will, do you mean altruistic behaviour? Jeez, you might as well attribute it to honeybees.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    altruism != free will (none / 0) (#72)
    by Adam Rightmann on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 09:35:33 AM PST
    from a genetic propagation standpoint, sacrificing yourself for the lives of three of your siblings is a win. This is instinctively bred into anything more advanced than a worm.

    Is this Carl Sagan you reference that same science-popularizing, marijuana addicted one that starred in Cosmos? Marijuana addiction may be fine for composing and performing fluffy popular music, but I would hesitate to biuld a thesis upon marijuana-addled sources.


    A. Rightmann

    Carl Sagan (none / 0) (#79)
    by rodjk on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 01:50:45 PM PST
    The use of marijuana does not make, or take away from, the reputation of a scientist.
    Judge Sagan on his books and his published work, not his habits. This is an obvious ad hominim
    Rodjk
    #613


    fine, but (none / 0) (#84)
    by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 02:24:47 PM PST
    You can't seriously blame us for taking a marihuana addict a little less than seriously. His theories are not above contention, and all that Mr. Rightmann said was that his admitted addiction damages his credibility (as it is known to affect short-term memory, something very important to successful synthesis of complex ideas from data.)

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Addict (none / 0) (#96)
    by rodjk on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 06:50:58 AM PST
    Again, scientist are judged by what they publish, not by their private lives.
    Second, where did you get "Addict" from?
    Is anyone who ever used Marijuana an addict?
    Do you call Chris Everet an "addict", since she is an addmitted marijuana user?
    Rodjk #613


    Chris Everet? (none / 0) (#100)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 07:49:46 AM PST
    This is a fairly common name. Is she well-known in the Lunix community, or some such?

    Look, just as Turing's homosexualism damaged his academic credibility, so Sagan's marihuana addiction damages his. And, by the way, yours, because you have not even tried to address Mr. Rightmann's salient and crippling argument demonstrating that free will is not related to intelligence per se (although possessing intelligence is a requisite for possessing free will.)

    Stop "toking" on the "happy plant," and get back to me when you want to address Mr. Rightmann's insightful arguments.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Hey do me a favor... (none / 0) (#104)
    by noah Oneye on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 08:56:36 AM PST
    Y'all are really gung ho about saying what free will is not (intelligence, altruism) can ya tell me what it is? I expect not, as it's an illusion if you believe in an ominpotent/omniscient god. But if you can, I'm all ears.

    And this talk about truth being found in the most "unblemished" is funny. Moses voluntarily had a bloody foreskin rubbed upon him. I'd take a weed smoker anyday.

    In the interest of antibias that I know this site so religiously pursues, lemme just say that I am neither a pot smoker nor a foreskin blood rubber. Just so's you know...


    "...and in your free time you can make me sandwiches..."

    You seem to believe in moral relativity (none / 0) (#105)
    by Adam Rightmann on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 09:13:14 AM PST
    so you would have to suspend that belief to understand the point behind free will. Monkey's may be intelligent, they may act altruistically, but do they believe in God, obedience to God, and the freedom to chose between good and evil acts?

    I suspect, in a morally relativistic, atheistic frame of reference, the above questions don't parse. But if you take your morally relativistic viewpoint far enough, you end up in a strict determinist viewpoint, where everything you do is determined by your genes and your environment, leaving you no autonomy in your actions, and conveniently, no responsibility.


    A. Rightmann

     
    More (none / 0) (#110)
    by rodjk on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 12:42:59 PM PST
    Chris Evert is a famous, straight lace tennis player. She was also divorced and admitted to using marijuana. So, is she a "straight arrow" as her near 20 years as a tennis pro show, or is she an "addict".
    Same to Sagan. Was he an occasional user or an "addict". And since this info did not get out till after his death, why should it affect his scientific credentials? Its not like anyone even knew he smoked MJ.
    Rodjk


    I'm confused (none / 0) (#117)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 04:33:38 PM PST
    Elsewhere you mock another poster for citing a movie. Then you cite a tennis pro's personal life as evidence that the devil's own weed, marihuana, is harmless.

    What are you even trying to argue?

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Post (none / 0) (#133)
    by rodjk on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 11:45:14 AM PST
    Nathan Wrote:
    "Elsewhere you mock another poster for citing a movie. Then you cite a tennis pro's personal life as evidence that the devil's own weed, marihuana, is harmless.
    What are you even trying to argue?"

    Response:
    My resonse about the movie was to point out that what Hollywood thinks about Apes is in not necessarily accurate in a scientific sense.
    My post about Chris Evert was to show that she was a wonderful Tennis player and considered a straight arrow and an excellent role model, even though she did admit to using marijuana.

    The point is, she was a great tennis player and the use of marijuana does not (and should not) take away from her accomplishments. The same as the use of marijuana does not take away from the scientific accomplishments of Carl Sagan.

    BTW, the devils own weed?
    ROTFLMAO
    Rodjk
    #613


    this is just baffling (none / 0) (#137)
    by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:47:09 PM PST
    Well, so Kerouac, a great writer, legitimized alcohol abuse?

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    What accomplishments? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mendax Veritas on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 02:18:59 PM PST
    What scientific accomplishments did Carl Sagan actually have to his credit? I don't know of any significant discovery or theory in astronomy (the subject in which he got his Ph.D.) that he deserves credit for. I remember his was one of three or four names on the original nuclear winter paper, but nuclear winter has never been a fully accepted idea. As far as I know, Sagan spent most of his life as a writer of scientific popularizations, not that different from Isaac Asimov (though far less prolific). I've never heard anyone claim that Asimov had any great scientific accomplishments. Why do you make such a claim for Sagan? In fact, the books of his that tend to get the most attention (e.g. The Dragons of Eden, The Demon-Haunted World) are closer to rationalist philosophy than actual science.

    If you admire Sagan as a writer and thinker, that's up to you. As far as I can tell, he was never of any particular note as a pure scientist.


     
    Again (none / 0) (#109)
    by rodjk on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 12:29:57 PM PST
    Where does Sagan admit to being an "addict"
    His theories are not above contention, scientifically, but ad hominins like calling him an addict are of no use or relevance.
    Rodjk


    sagan (none / 0) (#112)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 12:51:17 PM PST
    would have smoked rope if it meant easing the pain of his cancer, but he decided to make much better use of a plentiful and perpetual stash of pot


    rope vs. dope (none / 0) (#116)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 04:31:45 PM PST
    I can't tell Mr. Sagan what's acceptable and what's not. Cancer is indeed a terrible thing. I might wish that he'd used nourishing, legal American liquor, but that's neither here nor there.

    What I can argue with is attempting to contribute to the splendour of the scientific edifice while stoned.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    No (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Right Hand Man on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 01:24:31 PM PST
    I once watched a movie titled Guerillas in the Mist. It was supposedly an excellent and comprehensive documentary about the lives of apeas and similar animals. I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that those creatures have free will.


    -------------------------
    "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

    Shrek (none / 0) (#113)
    by rodjk on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 01:00:13 PM PST
    I once watched a movie titled Guerillas in the Mist. It was supposedly an excellent and comprehensive documentary about the lives of apeas and similar animals. I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that those creatures have free will.

    I watched a movie where an ogre saved a princess from a dragon with the help of a talking donkey. The donkey and the dragon later fell in love.
    What does a movie have to do with science?

    (This is a repost - the original did not show up)
    Rodjk


     
    I did not confuse intelligence with free will... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 02:08:14 AM PST
    In response to the claims made by A. Rightmann and Nathan, I will attempt to "address Mr. Rightmann's salient and crippling argument demonstrating that free will is not related to intelligence per se", hopefully through "a close reading of what [they] have [had] to say".

    Higher order primates have shown the ability to choose between good and evil conclusively. This is not simply a matter the propagation of species, and to suggest so demonstrates a lack of relevant knowledge. There are several well-documented cases of primates reconciling ethical dilemmas. In several cases, they have apologized for deceiving their caretakers, fully aware of the notion of "repentance". It is more than plausible that one could convince a group of monkeys to believe in God, and furthermore to worship Him in a fashion involving somewhat complex ritual. While I admittedly find this somewhat ironic, I find it hard to beleive that God could foster faith in a creature unsavable, or at least that anyone might argue this. Though there has been no attempt to discuss Christianity with any of the language using primates, possibly out of marijuana-induced compassion, there is no doubt that they "audibly" struggle with moral decisions, entirely conscious of the concepts of right and wrong- especially in the context relative moral value.

    On a side note, to suggest that marijuana compromises the integrity of scientific contribution is absurd. While I do not intend to blame you for creating an ad hominem attack, there is a *reason* it is fallacious. Perhaps I can create a relevant slippery slope that would disqualify most scientific claims: Because most scientists have socially enjoyed intoxicating substances, the credibilty of most scientific assertions is highly suspect.

    The most relevant evidence pertaining to the free will of primates has nothing to do with the assertions of Carl Sagan, in any condition.


    fascinating (none / 0) (#132)
    by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 10:04:56 AM PST
    I must say this is rather different from the posts defending free will as intelligence.

    Mr. Rightmann, do you have an opinion here?

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    No (none / 0) (#138)
    by Right Hand Man on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 01:10:19 PM PST
    It is very easy to 'prove' something to the scientific community. Data can be faked very easily and everyone knows that when experiments are conducted that involve living animals they cannot be absolutely replicated, thus there is no possibility of peer review.

    All of these studies and experiments you mention were almost certainly biased from the beginning. Some pot head 'researcher' working at some halfway house for former test monkeys supposedly teaches them to 'communicate' with him. You could label it a pipe-dream if you want, its all rubbish. Of course his experiment ends up showing that his monkeys have Free Will, the guy is probably a pagan tree worshipper who wants to rid the world of Christianity. I have a sister who thinks that her cat misses her when she is gone. She thinks that because it always curls up next to her when she gets home. In reality, all the cat cares about is her body heat, yet she remains steadfastly convinced that the thing's behavior is a sign of emotion. The monkeys in these experiments just care about their next monkey biscuit and they will do whatever they can to get it, they don't give a damn about their handlers (and would probably kill them if they got the chance).

    So save the crap about monkeys apologizing to their handlers and being taught to worship God. I could teach my dog to bow down in front of a statue of Christ but it doesn't mean he would understand what he was doing, although he would do it every Sunday for a piece of bacon.


    -------------------------
    "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

    False (none / 0) (#142)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 06:59:46 PM PST
    "It is very easy to 'prove' something to the scientific community."

    -Perhaps this would explain your unfounded assertion that your sister's cat's behaviour is based solely on warmth. Faking data and absolute reproducability do not necessarliy affect the ability of scientific observations to undergo peer review. In the cases of most higher-order primates, much of the evidence has been videotaped. It is a very simple process to produce this kind of evidence into a forum for peer review. Much of the study has gone into addressing exactly your presumptions, and precisely why their behaviours have been so fascinating to the scientific community. For example, (just one), they have undoubtedly shown care and compassion for those outside their species, including humans and felines. By the way, if any of the primates in these expiraments wanted/desired/wished to kill their caretakers, it would be an amazingly simple, albeit gruesome task. The comment about primate expression of remorse stands, and I would like reiterate that I never said "monkeys" were "being taught to worship God". What I stated was that primates have grasped concepts equivalent in complexity to a young child's understanding of God, and could easily be informed on views of His existence/nature.



    True (none / 0) (#150)
    by Right Hand Man on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 10:37:50 AM PST
    I must concede that my sister's cat's behavior is not based solely on warmth, it also thinks that it might get a bite to eat.

    I do not dispute that the scientists put a lot of effort into addressing the concerns I raised. If scams of this order were simple to perpetrate everyone would be pulling them. These hard working individuals no doubt spend countless hours trying to determine how best to attack organized religion. They have chosen to begin by trying to level the playing field between animals and humans, first by claiming that we are descended from monkeys, and when that didn't work, by trying to 'prove' that we are no more intelligent or self aware than monkeys (or dolphins, or pot-bellied pigs, or gibbons, or whatever else looks good on a billboard). In thirty years or so you may have fooled a large percentage of the populace into believing the statement: "A dog is a pig is a rat is a boy", or however that goes.

    It is all fake of course, but it does not possess as much dignity as professional wrestling because it hasn't yet admitted that it is fake.


    -------------------------
    "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

    Please! (none / 0) (#151)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 05:38:31 PM PST

    You have to realise you are not making an argument, but stating a claim based purely on gargantuan speculation- that being that the entirety of research on this topic, as well as evolution, has been devised to falsify organized religion. This is perhaps the most paranoid idea I have ever heard made to protect the integrity modern religious interpretations. I think others here might appreciate your views if you based them on something. i.e. not simply a conditioned reflex you have created in order so that you aren't forced to question the interpretations of your moral leaders. I might point out that there were a lot of people who made statements like this about those who claimed the world to be spherical or moving. Just as many of the scientists then were devoutly religious, I don't think that thinking critically about what your pastor/preacher/father might say is inherently blasphemous- In thirty years they might have convinced the Church that God was not partial *only* to humans.


    Ok (none / 0) (#152)
    by Right Hand Man on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 06:53:10 AM PST
    Of course, perusal of the above article shows that it is you who is making a gargantuan speculation about the vaildity of evolution. I have thousands of years of Christian thought to back up my points, you have a fossil record with more holes than a gopher farm and several unproven ideas about what animals might do if exposed to certain environmental variables.

    I also never claimed that the sole reason that the monkey research was conducted was to dethrone Christianity. I am sure that there are several other goals, self promotion no doubt among them.


    -------------------------
    "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

    False Thinking, False Argument (none / 0) (#158)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 03:43:22 PM PST
    Let me remind of what you said: "These hard working individuals no doubt spend countless hours trying to determine how best to attack organized religion. They have chosen to begin by trying to level the playing field between animals and humans."

    So you never said the *sole* reason of this research was to validate evolutionary theory, for that matter, you never said these individuals are working under the *sole* pretense of falsifying ridiculous Christian claims.

    What you have done, is formed what I termed "one of the most paranoid ideas I've ever heard", simply by implying that there is such an obvious, or inherent connection.

    Your "argument" this time is even worse than the previous. You have thousands of years of Christian thought to back you up? Like what? The flat Earth? The teenage witches? The crusades? The crystalline spheres? The revolving sun? Masturbation makes your penis fall off? Maybe you should argue for the existence of a perpetual motion machine. If you are going to claim the ethos of your sources, you might pick one that hasn't been so astronomically false in terms of scientific claims, historically speaking. I have NO relevant thoughts on the validity of evolutionary theory, only on the free will and intelligence of other species, specifically primates. I could care less, in this context, if this evidence can be construed to authenticate the evolutionary model. Furthermore, your problems with the evolutionary model have NO impact on the undeniable results of the studies I've noted.

    Hint: If you want to object to my argument, there are plenty of equally paranoid and confused "scientists" who have interpreted the data in a way you would surely find much less scary. Using this, you might be able to bring something to the table which isn't so obviously flawed...

    A.R.

    --------------------------------------------------
    "I could teach my dog to bow down in front of a statue of Christ but it doesn't mean he would understand what he was doing, although he would do it every Sunday for a piece of bacon."


    Fool (none / 0) (#161)
    by Right Hand Man on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 09:34:25 AM PST
    What you have done, is formed what I termed "one of the most paranoid ideas I've ever heard", simply by implying that there is such an obvious, or inherent connection.

    The connection is so incredibly obvious that I would hope that no one would need me to point it out, the evidence speaks for itself. People having conversations with animals is usually the butt of a joke, not some serious attempt at scientific research. To take it a step further and claim that through those conversations a human can glean some useful information about whether the animal is exhibiting free will is completely preposterous. Can you possibly deny that researchers involved in these experiments have some religious or political agenda? Of course you can't, because they do and it so obviously colors their judgement that no reasonable person can miss it.

    Of course you can trot out examples of times when Christian thought was incorrect. I could do the same for the scientific community and we could continue this thread for months. The problem is that most 'Christian thought' comes from the heads of men, thus it is open to the possibility of being incorrect, flat earths and what not. Of course the entirety of science is vulnerable to that same error. With the bible, that possibility does not exist, thus I don't need to bother with finding right thinking scientists to back me up, I just need to read the word of God.


    -------------------------
    "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

    You swim around in your own ignorance, good luck (none / 0) (#164)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 20th, 2001 at 12:26:27 AM PST

    How many signs would a gorilla need to be able to use correctly before it is speech? How many sentences would a chimpanzee need to form before you would allow for the possibility of language? Do you assume that it is impossible simply from your modern interpretation of holy scripture?

    You polarize yourself against that which may possibly falsify your beliefs without concern. If you intend to use *your* version of the Word of God as evidence, you might as well just have said so, thus keeping me from replying to what I thought was an argument based on intelligence and evidence, not faith. I'm sincerely glad to see, now, that you don't have an inkling of scientific discourse within you.


     
    Science works (none / 0) (#165)
    by rodjk on Tue Nov 20th, 2001 at 08:48:11 AM PST
    One of the most important reasons that people accept science is that it works.
    Flat out, science works. Look at the difference 100 years of science has made tword curing disease, while thousands of years of religion driving out demons has done no good at all.

    If you disagree with a science conclusion, you are welcome to provide an experiment to disprove it. If you think all of science progress, especially biology, are fakes, you are welcome to avoid using it.
    Rodjk #613


     
    In the immortal words of Eric A. Blair (none / 0) (#167)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 03:29:03 PM PST
    I have thousands of years of Christian thought to back up my points, you have a fossil record with more holes than a gopher farm and several unproven ideas about what animals might do if exposed to certain environmental variables.

    Sanity is not statistical.


     
    Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#127)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 02:11:44 AM PST
    The best evidence for the nonexistence of God is the behaviour of those who embrace Him. Religious devoutism has taken us to the edge of the abyss.



    Dear Revered Sir, (none / 0) (#131)
    by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 10:03:07 AM PST
    The best argument for the nonexistence of an evil, monstrous God is the behaviour of those evil monsters who want a god in their own image. Isn't it curious how any authoritarian regime creates a god to legitimize itself?

    This is no argument against the existence of God, however.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    True. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 06:32:52 PM PST
    Yes, the way your contribution is phrased makes it an invalid argument.


    take it to slashtroll (none / 0) (#146)
    by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 07:49:28 PM PST
    "I know you are, but what am I?"

    Sigh.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    ummm... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 08:56:04 PM PST
    Glue! :)


     
    my friend, (none / 0) (#148)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 09:18:34 PM PST
    I am disheartened by your post. The brilliance of God's love is in our faith, hopefully not our evidence. If you are unable to be one with His Spirit without this, perhaps I could suggest an approach based on the beauty of life, rather than the tragedy. While the unfortunate occurances in man's history certainly lead to speculations, why not find God in our (and His) glory. While I hesitate to condone this, can you not find Him in the love of your loved ones, or the innocence of a young child, or the wonderful act of "propagating our species"? :) If for you, you are able to find a choice, I encourage you to focus on the many gifts that God has granted us, rather than those who have chosen to abandon His will.

    Love.


     
    thinking != bad (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stretch on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 03:22:45 PM PST
    The maniacal drive to rid everyone's life of God is what brought about this argument against creation, not sound thinking.

    And "sound thinking" dictates that you should throw blind faith into a bunch of mythical books written thousands of years ago? Perhaps you were just telling a joke because I did laugh out loud.


     
    You're so right... (3.00 / 2) (#27)
    by sdtPikachu on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:28:35 PM PST
    Why of course...

    God exists because the Bible says so.

    And the Bible is true because God says so in the Bible!

    What more proof do you need?! That's two things which prove that the Bible is not only true, but inimpeachable! And anyone who says otherwise is a liar and should be shot so thay can spend as long as possible in unimaginable agony (at the hands of God, source of infinite love) the Lake of Fire along with all the other women, gays, blacks, atheists, muslims, mormons, amish, chinese, buddhists, islamics, hindus, foreigners, liberals, republicans, democrats, socialists, communists, humanists and indeed everyone who isn't a true sdtPikachu Christian, the only true Christian religion!

    DEATH TO ALL FANATICS!


    how crude. (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nathan on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:40:02 PM PST
    Why didn't you just write, "IN CASE YOU COULDN'T TELL, I AM BEING SARCASTIC!!!!!!!!!!"

    Anyway, the existence of God does not depend on the Bible. The Bible testifies to the grandeur and love of God; God doesn't need anyone to contend on His behalf. After all, the Jews knew God and believed in Him long before they had a Bible, and most medieval Catholics were illiterate - but strong in faith!

    You should do some basic research before writing such an inflammatory post. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it's a sin to be black, for instance. Some of my best friends are black. Christians love their neighbours, which is more than I can say for most atheists. Even those that do love necessarily do so for selfish reasons, so it's not worth much.

    Nathan

    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Well, yes... (none / 0) (#39)
    by sdtPikachu on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 09:05:44 PM PST
    ...I was indeed being sarcastic.

    My post was not intended to be a specific critique of the bible, or the christian religion as a whole. In fact, I was under the impression that nothing on this site was to be taken seriously (at least, that's my opinion from reading the stuff on the front page).

    Well, in response to your first paragraph, I would agree with people believing in him before the bible was published. I just don't believe they were right, that is all.

    Most medieval Catholics were illiterate because the church refused to teach them by the way. At least that's what we're taught in history here.

    As for your second paragraph...
    I am patently aware the bible does not say it is a sin to be black. I am merely referring to my own personal exerience in which people have used religion (most notably, their own warped take on christianity) as an excuse for racism. Some of my best friends are also black.

    I am also aware that christians are meant to love their neighbours. I am also aware that many of the bloodiest wars have been fought over religious matters. Also the bigotry and hatred against other beliefs propagated by the (mainly American) fundamentalist christians.

    I would also aegue with you saying that christians are more loving than atheists like myself. But maybe you have just had worse experiences with them than I have.

    And I take extreme offence at you saying that we only do love for selfish reasons. Not one atheist I have ever conversed with has ever given me this indication.

    I suppose you could say that the christian love is for selfish reasons though... as I see it, you love other because god tells you to do so. And you obey him because you want to assure a place in heaven. Seems pretty selfish to me.

    But then I lack the christian mindset any more, so what do I know?


    Most medieval Catholics had no need for literacy (4.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Adam Rightmann on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 06:52:46 AM PST
    but their memory was far better than yours.
    <p>
    Please, point me a to a pre-Gutenberg society with universal literacy. With books and printed matter being exceedingly rare and expensive, why would a peasant need to know how to read? Far better for them to learn planting and animal husbandry.
    <p>
    it was only with better farming techniques and crops that a farmer could generate enough of a surplus to allow the growth of a literate middle class, who could then understand all those texts preserved through the medieval ages by the monks. Of course, you'd then have to voice a little gratitude for the <b>evil</b> Catholic Church for sponsoring such monasteries.


    A. Rightmann

     
    selfishness in love (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 07:25:03 AM PST
  • An atheist must necessarily be a materialist.

  • A materialist must believe that physical death is the end of personal existence.

  • Thus, you will not be rewarded or punished for your behaviour after death.

  • Thus, in order to maximize your happiness, you must maximize it in this life.

  • Thus, every action you take must directly or indirectly serve to maximize your happiness (either be enlightenedly or unenlightenedly self-interested.)

  • Thus, any love you might feel toward someone else is ultimately about you.

    Adequacy.org, the most controversial site on the internet, has many resident commentators who only seek attention. But serious matters should be taken seriously no matter where you discuss them.

    I will leave the plangent irony in this following statement:

    Most medieval Catholics were illiterate because the church refused to teach them by the way. At least that's what we're taught in history here

    to you to unravel. Really, most people were illiterate because it was economically useless and thus impossible for them to be educated. You might as well say "most people today are unschooled in firearms design." Of course we are. Why would we need to know that? That's why we have a professional class.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

  • foolish boy (none / 0) (#114)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 02:20:03 PM PST
    This is one of the most rediculous posts I've ever seen in my life. I've been atheist for years, and all these statements you spew as fact just prove that you probably know more about brain surgery than you do about atheism. If you really want to talk about atheism and actually know what you're talking about (instead of just sounding foolish), please do some reading before you do any more writing. You can find several thousand web sites about atheism in a few seconds... read one some time.

    I am certainly not materialistic. In fact, I prefer a fairly simple life without too much "stuff" around at all. I earn a very respectable paycheck, but I drive a very modest car and live in a fairly small apartment. My apartment is fairly plain, but comfortable. You are correct that I believe my personal existance will end with my death, but you are extremely wrong about assuming that this implies that I have no motivation to be a "good" person. Have you ever read any plato? I'm guessing no. One of the things talked about in "the republic" is about the 3 different types of motivation for being a good person. They are, doing good for fear of punishment if you don't, doing good to get something in return, and doing good just for the sake of being a good person. I assume you fall into the first category if you claim that people only do good because of their fear of punishment after death. I think this is rediculous and not a very respectable motivation. I put myself in the 3rd group. I recognize that I could choose to be "good" or "evil" and I could do so without any concern of reward or punishment. I choose good because thats how I prefer people to treat me and I have an extreme appreciation for happiness in life... (you got that part right) There is a very close relationship between interacting positively with people and having a happy life. I also find it mindlessly insulting that you assume I can have no true feelings of love toward another person. That is rediculous. I already mentioned I have quite an intense appreciation for happiness in life, but I also have the same appreciation for other people being happy. Knowing how, having the desire to, and being able to make someone truely happy is about the best definition of love I could think of.

    Sorry for the rant, but to atheists, your post is as insulting as any racist comment, or other intolerant form of expression which is based on ignorance.


    'rediculous' (none / 0) (#115)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 04:29:31 PM PST
    As a matter of fact, I refer to Gorgias in another post current on the site. I don't claim to be a Platonic scholar, but I have read the Republic several times, and the Symposium, Phaedrus, and Gorgias within the last couple of years. They're quite fresh in my mind. I also have read some neo-Platonist writers. But thanks for patronizing me. Perhaps, having exchanged courteous insults, we can now get down to brass tacks.

    I never claimed that atheists are all hedonists. That's obviously untrue - for one things, atheists are socialized to the partial adoption of religiously-derived virtues because they live within religiously-influenced societies. Some hedonistic atheists do reject all religious virtues (and, by the way, look extremely silly and are forced to caricature their opponents.) What I claimed is that atheism radically divides you from your fellow human beings. Of course you may have a capacity for empathy - even the animals do. Of course you can care about other people - that's what empathy is for. But every emotion you feel toward others is refracted through the prism of your total, ineradicable loneliness, and your despair at the ineluctable approach of the cessation of your personal consciousness and existence.

    Stoicism as an escape from the burden of isolation is nothing new; that's what Epicureanism is. The philosophy of the Epicure, though, is a kind of soft nihilism. It's the retreat inward into 'virtue' as an end in itself - in other words, to a kind of selfishness in which other people are merely instruments upon which to practice your virtue, in the face of everyone's ever-approaching deaths.

    I'm not accusing you of being an Epicurean monster. I'm sure that you aren't like that. But you have to understand that this is the logical end of the beliefs you profess. A Christian doesn't choose good to ward off Hell. All people are destined for Hell except that they be freed through the sacrifice of Christ. A Christian chooses good because the will of God is his peace and freedom. There is not even a meaningful reason for freedom except that we can choose to love God freely, of ourselves, which is the greatest freedom and privilege conceivable.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    hmm (none / 0) (#118)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 05:34:37 PM PST
    What I claimed is that atheism radically divides you from your fellow human beings. And how is that? I'm sure thats how it appears to a religous man who sees no value in any opinion other than his own, and defines all others' beliefs in terms of how they lack his own religious values... but I strongly disagree. So, exactly how am I more lonely or more divided from my fellow human beings than... you for example? In fact, I'll make a bold claim here and say that my lack of religion actually makes me feel more connected to others. I don't believe anything other than the rules of nature created me and everyone around me. I think life is a novel experience and get much pleasure from experiencing my own life and learning from others' experience. My atheist beliefs put these lives in perspective of a bigger picture which is different from yours, but no less meaningful or more lonely or more disconnected. Maybe more fleeting, but keep in mind permanance of individual consciousness isn't something I value. Your views on freedom are disturbing. You're obviously an intelligent kind of guy... I'm sure you can put your mind to use and find some other meaningful reason for freedom. Come on... try a little mental exercise and tell me what freedom means to an atheist without simply defining it in terms of its inferiority to a religious man's freedom. Here's a hint to get you started... my greatest freedom and privilege conceivable is experiencing life in whatever way I choose simply for the sake of discovery, exploration, and experience... most importantly, I don't need to tack on any qualifiers like "because thats what my god wants"


    well, now we are talking (none / 0) (#119)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 06:05:10 PM PST
    ...civilly.

    You have to understand, Christians don't act because "that's what God wants." God is the omnipotent, omniscient Prime Mover. God cannot be limited by consciousness, presence, time, or memory. If He could be, He'd merely be a demiurge, a powerful being but not necessarily a moral one or one deserving of worship. In fact, a demiurge is more like the Christian idea of the Devil.

    Christians act in accordance to what we can understand of the Will of God - we seek to align our will to His. Now, various idolators have claimed that their unique knowledge of the Will of God entitles them to behave immorally. That's evil. It's nothing but selfishness backed by cynically manipulated superstition.

    Your question about loneliness is well taken. Christians are invited to universal love. The relevant Greek word is transliterated agape, in contrast with eros and philea (erotic and brotherly love, respectively.) A Christian, through aligning his will to God's, can partake of God's love for humankind (God cannot be said to have a 'self' in the same way human beings do, because that is a limiting way of describing His splendid totality.) So, rather than being limited to loving someone as an autonomous, unknowable entity forever outside yourself, and as such a creature yourself, you are called to try to see him as God would see him.

    The concept of the immortality of the soul has little to do with the eternal prolongation of one's consciousness per se. Heaven is understood to be the unfathomable blessing of partaking forever in the radiance of the full Presence of God. Imagine how, having given yourself over to love, you were to love everything ever more and more intensely, and after death you were to love all things as fully as does God. The wonder of being human is that we are able to choose God, and thus, in a sense, to become like Him. What a marvel!

    Nathan

    PS - sorry if I got a little rhapsodic there, but this is intoxicating stuff. And my email address is at the top of my posts - do feel free to write me.
    -N
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    'rediculous' (none / 0) (#156)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 09:42:36 AM PST
    Just to see you wiggle (and get shit all over the place), defend the false assertion:

    * An atheist must necessarily be a materialist.

    Then, having contributed to the holy altar of your own better self, account for the missing years of Jesus Christ's life.


    materialism (none / 0) (#157)
    by nathan on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 10:01:08 AM PST
    is not what you think it is. Materialism in the philosophical sense means the belief that there is only physical substance to the universe.

    Maybe you ought to be the one extending his education. Also, please hold back on the profanity.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    Non-sequitur alert! (none / 0) (#129)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 09:28:08 AM PST
    Thus, you will not be rewarded or punished for your behaviour after death.

    Thus, in order to maximize your happiness, you must maximize it in this life


     
    Hell no... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 10:55:51 PM PST
    "Some of my best friends are black."

    As a brothuh, I find one of the most invalid points a cracker can make is to this alleged downess or understanding. See another one doin' it beneath this.


    dear sir, (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 07:15:30 AM PST
    I find your views fascinating. Care to make up an account?

    Nathan

    PS - what makes you think I am white? There's more to the world than just black and white people.
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    ps (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by nathan on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 08:40:24 AM PST
    Why was this rated '1'?
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    Clarification for the not necessarily white Nathan (none / 0) (#125)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 01:03:34 AM PST

    I find your elaboration on the existence of colors beyond black and white very intriguing.

    I defy you to point me in the direction of any Black individual who has ever claimed -especially in the context of establishing ethos- that "some of [their] best friends are Black".


    Maybe he's asian? Or indian? Or native american? (none / 0) (#128)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 02:54:14 AM PST
    And maybe, just maybe, your failure to consider these possibilities makes you, in a teeny-tiny way, a racist.


    On the Subject of Hypothetical Possibility (none / 0) (#143)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 07:15:05 PM PST
    Of course, maybe he is "black". Perhaps this would explain why he has so many "black" friends. It is racist, though only in a very-very-very small way, for you to visibly leave this out of your list of alternatives.


    A.R.

    ---"I could teach my dog to bow down in front of a statue of Christ but it doesn't mean he would understand what he was doing, although he would do it every Sunday for a piece of bacon."



    sigh. (none / 0) (#145)
    by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 07:47:56 PM PST
    Read my earlier comment.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    I didn't say (none / 0) (#130)
    by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 10:00:44 AM PST
    Black, I said black. (No caps.) What am I trying to say here? No, not that. Think harder. If you still don't get it, reread the thread.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Reread, thought harder... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 06:26:49 PM PST

    Upon close inspection, you seem to be saying (1) that my fascinating views warrant establishing an account at adequacy.org, and (2) that my assumption of your whiteness demonstrates either (1) a belief in the nonexistence of skin colors that cannot be categorized outside of (1) white or (2) black, or (2) that I am unable to view the world outside of "black and white" terms.

    All of these claims, aside from 1:1, are ridiculous. You explicitly made the claim "some of my best friends are black" in order to establish ethos, as I clearly mentioned in my first response. Using the skin color of alleged friends to validate *your* point of view is plausibly more racist than my assupmtion that you are a "cracker".


    good heavens, man. (none / 0) (#144)
    by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 07:47:11 PM PST
    I'm assuming you're a well-educated guy. That makes it all the more alarming. Haven't you ever encountered the phrase, "some of my best friends are black"? It's been around longer than I have. It's stereotypically racist. I mean, no sane person would say it. You're right about that much.

    THAT was what I was hoping you would pick up by reading the thread. It was said tongue in cheek in response to some jerk who said Christians were racist. I was mocking his bad attitude.

    Crikey. My sense of humour must be too damned subtle. I feel stupid for even having tried to get you to get it. Can we please drop this? Please?

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Christians hate blacks (or Blacks)... (none / 0) (#170)
    by tallmantim on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:17:34 PM PST
    Hey Nathan - the point of the poster wasn't that Christians hate blacks, it was as written the bible states that while God loves all of us, those who are non-believing are not destined for heaven - even if they have lived a good life.

    This then disqualifies most of the worlds population from going to heaven - depending upon which branch of Church you subscribe to.

    Tim


     
    The biggest thing (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 12:08:36 PM PST
    Evolution says that there was nothing, and then from out of the blue there was this great big explostion and all of a sudden hunks of matter just sort of appeared out of that explosion and then they just sort of happened (by chance) to coagulate into the planets and galaxies that astronomers see, or claim to see. If they cannot even explain how that explosion started or where all of that matter came from, then I fail to see why we should even pay attention to any of this man-monkey business.


    You seem confused (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 12:35:12 PM PST
    You seem to be a bit confused about the terms you are using. You say "Evolution", but evolution does not include anything about the origin of the universe. I think you mean either "Big Bang Theory" or "Commonly accepted scientific principles." You may also mean 'underwater volcanic activity' by 'big explostion'(sic), 'amino acids' by 'hunks of matter' and 'self contained, replicating dna-based proto-cells' by 'planets and galaxies'. Also, if you take 'out of the blue' at face value, it doesn't really apply to an event which (allegedly) preceded the sky being blue (and everything else.) Finally, the fact that one aspect of science may not be valid does not invalidate the rest of it. An example of this is that at one time scientists believed in the 'ether' while simultaneously believing in gravity. It would, however, be ridiculous to say 'ether theory is incorrect, so I don't think we should pay attention to this "things falling" business'


    Perhaps I could straighten you out (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 04:10:06 PM PST
    When a fundamentalist (particularly a young-Earth creation Biblical inerrantist) says the word "evolution", what he or she really means is "all scientific theories, knowledge, and data with which we disagree." This includes most of modern biology, virtually all of cosmology and astronomy, large chunks of chemistry, and significant pieces of botany, geography, and archeology. Furthermore, an "evolutionist" is "anybody who thinks that modern science can explain natural phenomena better than a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible."

    I hope this clears some things up.


    Literal Interpretation (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 11:05:45 PM PST
    I have been looking for someone who expresses this belief to answer some questions for me. This relates to Matthew 6:5-9, in which there appears to be a very, very clear decree as to how/what one should pray. I also have questions about "eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek". Could someone state the qualifications for a "100 percent literal 'interpretation'". If it is possible, I think it would be for the benefit of the "evolutionists" not to cite other verses, as a literal interpretation does not need that done, no?


     
    Adequacy clearly becoming more professional (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by donkpunch on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 12:08:53 PM PST
    I've watched this site since its inception as a smallish discussion forum. Originally, misspellings and hardtoreadruntogether text were quite common.

    The tasteful use of logical paragraph breaks, relevant hyperlinks, and large font headers is a sign of increasing professionalism. Clearly, adequacy's staff is taking cues from journalistic icons like the New York Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. Well done.



    But how did it get that way? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 01:36:00 PM PST
    Is it more professional because professionalism corrolates with fitness, with the less fit sites having died off?

    -- Support the home page homeless.

    damn (none / 0) (#168)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:21:38 AM PST
    I hope we don't have all but the most 'professional' sites dieing off! We might run into a problem with too small a pool of creativity...

    You know what happens when there's too small a pool of that right? Frogs start grows fifth legs.


    hope vs. evolution (none / 0) (#169)
    by Anonymous Coward on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 05:27:42 PM PST
    You hope in the face of science! I just hope hopefulness enhances our fitness, for otherwise
    the hopeless will triumph.
    -- Support the home page homeless.

     
    What a curious article (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 02:34:31 PM PST
    Some interesting points there, although not much that is terribly new.

    The conclusion shows the authors true colours though.

    Can I suggest, as the article was written using the "scientific principles" of skepticism and rational thought that the author please stop his drive to "understand", control, and bend nature to their will, and his attempt to keep the people down :)


     
    You missed the biggest flaw. (3.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Mint Waltman on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 04:07:22 PM PST
    This is one flaw that nobody ever addresses. I've heard a lot of people who subscribe to the so-called 'scientific' theory of evolution that humans have something like 97%-98% of the same genes as chimps, BUT according to genetics, we only share 50% of our genes with our mother, and 50% with our father! Are they seriously saying we have more in common with apes than we do with our own family?! I don't know about Mr. Charles Darwin, but my grandfather Waltman was a minister, NOT part of an exhibit in the San Diego Zoo's monkey house.


    Try this (none / 0) (#21)
    by FifthChild on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 05:31:19 PM PST
    Humans and chimpanzees have DNA that seems to be 98% identical. You and your parents are both presumably human. Humans have DNA that is 100% identical with each other. You are genetically closer to your parents than any monkey. In fact, you are closer to a Chinese worker who lives halfway around the world than any primate.

    Does that make you feel any better?

    As an aside, I don't really want to get into this argument, of creationism vs. evolution. I've had this argument with some truly stupid people too many times. I have developed my own thoughts on this, however, and I may share them with everyone sometime soon...
    Let's Napalm George W. Bush

     
    Missing a point (none / 0) (#22)
    by First Incision on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 05:41:12 PM PST
    You receive 50% of your genes from your mother, and 50% from your father. Your argument ignores the fact that the similarity between your mother and father's genes (excepting the X and Y chromosomes) is VERY close to 100%
    _
    _
    Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

     
    The sequence similarity between any two humans (4.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 11:51:15 AM PST
    According to the analysis of the human genome from the human genome project, as published in Nature v.409 (Feb 15) 2001, there is about 1 single nucleotide polymorphism (a difference in DNA sequence) every 1,000 to 2,000 nucleotides in any two randomly chosen human beings. That means that any two randomly chosen humans are 99.9% or so alike in terms of genome sequence. This is about a ten-fold greater similarity than the similarity between any given human and any given chimp and corresponds with the relatively shorter amount of time that humans have been diverging from our common H. sapiens ancestral population compared to the amount of time since the common ancestor of chimps and humans diverged into the two lineages leading to modern chimp and human.

    And, of course, it remains true that we get half our genome from our father and the other half (a little more than half if you are a male) from our mother.


    You're sneaking in your theory. (2.00 / 1) (#92)
    by em on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 06:52:17 PM PST
    This is about a ten-fold greater similarity than the similarity between any given human and any given chimp and corresponds with the relatively shorter amount of time that humans have been diverging from our common H. sapiens ancestral population compared to the amount of time since the common ancestor of chimps and humans diverged into the two lineages leading to modern chimp and human.

    I'm sorry, but given that the topic at hand actually involves putting in question your "explanation", you're not allowed to sneak this just-so story in.

    It's a simple problem: how do you distinguish a world where two organisms are similar because they have similar DNA from one where they have similar DNA because they are similar? (This is, essentially, a recasting of the "world type #1 vs. world type #2" problem.)
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    Info (3.00 / 1) (#95)
    by rodjk on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 06:43:51 AM PST
    Em wrote:
    I'm sorry, but given that the topic at hand actually involves putting in question your "explanation", you're not allowed to sneak this just-so story in.

    This is what he said, that "According to the analysis of the human genome from the human genome project, as published in Nature v.409 (Feb 15) 2001, there is about 1 single nucleotide polymorphism (a difference in DNA sequence) every 1,000 to 2,000 nucleotides in any two randomly chosen human beings. That means that any two randomly chosen humans are 99.9% or so alike in terms of genome sequence. This is about a ten-fold greater similarity than the similarity between any given human and any given chimp"
    (remarks enclosed in quotes from the earlier post)

    These facts are referenced from a Peer-reviewed science journal. What is your problem with the facts? This is not a "Just so story", this is the evidence.

    The next part, that I cut out, is the theory or explanation. What is your problem with it?

    You have not done your research very well, and are now playing semantic games to try and hide your ignorance. You are not doing well.
    Rodjk #613



    You are attacking the wrong thing. (none / 0) (#123)
    by em on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:09:07 PM PST
    The sneaked-in theory is this bit:
    the relatively shorter amount of time that humans have been diverging from our common H. sapiens ancestral population compared to the amount of time since the common ancestor of chimps and humans diverged into the two lineages leading to modern chimp and human.
    I have not questioned the DNA data at all (which I accept), so your attack is completely misguided.

    The next part, that I cut out, is the theory or explanation. What is your problem with it?

    You cut out precisely what I objected to, and then objected to what I did not object to. Grand.

    My problem with it is explained in the article and in my postings. Simply, much hypothesis is taken for fact (a huge evolutionary pathway, "the tree of life", which connects all living beings; how are you ever going to support that apart from just-so stories?), and the interpretation of the data depends on an unexamined assumption (are the supposed "greater than chance" similarities really greater than chance? How would you prove that?).
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    Research (none / 0) (#134)
    by rodjk on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:03:23 PM PST
    Em Wrote:
    My problem with it is explained in the article and in my postings. Simply, much hypothesis is taken for fact (a huge evolutionary pathway, "the tree of life", which connects all living beings; how are you ever going to support that apart from just-so stories?), and the interpretation of the data depends on an unexamined assumption (are the supposed "greater than chance" similarities really greater than chance? How would you prove that?).

    My Response:
    The facts support the conclusion. That is how science works. That we see a progression of body types in the fossil record, we see species changing into new species (macroevolution) and we see how the genetics of the new species evolved from the old - add to that the mechanism of Natural Selection and our observations of living things make evolution a fact.
    You can play with words and strawmen all you want, but you are not changing anything.
    You are like the engineer in the urban legend who "proved" that bumblebees could not fly.
    Since we see bumblebee's flying (in this case, we see evolution) we are not impressed with your semantics.
    (BTW, the engineer proved that bumblebee's could not glide)

    Did it occur to you that your problem with evolution is that you do not understand it?

    Rodjk #613


     
    Denying The Historicity of the Fossil Record (none / 0) (#153)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 07:35:28 AM PST
    The degree of DNA similarity is a fact. It is also a fact that H. sapiens fossils disappear from the fossil record at a much earlier time than do fossils of hominids that show increasing intermediacy between modern chimps and modern humans. First we start seeing a more chimp-like cranium on a bipedal hominid, then we start seeing hominds with less highly developed bipedalism. There are also teeth changes toward more generalized ape-like characteristics as you go back. This evidence tells us that modern humans only occurred well after the first appearance of great apes.
    So one can present a hypothesis that these changes are ahistorical, but that requires a rejection of basic geological principles of superposition and requires a denial of all scientifically valid dating methods. You can also present a hypothesis that some entity poofed each of these species into existence from scratch at each point of time that they are first observed and that it was purely the entity's arbitrary choice to make each new organism look like a modification of a pre-existing organism. You can also present a hypothesis that requires all these fossils to be false evidence of a false history planted there by some entity to delude us into thinking that this pattern looks like a pattern that involves morphing one organism into a slightly different organism. The last is what evolution proposes. Evolution is NOT the invention of entirely new organisms from scratch. It is the morphing of one organism into a slightly different organism.

    But you cannot say that the evidence is inconsistent with a historical pattern of morphing from one species to another closely related species. And that is the only one of those three theories that is scientific (the others are unfalsifiable). Feel free to present an alternate hypothesis I have not considered.

    The amount of DNA difference is appropriate for the time since divergence as indicated by the fossil record, both for the amount of difference seen within H. sapiens and the amount of difference between H. sapiens and P. troglodytes (chimp). In that way, the DNA record is a better measure of time than the changes in morphology.



     
    Thank you (none / 0) (#23)
    by First Incision on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 05:51:13 PM PST
    As a biologist, I find myself defending Evolution to Christian fundamentalists a lot. As a devout (non-Fundamentalist) Christian, I often find myself asking "Where does God fit in, anyway?" I often see a lot of arrogance on either side of the debate.

    You present a very interesting article. I had never thought about it, but you're right. Evolutionary theory is based on the assertation that all life descended from a single cell. Yet I have never seen any evidence of this single cell that wasn't presented in the context of evolutionary theory. It is a logical circle, indeed.

    Still, the last paragraph left a bitter taste in my mouth. Comparing scientists to rapists, and claiming they are trying to "keep people down" does nothing to help the logic of your argument, does nothing to show flaws in the logic of evolution, and basically amounts to name-calling.

    All-in-all, this was a very adequate article.
    _
    _
    Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

     
    Oh, great. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:26:52 PM PST
    My first warning came when you crowed about how brilliant you were, in overthrowing all these theories accepted as scientific fact, because you were obviously some sort of genius.

    The second one was when I saw you seemed to have come up with the article by throwing a thesaurus in a wood chipper, seeing as most of the polysyllabic words you used make no sense in their present context. Another sign of a pretentious pseudo-intellectual.

    Also, great knowing sage, if you had even taken ten minutes to look around the net, you would find sound, scientific refutation for your three main objections. Nice try Einstein, but if you want to make yourself feel like a big man, try to refute theories that have not been verified by every single test made of them.


    I don't claim to be `brilliant' (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by em on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:42:12 PM PST
    Just undeluded by post-Englightenment technologist ideology.

    The second one was when I saw you seemed to have come up with the article by throwing a thesaurus in a wood chipper, seeing as most of the polysyllabic words you used make no sense in their present context. Another sign of a pretentious pseudo-intellectual.

    Translation: "This is wrong because I don't understand the words he uses." Sorry, that argument won't cut it.

    Also, great knowing sage, if you had even taken ten minutes to look around the net, you would find sound, scientific refutation for your three main objections.

    I'm sorry, but I looked around well more than 10 minutes to prepare, and couldn't find my points addressed. Care to point to those obvious documents that I've missed?
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    it's good (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by nathan on Tue Nov 13th, 2001 at 06:49:31 PM PST
    that someone else realised how the so-called Enlightenment led us gaily down the primrose path.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Obviously. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by tkatchev on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 01:45:09 AM PST
    The "Enlightenment" was a direct outgrowth of the medieval alchemical and astrological school of thought. Medieval astrology and alchemy, in turn, is a direct outgrowth of earlier kabbalistic and outright satanic tradition. So, there shouldn't really be any surprise that the "enlightenment" finally lead to outright paganism and/or demon-worship. (Makes you wonder whether indeed most historical processes are cyclical...)


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    Your lack of "research" Shows (none / 0) (#68)
    by rodjk on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 08:52:04 AM PST
    It shows that you spent 10 minutes researching your article. If you had spent more than 2 minutes at www.talkorigins.org you would have found all the answers and explanations for your questions. Or you could have gone to the usenet site for Talk Origins and asked questions. Instead, you posted this article full of errors.
    For starters, Macroevolution is defined as speciation: the "birth of a new species".
    This has been observed. There is a FAQ on TalkOrigins.org on observed instances of speciation.
    You can also check out the transitional fossil sequence for horses and whales, either of which you can find on the web at the Talk Origins site.
    Or go to the library and check out "Almost like a Whale" by Steve Jones ("Darwin's Ghost")in the USA.
    Also, look for Carl Zimmers' "At the Water's Edge"
    http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/h20edge.html
    for more info on Whale evolution, and general info on macroevolution. One more book to read is Jonathan Weiner's "The Beak of the Finch".
    http://www.2think.org/tbotf.shtml
    Please check your sources before you post, so you do not mislead your readers with unintentionally bad information.
    Rodjk #613



    These quoted sources seem one-sided to me (4.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Adam Rightmann on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 09:03:53 AM PST
    almost like going to <a href="http://slashdot.org">15 year old Aspergers loners</a> to research Linux vs. Windows. Could you list some resources that provide counter-arguments?


    A. Rightmann

    Counter arguments? (none / 0) (#81)
    by rodjk on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 02:02:39 PM PST
    Adam Wrote:
    Could you list some resources that provide counter-arguments?

    These are not arguments, they are facts.
    The books and links list and describe FACTS.

    This is my favorite sort of argument with creationist:
    Creationist: There are no transitional fossils!
    Scientist: Sure there are, plenty of them.
    Creationist: There are no transitional fossils!
    Scientist: Go visit your Natural History Museum and see them.
    Creationist: There are no transitional fossils!
    Scientist: Here is a list of them (cue horse and bird and whale and human transitionals)
    Creationist: There are no transitional fossils!
    Scientist: (Scratches head) Won't you even LOOK at them? Here they are..
    Creationist: There are no transitional fossils!

    The books and links provide the evidence, the conclusions are unmistakable:
    Evolution is a fact.
    Rodjk #613





    You seem to be deluded by scientism. (none / 0) (#88)
    by em on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 03:51:34 PM PST
    I'm sorry, but there simply is no such thing as "objective facts" or "objective reality". All construals of reality are subjective, the product of a ideologically constituted subject.

    Having said that, you seem to have completely misread the article. Your "objections" completely miss the point, and you come dangerously close to attributing to me a claim I've never made (e.g. your "Creationist: There are no transitional fossils!" strawman).
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    Eh? (none / 0) (#90)
    by TopCat on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 05:28:54 PM PST
    But aren't you, by stating that there are no objective facts, actually stating one?


    No. (none / 0) (#91)
    by em on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 05:52:34 PM PST
    Why would you think I was?
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


     
    So? (none / 0) (#97)
    by rodjk on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 07:18:53 AM PST
    I'm sorry, but there simply is no such thing as "objective facts" or "objective reality". All construals of reality are subjective, the product of a ideologically constituted subject.

    Is it an objective fact that there are no objective facts?

    Are you a troll? You show all the signs.
    I was not responding to your article.
    I was responding to other comments.
    Rodjk #613



     
    there are no obejcetive facts (none / 0) (#106)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 09:46:50 AM PST
    "I'm sorry, but there simply is no such thing as "objective facts" or "objective reality". All construals of reality are subjective, the product of a ideologically constituted subject. "

    Translation:

    I dont wanna play with you anymore, so I'm taking away my toys.


     
    A test of "objective reality" (none / 0) (#155)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 08:15:13 AM PST
    Replying To:
    You seem to be deluded by scientism. (none / 0) (#88)
    by em (em@NOSPAM.adequacy.org) on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 03:51:34 PM PST
    (User Info) http://www.adequacy.org/

    " I'm sorry, but there simply is no such thing as "objective facts" or "objective reality". All construals of reality are subjective, the product of a ideologically constituted subject."

    All I ask is that you walk out the 23rd story window and test whether gravity is or is not an "objective fact" or "objective reality".

    Such post-modernist nonsense is not "adequate".


     
    No, you're wrong. (none / 0) (#86)
    by em on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 03:25:04 PM PST
    For starters, Macroevolution is defined as speciation: the "birth of a new species". This has been observed. There is a FAQ on TalkOrigins.org on observed instances of speciation.

    I've read that. It spends page after page explaining the various contrived and controversial definitions of "speciation" needed to make the claim "speciation has been observed" true.

    But it is simply besides the point. Note that in my argument, I refrained from mentioning "changing one species into another", settling to base it rather on the kinds of change adduced to macroevolution.

    To put it simply, the document you cite discusses cases of microevolution which, according to some definitions of "species", result in a new species arising. None of the cases shows that natural selection can result in the kind of evolutionary changes that change a reptile into a mammal over a geological timescale. The observed instances, regarless of whether you call them "speciation" or not, don't help the case.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    species (none / 0) (#98)
    by rodjk on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 07:31:16 AM PST
    "But it is simply besides the point. Note that in my argument, I refrained from mentioning "changing one species into another", settling to base it rather on the kinds of change adduced to macroevolution."

    Yes. You are playing with definitions again.
    You did correctly note that the scientifically minded Talk Origins site based "page after page" on the definitions of speciation. You just ignore the problems of defintion and use macroevolution without even trying to define it.

    You are also playing the creationist game with definitions.
    You want small, step by step changes?
    They are there in what science calls speciation (macro). But then you want large changes, so you are shown the horse or whale or human linages.
    Then you are still unhappy; but this is because you do not understand the science use of defintions.
    Small changes within a species are called microevolution. Then, when enough of these steps add up to reproductive issolation from the larger population, it is called Macroevolution.
    The largest step in evolution is macro (speciation). Lots of macro steps lead from land animal to whale, as is documented in the fossil record (and in the book "Almost like a Whale" by Steve Jones and in "At the Waters Edge" by Carl Zimmer).
    Since we can observe these changes (real time and historically, in the fossil record) and we know the mechanism for the changes (mutations + Natural Selection) evolution is quite properly called a fact.
    Creationist politicians aside, its acceptance as a fact is non-controversial in science.

    Rodjk #613




    I'm running out of original, negative subjects (none / 0) (#121)
    by em on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 10:37:18 PM PST
    Yes. You are playing with definitions again.

    Nothing in my arguments ultimately revolves on any particular definition of "species", "microevolution" or "macroevolution". Quite simply, the argument is that a large number of the differences between actual organisms and their hypothetical ancestors are impossible to establish. Yes, there are a lot of suggestive similarities and data, like the horse fossils, but exhibiting these don't show that there exists a viable evolutionary pathway between one stage and the other. What you are doing is hypothesizing that such a thing exists, and what I'm doing is questioning your capacity to ever support it.

    Since we can observe these changes (real time and historically, in the fossil record) and we know the mechanism for the changes (mutations + Natural Selection) evolution is quite properly called a fact.

    Again, your mechanism has only been hypothesized to be responsible for the changes, based on data that bear more than one interpretation.

    And I must say, again, that "facts" are an ideological construction. Reality doesn't have "facts", societies construct them.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    Running on Empty (none / 0) (#135)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:12:26 PM PST
    Your argument does, in fact, depend crucially upon the definitions you use -- or rather, by the fact that you avoid presenting any definition that can be pinned down. Your previous definition of "macroevolution" as meaning essentially "evolution that can't happen" was particularly absurd. What it meant is that if someone actually presented evidence for the evolution of, say, the horses, that you would be willing to accept, all that would mean is that the horse scheme would then be "microevolution" and whatever else you were ignorant enough about or obstinant enough to deny would still be "macroevolution".

    All data can bear more than one interpretation. But all the interpretations one gives must bear consistency with at least the majority of the data. The data is entirely consistent with evolution and common descent (the modification of organisms and their features over geological time to generate new species. N.B. Evolution does not 'create' new organisms and new features -- it only modifies, sometimes dramatically over long enough periods of time, old ones.). The data is also consistent with the idea of a supernatural cheap magician of a God who, from time to time, poofs new species into existence, with the proviso that said species be closely related to previously existing species. It is also consistent with a deceitful God who poofed everything into existence a microsecond ago with faked evidence of a false history. That represents three alternative hypotheses consistent with the evidence. The problem with both the last two hypotheses is that they would be consistent with any kind of evidence. They are unfalsifiable unscientific claptrap.

    Only the first hypothesis could have been falsified if the evidence had been different. If all organisms were equidistant from each other wrt to sequence differences, that would have directly pointed to all organisms having been 'created' at the same time with the same sequence. The neutral drift differences would then have accumulated since that single point of creation. If the fossil record were not so obviously a historical record (with the fossils in any layer being most similar to the fossils immediately above or below and more dissimilar as you get further away in time (layers) it would make no sense to propose a historical relatedness of organisms. That both mechanisms produce the same branched pathway (with exceptions primarily in exactly the places where evidence was least available for one or the other form of analysis or where certain understood artifacts might produce anomolies) is strong support for the inference of common descent.

    Other than the alternate hypotheses I have presented, you have not presented any alternative explanation that can be tested. Until you do, all you are saying is that you don't like the present alternative that is consistent with the evidence becuase it offends your sensibilities. Tough.


     
    Research (none / 0) (#136)
    by rodjk on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:15:35 PM PST
    I keep using the same subject line, as I wish you would use it.
    That NS is observed playing a (strong) role in evolution is no doubt. Experiments and observations of NS in action are easy to find for anyone who looks for it.

    My only question now is by this statement:
    "Again, your mechanism has only been hypothesized to be responsible for the changes, based on data that bear more than one interpretation."

    So, is your objection with NS as one of the mechanisms of evolution (mutation + NS = evolution) or with evolution (or common descent) itself ? You do know that NS and evolution are not the same thing?

    If you want to say that facts are an ideological construct, that is fine.
    That sort of philosophical game is not science.
    Since I am only interested in a science discussion, this sort of argument is useless.

    Rodjk #613


     
    More than one interpretation (none / 0) (#162)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 09:51:05 AM PST
    Most data can be interpreted in more than one way, especially if you are unconstrained by the need to be consistent or to use naturalistic explanation, as science is required to do.

    Any data can always be interpreted as being the result of some super-powerful unseen entity working by mechanisms and for reasons that cannot be explored. The poofing god that consistently poofs organisms in a historical pattern for reasons we cannot fathom and the deceitful god who creates a false history for reasons we cannot fathom are both explanations that fit the data. They would, of course, fit any data.

    But you do need to present an alternative naturalistic explanation that is as consistent as common descent if you wish to present a scientific rather than a theological solution. I am waiting for your alternative scientific explanation of the fossil and DNA sequence record that does not involve common descent.


     
    and your theory is ? (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 05:37:46 AM PST
    Dear Em,

    Please would you enlighten me with your theory.

    Thank you

    Charles Darwin



     
    Yet another boring creationist argument. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 12:39:47 PM PST
    This author is clearly not a biologist, since he confuses many terms of biology. Natural selection (NS) is mathematically defined as "significant differential reproductive success of alternate phenotypes in a specified environment". That makes the determination of whether or not NS occurs an empirical determination. One measures the relative fitness (reproductive success) of two alternate phenotypes in a specified environment. [The author says "each gene is marked by a fitness value" as if one could do so out of the blue. He should have said "a relative fitness value can be experimentally determined".] If there is no significant difference in reproductive success when the two phenotypes are compared, then there is no NS. NS is not an inevitable consequence of comparison of phenotypes in a specified environment. Properly understood, there is no question but that NS has occurred in the case of the peppered moths. The only argument is whether the observed significant differential reproductive success is due entirely to bird predation.
    The author regularly confuses the terms "allele", which means different forms of a given 'gene' with the term "gene".
    The author says "This has to do with the difference between microevolution and macroevolution." and then fails utterly to define what that difference is and how he recognizes it.
    The author claims that evolution is based on the premise that "If all those species [including currently extinct ones] are much more similar than mere chance would allow, then they must be related." This is true. But he fails to realize that the next question is "Why, in what way, are they related." Common descent is one explanation. There are certain testable expectations if common descent is the explanation for this 'relatedness'. Repeated magical poofing of species (including currently extinct ones) into existence in a pattern that mimics a historical pattern right down to the DNA on the basis of common design features is another. One of these explanations has a workable mechanism. The other invokes repeated magic and arbitrariness to generate the observed pattern of similarities and differences.
    The rest of the article is a flawed argument by analogy.


    No, I'm still mostly right. (none / 0) (#89)
    by em on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 04:08:13 PM PST
    Natural selection (NS) is mathematically defined as "significant differential reproductive success of alternate phenotypes in a specified environment". That makes the determination of whether or not NS occurs an empirical determination.

    That does not contradict anything I've said.

    [The author says "each gene is marked by a fitness value" as if one could do so out of the blue. He should have said "a relative fitness value can be experimentally determined".]

    Doesn't matter in the context of the quote (the argument that NS is mathematically true). However you choose to determine the numbers, the argument stands.

    Of course many actual evolutionists who do work worth reading go out and look at organisms' actual reproductive success to base their models on. This is solidly empirical science. It's the ones speculating about such things for completely hypothetical organisms conjured up for the mere end of claiming that all species are related that are the problem.

    The author regularly confuses the terms "allele", which means different forms of a given 'gene' with the term "gene".

    Point taken.

    The author says "This has to do with the difference between microevolution and macroevolution." and then fails utterly to define what that difference is and how he recognizes it.

    A pair of working hypotheses: (a) macroevolution is changes not achievable by Natural Selection; (b) one can draw up a list of claimed evolutionary changes, and failing to find a clearly empirically supportable NS account of them (e.g. as in the peppered moth case), one is justified to make the hypothesis that these are cases of macroevolution. The burden of proof falls upon evolutionists to prove such eccentric claims such that mammals can evolve from reptiles.

    There are certain testable expectations if common descent is the explanation for this 'relatedness'. Repeated magical poofing of species (including currently extinct ones) into existence in a pattern that mimics a historical pattern right down to the DNA on the basis of common design features is another. One of these explanations has a workable mechanism. The other invokes repeated magic and arbitrariness to generate the observed pattern of similarities and differences.

    All you show here is that you failed to understand the "world types #1 and #2" argument. Your "magical poof" strawman critically depends on the assumption of a #2 type world.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    No, you are still mostly wrong (none / 0) (#102)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 08:21:19 AM PST
    Replying To:
    No, I'm still mostly right. (none / 0) (#89)
    by em (em@NOSPAM.adequacy.org) on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 04:08:13
    PM PST
    (User Info) http://www.adequacy.org/

    Natural selection (NS) is mathematically defined as "significant differential reproductive success of alternate phenotypes in a specified environment". That makes the determination of whether or not NS occurs an empirical determination.

    That does not contradict anything I've said

    Yes, it does. You said:

    "There is absolutely nothing whatsoever empirical in this argument-- it is a purely mathematical proof. Natural Selection is mathematically true."

    I said that NS is mathematically defined (as are many concepts in science) but is empirically determined. It is also inferred to be, and rightly so, the primary reason for the retention of traits that are functionally useful in extinct organisms (since it the primary reason for retention of useful traits today). And since NS is a mechanism that allows the functional morphology of a population to generationally track changes in local conditions, NS is clearly a mechanism that can morph organisms toward adaptation to new conditions. Moreover, the experimentally observed rate of such change is more than rapid enough to account for the morphological changes seen in organism over geological time frames. For example, in as little as 100 generations, NS in favor of change can move the population mean of a feature (say leg length) up to 6 standard deviations away from the original mean. The change in mean cranial capacity between H. erectus and H. sapiens is only 3 standard deviations from the original mean. And this change in cranial capacity is an extremely rapid example of evolutionary change. The time available to produce this change was much, much longer than 100 generations, and intermediate cranial capacities exist in populations of archaic H. sapiens and the most recent H. erectus.

    The author says "This has to do with the difference between microevolution and macroevolution." and then fails utterly to define what that difference is and how he recognizes it.

    You replied:

    "A pair of working hypotheses: (a) macroevolution is changes not achievable by Natural Selection;"

    This is a non-standard definition (the standard definition is that microevolution is evolutionary change within a species and macroevolution is evolutionary change beyond the species boundary) and, worse, it is a definition that assumes the result you want to acheive, especially when linked to b), whereby any place where there is sufficient ignorance and absence of evidence is considered, by you, to be evidence for "a change not achievable by NS".

    "(b) one can draw up a list of claimed evolutionary changes, and failing to find a clearly empirically supportable NS account of them (e.g. as in the peppered moth case), one is justified to make the hypothesis that these are cases of macroevolution."

    I.e., your personal level of ignorance (or even everybody's present level of ignorance) is your only argument in favor of 'macroevolution' as you, rather strangely define it. Do you have a scientifically useful definition of 'macroevolution'? One that does not depend on the absence of evidence? BTW, do you agree that the peppered moth case really does show NS (there is substantial evidence of differential reproductive success of alternate phenotypes in specified environments in the case of the peppered moths) or do you still claim that it doesn't?

    "The burden of proof falls upon evolutionists to prove such eccentric claims such that mammals can evolve from reptiles."

    These "eccentric claims" arise from the concordance of multiple independent sources of evidence: sequence analysis of proteins from living species when run through a program that produces the, purely statistical, maximal parsimony relatedness relationships, morphological and developmental relatedness of living species of both mammals (including the living 'intermediate' monotremes) and reptiles, the increasing morphological similarities of fossils in lineages working backward (deeper in the geological strata) from living species, the existence of fossils at the appropriate times (oldest strata with both 'reptiles' and 'mammals') that are 'intermediate' or 'transistional' to the point that it is often difficult to tell whether a fossil is a reptile-like mammal or a mammal-like reptile, including one that shows a double jaw joint (one of the major differences between reptiles and mammals is which bones are used to join the jaw to the skull). Now what evidence (other than your ignorance) can you present that shows that mammals did not share a common ancestor with reptiles?


    You are missing the point. (none / 0) (#120)
    by em on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 10:26:51 PM PST
    I said that NS is mathematically defined (as are many concepts in science) but is empirically determined.

    You are equating instances of Natural Selection with the principle itself, then. Of course, whether in a specific case NS is at play or not is an empirical question. But NS itself can't be false, not unless probability theory is false too.

    Imagine this case: you found a case where you have a population which shows allelles A and B for some trait and A has higher fitness than B, yet in the succeeding generations B you observed more common than A. Here all the preconditions for NS to apply are observed, but the result is not.

    This scenario is logically impossible, however, given the definition of "fitness". This is why NS is not empirical. The putative scenario which could falsify it is not possible.

    Contrast this to, say, Newton's laws of Mechanics, which are empirical, and indeed have been falsified.

    This is a non-standard definition (the standard definition is that microevolution is evolutionary change within a species and macroevolution is evolutionary change beyond the species boundary) and, worse, it is a definition that assumes the result you want to acheive, especially when linked to b), whereby any place where there is sufficient ignorance and absence of evidence is considered, by you, to be evidence for "a change not achievable by NS".

    Hmmm. Actually, I think I'll accept your objections over this point in a particular way. I will not make use of the terms "microevolution" or "macroevolution" any more. I don't need them. I think all I need in order to formulate my objection is to claim that some proposed evolutionary pathways (e.g. the one that leads from a reptile to human beings) are not sufficiently proven.

    These "eccentric claims" arise from the concordance of multiple independent sources of evidence: sequence analysis of proteins from living species when run through a program that produces the, purely statistical, maximal parsimony relatedness relationships, [...]

    Which assume that we live in a world of type #1. You are missing the point of that objection. All that evidence is only evidence of common descent to the extent that the world is such that these things are only likely to arise from common descent.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


     
    Flawed premises based on biological ignorance (none / 0) (#76)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 01:03:41 PM PST
    "1.The fossil record is famously incomplete."

    True enough. Which is why most analysis of the mechanisms and patterns of historical change are either done at the genus level or are done by looking at those organisms that do leave a much more complete fossil record (such as foramniferans and other small shelly stuff). Most pseudoscientific creationists then argue that this only 'microevolution'.

    "2.Biologists have not explicitly formulated a theoretical principle that states that the relationship between phenotypes and genotypes is arbitrary enough for historical explanation to be the preferred option. For all we know, this relationship could be tighter than appreciated due to some undiscovered natural law (the hypothetical biological analogue to the rejected linguistic hypothesis of "Iconiciy", which states that sound and meaning stand in a natural rather than arbitrary relation), and the genotypic similarity of organisms with similar phenotypes is explained by this law, not common descent."

    As a matter of fact, some of the best evidence for common descent comes from amino acid and DNA sequence analysis. One of the underlying principles of this analysis is that the changes are largely selectively neutral and are the result of a 'random walk' leading to fixation. This type of evidence, in short, does not depend on whether or not NS is responsible for the observable morphological changes in species.

    "3.Biologists, by insisiting that all species are related, can't bolster their arguments about relatedness by pointing to unrelated species, like linguists can do with languages."

    As a matter of fact, the use of 'outlier' groups is an important feature of sequence analysis. Most of what scientists are interested in is not the relationship between all organisms, but whether 'whales' are more closely related to extinct mesochynids or to extinct artiodactyls (themselves closely related). The answer, from both DNA and quite recent fossil evidence is in favor of artiodactyls.

    That makes two out of three of your premises flawed or irrelevant ones wrt evidence for common descent.


    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#124)
    by em on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:16:53 PM PST
    ["Fossil record is incomplete"] Which is why most analysis of the mechanisms and patterns of historical change are either done at the genus level or are done by looking at those organisms that do leave a much more complete fossil record (such as foramniferans and other small shelly stuff). Most pseudoscientific creationists then argue that this only 'microevolution'.

    Which means that the argument then at the higher classificatory levels is shaky.

    As a matter of fact, some of the best evidence for common descent comes from amino acid and DNA sequence analysis. One of the underlying principles of this analysis is that the changes are largely selectively neutral and are the result of a 'random walk' leading to fixation.

    Ok. I don't have an answer to this. I'll think about it.

    As a matter of fact, the use of 'outlier' groups is an important feature of sequence analysis. Most of what scientists are interested in is not the relationship between all organisms, but whether 'whales' are more closely related to extinct mesochynids or to extinct artiodactyls (themselves closely related).

    I must partially accept your point. Yes, it is possible to use outlier arguments to support a hypothesis that for some hypothetical ancestor A, A1 and A2 are related by comparing them to a third organism B1 which is unrelated to A. However, for the common descent hypothesis (which is the common descent hypothesis I'm most interested in), this sort of argument is completely unavailable.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


     
    Which type of world? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 08:49:06 AM PST
    "Let's do a thought experiment to clarify this further. First, we shall conceptualize the range of heredity (genotype), environment and phenotype as multi- or infinite-dimensional spaces, in which each dimension represents some variable among which genotypes, developmental environments or organism traits can in principle differ. This gives us a measure of "distance" for each of these domains.

    Now, we consider the range of possible mappings from genotype-environment pairs to phenotypes. Now, there are two relevant poles towards which such mappings can tend:

    1.A mapping could be such that for each phenotype we may find wildly differing genotype-environment pairs which map to the same phenotype.
    2.On the other hand, a mapping could be such that only a very restricted set of proximate genotype-environment pairs could code for a given phenotype.

    Each of these mappings gives an undelying structure of possibilities within which the question of whether correspondences between organisms are due to common heredity can be posed.
    But the answer in each case is different:

    1.If the structure of possibilities is indeed like #1 (as it is demonstrably the case for natural languages), then the most likely explanation is common origin. For if you were to take two very similar organisms at random, then the mapping gives you relatively little information about what genotype and enviroment could have produced it-- very different combinations of these could have produced each of the two organisms.
    2.On the other hand, if the structure is more like #2, then the historical argument is weakened, and the most likely cause is just eternal laws of nature. Phenotypes are highly informative about genotype and environment, and indeed, to the degree where you can actually explain genetic similarity on terms of phenotypic similarity."

    The above is the core, I believe, of your argument by analogy. But it is remarkably unclear what you mean and, to the extent that it has meaning, points out some of the problems with the analogy. In fact, it largely seems little more than fancy gobbledy-gook masquarading as argument. That is in part because of odd statements like "genotype-environment pairs" that code for "phenotype".

    Genetics says that genotype, in a particular organism and environment, will produce a particular phenotype. The relationship between genotype and phenotype is well understood, but is very much an empirical determination. One empirically determines that a particular gene variant is "dominant" or "recessive" or "incompletely dominant" and whether or not there are environmental conditions (including mutations in other genes) which influence the phenotype produced. Some traits are multigenically determined. As for the "genotype-environment pairs", you can always dump any genotype into any environment that exists on earth. You will find that humans do poorly in thermal hot springs and anaerobic environments and that Botulism bacteria do poorly in oxygen tents.

    First you have to define what you are examining. When you look at 'genotype' in evolution, you are not looking at the entire 'genotype', but only at those aspects of the 'genotype' that affect the traits (phenotypic features) which must changed to get from species A (the ancestor species) to species B (the descendent species). Evolution and common descent, after all, is a mechanism of repeated speciation. The rest of the genotype becomes part of the 'environment' within which these features must emerge.

    So your mapping makes no real sense from a biological perspective. But let's see if I can cut to what biology does say that might have some relevance to what you think you were saying by this gobbledy-gook.

    If, by #1, you are asking if many different variant gene sequences can perform the same function, the answer is a resounding "Yes." There are many different sequences of cytochrome c, for example, that all perform the same basic function in aerobic respiration. Some are so different from others that it would be difficult to tell that they all derived from one another unless you had the other sequences that diverged more recently. That is because, unlike human language, where every word has meaning, much of the sequence language of proteins act essentially as spacer. That is, a protein is more like "La-la-tra-go-ga-da-la-to-la-ti-hades-fa-la" than it is to "Go to hades". The sentence "La-ti-tra-go-ga-da-la-to-la-ti-hades-fa--la" will send the same message as the original. As further evidence, one can often take genes from, say, a human, that are crucial in human development and use it to replace a comparable gene that is crucial to early development in fruit flies. The human gene is not identical in sequence, but it retains enough similarity in function to adequately support fly development. There have been a number of such experimental exchanges. A significant fraction of them show at least a reasonable ability to substitute human and fly genes.

    That is a clear answer in favor of #1.

    But even at the macro level, we can see this. Wings, in order to be useable for flight, must be designed under the constraints of the laws of aerodynamics. But, unlike the expectation of #2, different groups of flying organisms who developed flight separately from each other did not use the exact same machinery, although in each case, the machinery they did use was 'borrowed' and represents a modification of pre-existing machinery. In insects, second 'legs' were flattened and eventually became 'wings' via intermediate state as oars. Insect wings are quite different from the 'wings' of vertebrates. All vertebrate 'wings' evolved from and are modifications of ancestral forelimbs, but in each of the independently derived wings of bats, birds, and pterodons, different bones were used and different types of assisting structures (feathers are modified scales) were used. Each of these independent wing types are only found within a historical grouping. Other organisms accomplish 'flight' or 'gliding' by different mechanisms, all consistent with the laws of aerodynamics. Spiders balloon. Bacteria just blow in the wind. Gliding squirrels use a flap of skin.

    Not coincidentally (given an assumption of historical relatedness), each of these solutions map to a particular group of organisms (both current and fossil) who would be grouped together and separately from other winged groups even if you exclude wings from the classification scheme.

    Swimming fast also puts hydrodynamic constraints on any solution, but again different related groups of swimming organisms have used different solutions. The tail of teleost fish is vertical as is an ichthyosaurs, but the latter has a tail bone extending into it. The tail of a cetacean is horizontal as is the rear flipper of a seal, but the latter is clearly derived from hind limbs whereas the whales flipper is pure tail. The penguin has come up with yet a different solution.

    The same grouping of organisms with particular flipper solutions would come about even in the absence of using flippers. That is, these solutions are solely within an identifiably separate grouping of organisms. Whales (all whales, both current and fossil, including some with legs) would still be closer to artiodactyls than to teleostean fish or to penquins or to seals (all seals are closely related to carnivores rather than artiodactyls).

    Although the human and octopus eye are remarkably similar in a superficial way, a closer examination shows that, except for those features required for image formation, which requires obediance to optical reality, the two eyes are quite different, both at the morphological level and also at the molecular level beyond the first two steps.

    So even a cursory examination of the biological world shows that more than one solution is possible for a 'solving' a given problem. Moreover, each of the macro solutions involves modification of a pre-existing structure. And each solution is found only within an historical grouping (organisms with similar features, both fossil and currently extant). And when you look at molecules and add in the effect of random drift that is selectively neutral, you get even more variation that produces the same phenotypic result.

    Does that answer the question? If my interpretation of your questions is correct, then the "real world" clearly says #1, but constrained by the necessity to meet external laws of nature.


    YES! Phenotypic similarity <> Genetic simila (none / 0) (#163)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 03:31:03 PM PST
    Yes. Those comments are spot on. The mapping between genotypes and phenotypes is such that multiple genotypes could produce similar phenotypes. This makes claims that similar morphology implies genetic similarities rather hollow in the absence of common descent. Given that the genetic code is roughly three-fold redundant (approx. three possible codons for each amino acid), that genes can be relocated on different chromosomes with little effect, and that structurally dissimilar enzymes can have overlapping activities, there is no a priori reason to suspect that even very similar organisms should exhibit highly similar genetic sequences -- Unless, of course, they were related in some way. As a later respondent notes, analyses of neutral mutations further strengthens the argument for common descent. These variations could be point mutations but comparison of larger genetic structures such as introns, whole genes, pseudogenes, gene order and positions on chromosomes have also been done. These too generally support common descent. To date, the single strongest correlating factor yet found for genetic similarities between organisms is the time since divergence.


     
    A rather faulty criticism, EM (none / 0) (#171)
    by dtheobald on Fri May 10th, 2002 at 04:48:56 PM PST
    Hello EM,

    Just a quick note about your criticism of evolutionary theory posted here: http://www.adequacy.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/9/30/172813/212
    "Sure, the talk.origins crowd has put forward more detailed arguments about why you should believe in macroevolution.

    [link to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]

    But don't bother reading that document just yet. Not until you read my next section, which outlines the fallacy underlying all evolutionary reasoning, and will enable you to refute it point-by-point yourself."
    Actually, if you had actually read my article (the one you link to and then tell people not to read), you would realize that your arguments do not apply to it. They have already been answered in the article. For example, you state:
    "Now, we consider the range of possible mappings from genotype-environment pairs to phenotypes. Now, there are two relevant poles towards which such mappings can tend:
    1. A mapping could be such that for each phenotype we may find wildly differing genotype-environment pairs which map to the same phenotype.

    2. On the other hand, a mapping could be such that only a very restricted set of proximate genotype-environment pairs could code for a given phenotype.


    Each of these mappings gives an undelying structure of possibilities within which the question of whether correspondences between organisms are due to common heredity can be posed. But the answer in each case is different:
    1. If the structure of possibilities is indeed like #1 (as it is demonstrably the case for natural languages), then the most likely explanation is common origin. For if you were to take two very similar organisms at random, then the mapping gives you relatively little information about what genotype and enviroment could have produced it-- very different combinations of these could have produced each of the two organisms.

    2. On the other hand, if the structure is more like #2, then the historical argument is weakened, and the most likely cause is just eternal laws of nature. Phenotypes are highly informative about genotype and environment, and indeed, to the degree where you can actually explain genetic similarity on terms of phenotypic similarity.


    Which underlying structure of possibilities does our world resemble the most, #1 or #2? We don't know. This is a question the evolutionists simply don't talk about; they just assume #1."


    These final statements are resolutely false. All of genetics (empirical experimental work in the lab and in the wild) demonstrate that the biological world follows your #1. If you had a whiff of basic biological knowledge (perhaps had taken a college molecular biology or biochemistry class), then you would know this. Or, if you had read my article first before writing yours, then you would realize that my article addresses this very issue, for instance here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred1

    (specifically read the part about the genetic code)

    and here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred3

    (read the part about the common objection under the "potential falsification")

    and here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#pred17

    (this section goes into rather extensive detail explaining why life looks like your #1)

    and here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#pred18

    (the most basic biological concept of the genetic code demonstrates your #1)

    and here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html#similarity

    (where I had to explain this concept to a anti-evolutionary young-earth creationist)

    Besides the fact that you ignore these clear explanations of basic biological concepts, you also ignore the fact that there are many other pieces of evidence that demonstrate common descent, ones that deal with things besides similarity. For instance, I list 29 independent pieces of evidence - really only seven deal with biological similarities (that is less than one quarter of them, BTW).

    There are other obvious logical errors in your article. For instance, under "Is Natural Selection a tautology?" you write:
    "The short answer is: it depends on what you take the relationship between mathematical and logical truth to be. Of course, this only reveals that the question is the wrong one to ask. The correct question is rather the following: is Natural Selection an empirical theory? And the answer is a clear and resounding no."


    You claim that natural selection is not an empirical theory because:
    "Natural Selection is mathematically true. Thus, it is impossible to present empirical evidence against it, and this disqualifies it as a scientific theory."


    That last sentence is about as absurd as it gets. Just because something is mathematically true does not mean that it necessarily applies to the real world. IOW, we can and do find empirical evidence against things that are mathematically valid - they just don't apply to reality. A valid mathematical equation (like natural selection) is just like any other logical deduction - the conclusions are true only if the premises are true. The conclusions of natural selection are valid in biology only if the premises of natural selection are true (if you don't know what the premises of natural selection are, then you really shouldn't be criticizing evolutionary theory, you should be learning a little biology from a textbook).

    As a close analogy, the Pythagorean theorem is of course mathematically true - but does that mean it is impossible to present empirical evidence against it? Heck no - the Pythagorean theorem only applies to the real world if the real world conforms to the assumptions (premises) of Euclidean geometry (which, BTW, it does not, as Einstein demonstrated). In the real world, triangles don't conform to the Pythagorean theorem (you have to go to very large distances or into very high gravitational fields to see this demonstrated effect of relativity). So, your contention is ridiculous. There are plenty of empirical observations that could be presented against the theory of natural selection. In fact, neutral evolution and random genetic drift (another BASIC evolutionary concept) are cases in which natural selection is false. In both cases the fittest do not necessarily survive. In both cases the premises of natural selection fail to hold.

    Furthermore, you question the efficacy of natural selection to result in macroevolution:
    "This has to do with the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. One can accept the first without having to accept the second. Indeed, the first one is supported by facts quite extensively and convincingly; even creation scientists accept it."


    In fact, it is also logically and scientifically possible to accept the second without accepting the first. My entire article concerns the evidence for macroevolution - evidence that is independent of whether or not natural selection is the mechanism for macroevolutionary change.

    Likewise, in science, one can accept Newton's theory of gravity (or Einstein's) in the complete absence of an explanatory mechanism. To date, there is no mechanism for gravity that has any empirical support whatsoever. Yet we still use the inverse square law, even though we don't know how or why it works.

    I have a suggestion. Perhaps before you criticize something you should learn a little about it first? There are plenty of good biology textbooks out there (if you go to a library they are even free for you to use). Or, you could read my article (and dig into the accompanying references):

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    Cheers,

    Douglas Theobald


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.