| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2004 07:46:06 AM |
| Object: |
Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of evolution.
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of evolution.
A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
.
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
15 Jan 2004 09:00:53 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401150550.62798302@posting.google.com...
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you think
there is, please provide it!
This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY* scientific evidence
that does *NOT* conform
with the fact of evolution? If so, please provide it here!
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
...... Just about every aspect of the narural world. Again, if you can think
of *ANY* evidence...
scientific or otherwise, that does *NOT* conform with the fact of
evolution...please provide it here!
Your turn....
EROS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
"Religous dogma has no chance against simple logic... in a normal universe!"
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 9/01/2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
24 Jan 2004 10:57:12 PM |
|
|
Eros (Eros_Talk_Origins@hotmail.com) on 2004-01-15:
david ford:
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you think
there is, please provide it!
This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY* scientific evidence
that does *NOT* conform with the fact of evolution? If so,
please provide it here!
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
..... Just about every aspect of the narural world.
I might have to agree with you.
Also, note that Marxist theory can account extremely well for just
about every aspect of the world of economics.
In addition, Freudian psychology can account extremely well for just
about every aspect of the world of human behavior.
If you can think of _any_ evidence that does _not_ conform with
Marxist economic theory or Freudian behavioral psychology, feel free
to provide it.
Again, if you can think
of *ANY* evidence...
scientific or otherwise, that does *NOT* conform with the fact of
evolution...please provide it here!
Your turn....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rodjk" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 03:58:37 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0401242056.14d88f51@posting.google.com>...
Eros (Eros_Talk_Origins@hotmail.com) on 2004-01-15:
david ford:
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you think
there is, please provide it!
This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY* scientific evidence
that does *NOT* conform with the fact of evolution? If so,
please provide it here!
I note that David did not answer this...
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
..... Just about every aspect of the narural world.
I might have to agree with you.
Also, note that Marxist theory can account extremely well for just
about every aspect of the world of economics.
In addition, Freudian psychology can account extremely well for just
about every aspect of the world of human behavior.
If you can think of _any_ evidence that does _not_ conform with
Marxist economic theory or Freudian behavioral psychology, feel free
to provide it.
The observation that it did not work? See the former Soviet Union. (I
am currently in one of its former "states".)
As for Freud, the notion that it does not answer much of the
observations of chemical imbalances that Freud knew nothing about...
Rodjk #613
Again, if you can think
of *ANY* evidence...
scientific or otherwise, that does *NOT* conform with the fact of
evolution...please provide it here!
Your turn....
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 12:12:09 PM |
|
|
(Rodjk) on 25 Jan 2004:
david ford:
Eros (Eros_Talk_Origins@hotmail.com) on 2004-01-15:
david ford:
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you
think there is, please provide it!
This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY*
scientific
evidence that does *NOT* conform with the fact of evolution? If
so,
please provide it here!
I note that David did not answer this...
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution. Should you care to disagree, feel free to present
hypothetical states of affairs that, if true, would conflict with the
fact of evolution, and I will attempt to provide explanations
utilizing evolutionary thought that account for those hypothetical
states of affairs.
I do hope, however, that you present something more interesting than
the likes of "if biology didn't exist, the fact of evolution would be
overthrown," or "if the universe didn't exist, we would have to
discard the fact of evolution."
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
..... Just about every aspect of the narural world.
I might have to agree with you.
Also, note that Marxist theory can account extremely well for just
about every aspect of the world of economics.
In addition, Freudian psychology can account extremely well for
just
about every aspect of the world of human behavior.
If you can think of _any_ evidence that does _not_ conform with
Marxist economic theory or Freudian behavioral psychology, feel
free
to provide it.
The observation that it did not work? See the former Soviet Union. (I
am currently in one of its former "states".)
I concede that Marxist thought didn't work in the Soviet Union.
However, Marxist thought wasn't tried there for a long enough amount
of time. Really, you cannot conclude from a failed 100-year long
experiment that Marxist ideas are incorrect-- 100 years is not a long
enough amount of time. Utopia _would_ have been achieved eventually
if there had been enough time to implement Marxist thought.
As for Freud, the notion that it does not answer much of the
observations of chemical imbalances that Freud knew nothing about...
Those chemical imbalances arose because parents made their children
eat vegetables the children did not want to eat. Freud was more right
than he could have imagined.
The same is true of Darwin. Darwin knew nothing about the immense
complexity present within even the "simplest" cell, yet his theory of
natural selection explains quite well our current observations of the
immense complexity that Darwin knew nothing about. 1859 Darwin was
more right than he could have imagined.
Rodjk #613
Again, if you can think
of *ANY* evidence...
scientific or otherwise, that does *NOT* conform with the fact of
evolution...please provide it here!
Your turn....
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 03:43:34 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401251011.17fcac83@posting.google.com...
rjkardo@yahoo.com (Rodjk) on 25 Jan 2004:
david ford:
Eros (Eros_Talk_Origins@hotmail.com) on 2004-01-15:
david ford:
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you
think there is, please provide it!
This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY*
scientific
evidence that does *NOT* conform with the fact of evolution? If
so,
please provide it here!
I note that David did not answer this...
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution.
Of course there can. It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is*
falsifiable. However, contrary to the claims of some prominent creationists,
it has never *been* falsified. Not even close.
Should you care to disagree, feel free to present
hypothetical states of affairs that, if true, would conflict with the
fact of evolution, and I will attempt to provide explanations
utilizing evolutionary thought that account for those hypothetical
states of affairs.
David, how could you possibly "utilize evolutionary thought" when it's so
glaringly obvious that you're totally unfamiliar with it?
I do hope, however, that you present something more interesting than
the likes of "if biology didn't exist, the fact of evolution would be
overthrown," or "if the universe didn't exist, we would have to
discard the fact of evolution."
You know what sort of event could falsify the TOE, David? Just about any of
the ridiculous strawman fallacies creationists often claim would be required
to *prove* it. If, for example, a bird ever *did* hatch from a lizard egg,
or a dog ever *did* give birth to a cat, that, my friend, would blow
evolutionary theory out of the water. But since such a thing will never
happen without human intervention, and since evolutionary theory does not
claim that it will, I think the theory is safe for now. :-)
But just for the sake of argument, let's postulate that, for example, a
peacock did hatch from a Komodo dragon egg. How would you "utilize
evolutionary thought" to explain that?
(This should be *very* amusing...<G>)
--
Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof.
~ Ashleigh Montague ~
aa #1898
BAAWA Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 09:04:30 PM |
|
|
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> on 25 Jan 2004:
david ford:
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution.
Of course there can. It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is*
falsifiable. However, contrary to the claims of some prominent creationists,
it has never *been* falsified. Not even close.
Should you care to disagree, feel free to present
hypothetical states of affairs that, if true, would conflict with the
fact of evolution, and I will attempt to provide explanations
utilizing evolutionary thought that account for those hypothetical
states of affairs.
David, how could you possibly "utilize evolutionary thought" when it's so
glaringly obvious that you're totally unfamiliar with it?
I dare say I am far more familiar with evolutionary thought than are
you, as demonstrated by the fact that you presented triumphantly a
hypothetical scenario that you should have known plays right into my
hand.
I do hope, however, that you present something more interesting than
the likes of "if biology didn't exist, the fact of evolution would be
overthrown," or "if the universe didn't exist, we would have to
discard the fact of evolution."
You know what sort of event could falsify the TOE, David? Just about any of
the ridiculous strawman fallacies creationists often claim would be required
to *prove* it. If, for example, a bird ever *did* hatch from a lizard egg,
or a dog ever *did* give birth to a cat, that, my friend, would blow
evolutionary theory out of the water. But since such a thing will never
happen without human intervention, and since evolutionary theory does not
claim that it will, I think the theory is safe for now. :-)
The lack of rigid, precise predictions goes a long way toward
guaranteeing the safety of the T0E. The same situation is had with
Freudian psychology and Marxist theory.
But just for the sake of argument, let's postulate that, for example, a
peacock did hatch from a Komodo dragon egg. How would you "utilize
evolutionary thought" to explain that?
(This should be *very* amusing...<G>)
Observation of the event you postulated for the sake of argument would
lend credence to the position of the evolutionists Goldschmidt and
Schindewolf, according to whom saltation occurs and hopeful monsters
appear.
Imagine a situation in which a Komodo dragon lays two
eggs, out of which a male and a female peacock hatch. In this
instance of extreme saltation, the blindwatchmaking rate has been
very fast, and natural-selection-as-creator played no role in the
rise of the biological-novelty-filled peacocks from a Komodo dragon.
Lest someone charge me with having presented a scenario no
saltationist would endorse, I present a German
blindwatchmakingist, paleontologist, and saltationist, Otto
Schindewolf, advocating the possibility of just such a situation:
Each of the typal sets of characters of these higher units,
however, has formed abruptly and discontinuously in a single
step of greater or lesser scope, all of a piece,
independently of speciation. _Correspondingly, there is a
deep gulf between the first representative of a new type and
its parents_, which belong to the ancestral type and,
therefore, perhaps to another order. Consequently,
Garstang's radical way of putting it, namely, that the first
bird was hatched from a (modified) reptile's egg, which I
have often quoted in the past, is correct. To say, _Natura
__facit__ saltus_ is absolutely valid; nature does indeed
take leaps![Schindewolf, Otto H. 1950, 1993. _Basic Questions
in Paleontology: Geologic Time, Organic Evolution, and
Biological Systematics_, 235]
This Schindewolf quotation is in
Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://tinyurl.com/yiwv
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Next hypothetical circumstance, please.
--
Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof.
~ Ashleigh Montague ~
Did you mean "Ashley Montagu"? If "yes," for how long have you been
butchering his name?
aa #1898
BAAWA Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 10:07:20 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401251902.7a2fa1d2@posting.google.com...
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> on 25 Jan 2004:
david ford:
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution.
Of course there can. It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is*
falsifiable. However, contrary to the claims of some prominent creationists,
it has never *been* falsified. Not even close.
Should you care to disagree, feel free to present
hypothetical states of affairs that, if true, would conflict with the
fact of evolution, and I will attempt to provide explanations
utilizing evolutionary thought that account for those hypothetical
states of affairs.
David, how could you possibly "utilize evolutionary thought" when it's so
glaringly obvious that you're totally unfamiliar with it?
I dare say I am far more familiar with evolutionary thought than are
you, as demonstrated by the fact that you presented triumphantly a
hypothetical scenario that you should have known plays right into my
hand.
Evolutionists believe evolution, such as common descent, to be a fact,
derived by observation. The Theory of Evolution is only a collection
of explanations of how evolution from a common ancestor took place -
some even believe that the theory is not even required, so strong is their
belief in the "fact" of macroevolution and common descent.
Evolutionary theory is falsifiable, true, yet falsifying the "how" would
likely make no impact on their belief in the "fact". If a bird did hatch
from a lizard egg, it would simply be treated as another fact, and might
collapse one or more theories of evolution that concerned a mechanism,
but would not alter their belief.
I do hope, however, that you present something more interesting than
the likes of "if biology didn't exist, the fact of evolution would be
overthrown," or "if the universe didn't exist, we would have to
discard the fact of evolution."
You know what sort of event could falsify the TOE, David? Just about any of
the ridiculous strawman fallacies creationists often claim would be required
to *prove* it. If, for example, a bird ever *did* hatch from a lizard egg,
or a dog ever *did* give birth to a cat, that, my friend, would blow
evolutionary theory out of the water. But since such a thing will never
happen without human intervention, and since evolutionary theory does not
claim that it will, I think the theory is safe for now. :-)
John seems to have a way to go in understanding evolution and
evolutionary theory.
The lack of rigid, precise predictions goes a long way toward
guaranteeing the safety of the T0E.
But you can argue against any method or mechanism of evolution
you want, the evolutionist will continue to stand on evolution as
fact. The problem I have is with the fact, and the abundance of
inference and interpretation it takes to claim evolution as fact.
Remember, the word evolution has two commonly understood
meanings, microevolution and common descent.
The same situation is had with
Freudian psychology and Marxist theory.
But just for the sake of argument, let's postulate that, for example, a
peacock did hatch from a Komodo dragon egg. How would you "utilize
evolutionary thought" to explain that?
(This should be *very* amusing...<G>)
Observation of the event you postulated for the sake of argument would
lend credence to the position of the evolutionists Goldschmidt and
Schindewolf, according to whom saltation occurs and hopeful monsters
appear.
If not that, a new explanation would spring up.
Imagine a situation in which a Komodo dragon lays two
eggs, out of which a male and a female peacock hatch. In this
instance of extreme saltation, the blindwatchmaking rate has been
very fast, and natural-selection-as-creator played no role in the
rise of the biological-novelty-filled peacocks from a Komodo dragon.
Lest someone charge me with having presented a scenario no
saltationist would endorse, I present a German
blindwatchmakingist, paleontologist, and saltationist, Otto
Schindewolf, advocating the possibility of just such a situation:
Each of the typal sets of characters of these higher units,
however, has formed abruptly and discontinuously in a single
step of greater or lesser scope, all of a piece,
independently of speciation. _Correspondingly, there is a
deep gulf between the first representative of a new type and
its parents_, which belong to the ancestral type and,
therefore, perhaps to another order. Consequently,
Garstang's radical way of putting it, namely, that the first
bird was hatched from a (modified) reptile's egg, which I
have often quoted in the past, is correct. To say, _Natura
__facit__ saltus_ is absolutely valid; nature does indeed
take leaps![Schindewolf, Otto H. 1950, 1993. _Basic Questions
in Paleontology: Geologic Time, Organic Evolution, and
Biological Systematics_, 235]
This Schindewolf quotation is in
Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://tinyurl.com/yiwv
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-1000
00%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Next hypothetical circumstance, please.
--
Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof.
~ Ashleigh Montague ~
Did you mean "Ashley Montagu"? If "yes," for how long have you been
butchering his name?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 11:12:23 PM |
|
|
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
david ford:
[snips]
The lack of rigid, precise predictions goes a long way toward
guaranteeing the safety of the T0E.
But you can argue against any method or mechanism of evolution
you want, the evolutionist will continue to stand on evolution as
fact.
I agree.
Schutzenberger wasn't a creationist; options for the
blindwatchmakingist
http://tinyurl.com/yjau
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980527000035.6222A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
T0E is falsified, unfalsifiable; Jerry Adler & John Carey's comment
about Balkan prime ministers; Richard Milner
http://tinyurl.com/3y88g
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970724000800.22592B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://tinyurl.com/y8c2
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
The problem I have is with the fact, and the abundance of
inference and interpretation it takes to claim evolution as fact.
Remember, the word evolution has two commonly understood
meanings, microevolution and common descent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 02:32:34 PM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0401251011.17fcac83@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
rjkardo@yahoo.com (Rodjk) on 25 Jan 2004:
david ford:
Eros (Eros_Talk_Origins@hotmail.com) on 2004-01-15:
david ford:
[snip]
There is no supporting data to confirm this hypothesis.... If you
think there is, please provide it!
This is a serious challenge.... David, do you have *ANY* scientific
evidence that does *NOT* conform with the fact of evolution? If so,
please provide it here!
I note that David did not answer this...
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution.
Of course there could be such evidence. It just so happens
there isn't. It's unfalsified, not unfalsifiable in principle.
Lots of easily-imaginable findings would have called for the
outright rejection of evolutionary biology as we currently know it.
Should you care to disagree, feel free to present
hypothetical states of affairs that, if true, would conflict with the
fact of evolution, and I will attempt to provide explanations
utilizing evolutionary thought that account for those hypothetical
states of affairs.
From an earlier reply to you:
"There have been many past posts suggesting hypothethical findings that
would refute hypotheses of common descent; here are some of mine:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7eprga%24rr6%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6msvaf%24o5d%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9a2af7%24oe3%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8s8m7h%248m2%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8ha6sd%24pnm%242%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7lak5o%24gf0%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7l524k%24hlv%241%40news.duke.edu "
I do hope, however, that you present something more interesting than
the likes of "if biology didn't exist, the fact of evolution would be
overthrown," or "if the universe didn't exist, we would have to
discard the fact of evolution."
Those were your strawmen. Going back to my list of suggestions, I
see much better suggestions, like:
1] If new genetic variation is somehow found to be impossible.
Mutations either can't occur, or if they do, DNA repair mechanisms are
perfect and no heritable changes ever get incorporated into an
organism's genetic makeup and passed on to their descendents. No
evolution would be possible.
2] If there is no nested hierarchy of groups. Branching common descent
both explains and requires that organisms fall into a nested hierarchy
of groups-within-groups-within-groups, such as we do seem to see
everywhere we look [e.g., Primates within placental mammals, within
mammals, within synapsids, within amniotes, within tetrapods, within
sarcopterygians, within osteicthyans, within gnathostomes, within
vertebrates...]. There are lots of other conceivable arrangements that
would be completely incompatible with an evolutionary explanation:
-- There might be no discrete, recognizable higher groups. In a
creationist world without common descent, why should there be any
clear above-"kind" groups at all? [e.g., why don't some 'mammals' have
feathers?].
-- Evident 'natural' higher groups might still exist, but they could
show relationships to other groups in other than hierarchically-nested
ways. Perhaps they'd show a complex system of interconnections in
multiple directions at once [say, some mammals showing links with
synapsid "reptiles", but other mammals variously connecting directly
with birds or turtles or amphibians or insects or daffodils].
Branching common descent wouldn't & couldn't produce these sorts of
patterns, and if they were indeed the case it would be unlikely that
the idea of evolutionary common descent would ever have been proposed
in the first place.
3] If there was no "twin nested hierarchy". It happens that, as we'd
expect, the nested groupings and the phylogenetic interpretations
based on analyses of fundamentally independent data sets [like
morphology & anatomy vs. DNA sequences of different genes] are
generally compatible with one another. If instead of thus supporting
one another the results of different analyses were all grossly
incompatible, there would be severe problems for common descent.
4] If there were no biotic changes in the fossil record. Although
creationists & the public generally tend to overemphasize the role of
the fossil record as support for evolution [the neontological evidence
for common descent would still be overwhelming even if geological
conditions somehow prevented any fossils ever being preserved], a good
fossil record without evidence of changes and with strictly modern
species in even the earliest strata would be a very big problem
indeed.
5] If some organisms were found to have completely alien biochemistry;
such as not using any typical proteins, or having something other than
nucleic acids as genetic material, or having a different handedness of
all its biomolecules. This would tend to suggest it had an independent
origin from the rest of life on earth, although this wouldn't falsify
the common descent of all the other organisms that do fit in with the
rest.
Perhaps there might be some "normal" looking species among us that
look as though they should belong to life-as-we-know-it, but instead
have a totally different cell structure [if any] and biochemistry
[e.g., one that is apparently a typical primate, but with
prokaryote-like cells that don't even contain DNA...]
6] If it were found that the young-earth creationists were right after
all, and geologists show that the world is actually very young. If the
world were found to be only a few thousand or even a few million years
old, there simply wouldn't have been enough time for much evolution to
have occurred.
Any of the above would conflict with an evolutionary explanation.
[snip]
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 09:40:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 05:34:33 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
<nunya@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0239105joa4cu5k4o7g3ap5og97bikv72i@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
<nunya@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401251011.17fcac83@posting.google.com...
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution.
Of course there can.
There can not be "evidence" which contradicts fact.
It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is* falsifiable.
But evolution itself isn't.
True enough. But when cretinis...oops, sorry....creationists... say
"evolution", they mean the theory, not the fact.
When I speak with someone who doesn't understand the language, I don't
learn his incorrect version of it, I teach him the correct way to
speak.
Besides, David isn't your typical ignorant fundy. He knows the truth,
he'd just rather be a troll.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 09:40:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:29:08 +0000 (UTC),
(David Sienkiewicz) posted in alt.atheism:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message news:<2s2Rb.122$1b3.159097@news.uswest.net>...
and in reality even if that were to prove untrue,
evolutionists would still believe common descent to be true, as they
regard it as fact.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why that's a
problem, sheldon, though I am inclined to point out that if "change in
allele frequency" were to actually "prove untrue," you wouldn't have
much common descent.
Or, most likely, any life at all by this time. Just look at how
precarious the existence of cheetahs is.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 09:43:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
<nunya@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401251011.17fcac83@posting.google.com...
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution.
Of course there can.
There can not be "evidence" which contradicts fact.
It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is* falsifiable.
But evolution itself isn't.
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 11:34:33 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0239105joa4cu5k4o7g3ap5og97bikv72i@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
<nunya@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401251011.17fcac83@posting.google.com...
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution.
Of course there can.
There can not be "evidence" which contradicts fact.
It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is* falsifiable.
But evolution itself isn't.
True enough. But when cretinis...oops, sorry....creationists... say
"evolution", they mean the theory, not the fact.
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or
half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout
down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 12:29:08 AM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:RE1Rb.57856$f97.44783@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0239105joa4cu5k4o7g3ap5og97bikv72i@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
<nunya@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401251011.17fcac83@posting.google.com...
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution.
Of course there can.
There can not be "evidence" which contradicts fact.
It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is* falsifiable.
But evolution itself isn't.
True enough. But when cretinis...oops, sorry....creationists... say
"evolution", they mean the theory, not the fact.
No, they commonly mean the theory of common descent, which
to evolutionists, is not a theory, but a fact. The "Theory of Evolution"
is really (again, to evolutionists) a collection of explanations of how
evolution has occured over millenia, not a statement that it did occur
or the evidence that it did, such as geological, paleontological and
genetic evidence.
"The change in allele frequencies in a population over time" is not
disputed by many, and in reality even if that were to prove untrue,
evolutionists would still believe common descent to be true, as they
regard it as fact. I think creationists mostly take issue with the
inferred and interpreted evidences of this supposed fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Sienkiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 04:29:08 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message news:<2s2Rb.122$1b3.159097@news.uswest.net>...
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:RE1Rb.57856$f97.44783@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0239105joa4cu5k4o7g3ap5og97bikv72i@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC), "John Baker"
<nunya@bizniz.net> posted in alt.atheism:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401251011.17fcac83@posting.google.com...
There cannot be any evidence that conflicts with the fact of
evolution.
Of course there can.
There can not be "evidence" which contradicts fact.
It's just that there isn't. Evolutionary theory *is* falsifiable.
But evolution itself isn't.
True enough. But when cretinis...oops, sorry....creationists... say
"evolution", they mean the theory, not the fact.
No, they commonly mean the theory of common descent, which
to evolutionists, is not a theory, but a fact.
sheldon, for whom do you presume to speak? Here you are telling us
what both creationists and evolutionists "mean."
The "Theory of Evolution"
is really (again, to evolutionists) a collection of explanations of how
evolution has occured over millenia,
Then it's not a single theory, is it, sheldon?
not a statement that it did occur
or the evidence that it did,
Theories take the evidence into account, sheldon. That's part of what
defines a theory in a scientific sense.
such as geological, paleontological and
genetic evidence.
None of which you ever seem to want to address, sheldon. Why is that?
"The change in allele frequencies in a population over time" is not
disputed by many,
Who disputes it at all, sheldon?
In fact, I'd wonder if you even understand the statement.
and in reality even if that were to prove untrue,
evolutionists would still believe common descent to be true, as they
regard it as fact.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why that's a
problem, sheldon, though I am inclined to point out that if "change in
allele frequency" were to actually "prove untrue," you wouldn't have
much common descent.
I think creationists mostly take issue with the
inferred and interpreted evidences of this supposed fact.
Specifically which evidences, sheldon, so what we can see if the
inferences and the interpretations are valid?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
15 Jan 2004 08:23:45 PM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0401150550.62798302@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of evolution.
A biological world without nested hierarchies of groups within groups
within groups [i.e., one very unlike the one we do see] would indeed
be a refutation of the current theory of branching common descent.
Nevertheless, it's still possible that some other, very different
evolutionary model could be found to fit your hypothetical situation
[say, descent allowing amazingly wide reticulations between lineages?
Wacky stuff, like mammals crossing with birds and fish?].
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
a hypothetical puzzle. Fortunately, it doesn't have to in the
real world as we know it.
Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of evolution.
Nope. But there might still be possible explanations
besides "creationism", which isn't an explanation at all.
A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
And the current understanding of evolution is that lateral transfer
hasn't been rampant in most groups [but likely important among modern
bacteria and the early lineages of life]. So, data showing that it was
rampant would indeed require overturning much of the present model
of evolution. Your point? Are you on some bogus "evolution is
unfalsifiable" kick?
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 03:54:09 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:59:14 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) posted in alt.atheism:
I am advancing an "evolution hypothesis is unfalsifiable" line of
thought.
As far as which hypothesis?
If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct, would that falsify the
T0E?
Since Lamarck was proven incorrect, that's moot. But, even if he were
proven correct, that wouldn't negate the fact that allele frequencies
DO change.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
24 Jan 2004 10:59:14 PM |
|
|
mel turner (mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu) on 2004-01-15:
david ford:
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of evolution.
A biological world without nested hierarchies of groups within groups
within groups [i.e., one very unlike the one we do see] would indeed
be a refutation of the current theory of branching common descent.
Nevertheless, it's still possible that some other, very different
evolutionary model could be found to fit your hypothetical situation
[say, descent allowing amazingly wide reticulations between lineages?
Wacky stuff, like mammals crossing with birds and fish?].
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
hierarchy.
No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
a hypothetical puzzle.
Though, as you observed, [mt]"it's still possible that some other,
very different evolutionary model could be found to fit your [df's]
hypothetical situation."
Fortunately, it doesn't have to in the
real world as we know it.
Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of evolution.
Nope. But there might still be possible explanations
besides "creationism", which isn't an explanation at all.
A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
And the current understanding of evolution is that lateral transfer
hasn't been rampant in most groups [but likely important among modern
bacteria and the early lineages of life]. So, data showing that it was
rampant would indeed require overturning much of the present model
of evolution.
I don't understand how the discovery that lateral transfer of genetic
material was actually far more widespread than evolutionists currently
maintain would overturn the theory of evolution.
Your point? Are you on some bogus "evolution is
unfalsifiable" kick?
I am advancing an "evolution hypothesis is unfalsifiable" line of
thought.
If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct, would that falsify the
T0E?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 07:20:32 PM |
|
|
Frank J <fnci@comcast.net> on 25 Jan 2004:
david ford:
mel turner (mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu) on 2004-01-15:
david ford:
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
hierarchy.
No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
a hypothetical puzzle.
Though, as you observed, [mt]"it's still possible that some other,
very different evolutionary model could be found to fit your [df's]
hypothetical situation."
Some scientists are, in fact, resarching them. Though amazingly none
of the pseudoscientific evolution misrepresenters of the Discovery
Institute or creationist organizations are. How about you?
I'm not a scientist, and any research I do involves writings by
others.
I like your use of [FJ]"pseudoscientific," for it makes your comments
have the weight of the world of science behind them.
I am advancing an "evolution hypothesis is unfalsifiable" line of
thought.
What do you mean by "evolution hypothesis?"
The [df]"evolution hypothesis" is equivalent to the
[df]"blindwatchmaking hypothesis," which is the hypothesis that
intelligence/mind wasn't responsible for the appearance of the world
of biology. For further details, see
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://tinyurl.com/2ko4m
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
to which John W. replied in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1g7i6bc.m1z0nj1i4xijkN%25john.wilkins%40bigpond.com
If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct,
would that falsify the T0E?
It would certainly falsify the Darwinian TOE.
And replace it with a Goldschmidtian T0E, or a Lamarckian T0E.
IOW, the T0E would survive unscathed.
It would not falsify
common descent, if that's what you mean. What might, though, are one
of these:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof58.htm
That the DI is not pusuing one of these approaches, or even Behe's
"front-loading" model (which doesn't falsify common descent) speaks
volumes.
Such as what, exactly? That Discovery Institute individuals are going
down a road that ends in a dead end? That Discovery Institute
individuals are Bad People?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 05:56:39 AM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Frank J <fnci@comcast.net> on 25 Jan 2004:
david ford:
mel turner (mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu) on 2004-01-15:
david ford:
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
hierarchy.
No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
a hypothetical puzzle.
Though, as you observed, [mt]"it's still possible that some other,
very different evolutionary model could be found to fit your [df's]
hypothetical situation."
Some scientists are, in fact, resarching them. Though amazingly none
of the pseudoscientific evolution misrepresenters of the Discovery
Institute or creationist organizations are. How about you?
I'm not a scientist, and any research I do involves writings by
others.
I like your use of [FJ]"pseudoscientific," for it makes your comments
have the weight of the world of science behind them.
I am advancing an "evolution hypothesis is unfalsifiable" line of
thought.
What do you mean by "evolution hypothesis?"
The [df]"evolution hypothesis" is equivalent to the
[df]"blindwatchmaking hypothesis," which is the hypothesis that
intelligence/mind wasn't responsible for the appearance of the world
of biology. For further details, see
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://tinyurl.com/2ko4m
aka
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.g
oogle.com
to which John W. replied in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1g7i6bc.m1z0nj1i4xijkN%25john.wilkins%40
bigpond.com
So, you have read it. Are we discussing now? Have you any comments or
arguments to make against my claim that your term is sheer rubbish?
If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct,
would that falsify the T0E?
It would certainly falsify the Darwinian TOE.
And replace it with a Goldschmidtian T0E, or a Lamarckian T0E.
IOW, the T0E would survive unscathed.
Each of which is a singular theory. Transmutation is the denial of
species immutability, but not all theories of transmutation are the
same, or even much related. Lamarck's theory is more like Bonnet's
immutability than Darwin's transmutation. This is a verbal trick you are
trying to play here.
It would not falsify
common descent, if that's what you mean. What might, though, are one
of these:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof58.htm
That the DI is not pusuing one of these approaches, or even Behe's
"front-loading" model (which doesn't falsify common descent) speaks
volumes.
Such as what, exactly? That Discovery Institute individuals are going
down a road that ends in a dead end? That Discovery Institute
individuals are Bad People?
That they, too, are trying a verbal trick.
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ima pseudonym" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 03:27:54 PM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0401242058.3f39396d@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
mel turner (mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu) on 2004-01-15:
david ford:
[snip]
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
hierarchy.
No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
a hypothetical puzzle.
Though, as you observed, [mt]"it's still possible that some other,
very different evolutionary model could be found to fit your [df's]
hypothetical situation."
Yes, but that would still require an outright rejection of
the current model. QED.
[snip]
A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
And the current understanding of evolution is that lateral transfer
hasn't been rampant in most groups [but likely important among modern
bacteria and the early lineages of life]. So, data showing that it was
rampant would indeed require overturning much of the present model
of evolution.
I don't understand how the discovery that lateral transfer of genetic
material was actually far more widespread than evolutionists currently
maintain would overturn the theory of evolution.
It would require a very different model than the one we currently have,
in which such lateral transfer is relatively minimal in most groups. If
extensive enough, it might require abandoning the idea of separately
evolving lineages and groups. That'd be a pretty major "falsification"
of the current view.
Your point? Are you on some bogus "evolution is
unfalsifiable" kick?
I am advancing an "evolution hypothesis is unfalsifiable" line of
thought.
As I said.
It's observed to occur, so it's hardly a hypothesis. And plenty of
hypothetical findings would have falsified it completely or in part.
They just happen to not apply to the real biological world.
If Goldschmidt or Lamarck were proven correct, would that falsify the
T0E?
Yes, both hypothetical findings would have required rejecting the
current versions of the TOE. IIRC, Lamarck's views may even falsify
the common-descent aspects of the theory.
Are you unhappy that any replacement for the currently-accepted
TOEs would undoubtedly have to be some new and improved TOE? New
theories have to explain all the data that the older theories did,
and do it better.
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
15 Jan 2004 08:54:08 PM |
|
|
mel turner wrote:
In article <b1c67abe.0401150550.62798302@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of evolution.
A biological world without nested hierarchies of groups within groups
within groups [i.e., one very unlike the one we do see] would indeed
be a refutation of the current theory of branching common descent.
Nevertheless, it's still possible that some other, very different
evolutionary model could be found to fit your hypothetical situation
[say, descent allowing amazingly wide reticulations between lineages?
Wacky stuff, like mammals crossing with birds and fish?].
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
No, the current evolutionary theory couldn't account for such
a hypothetical puzzle. Fortunately, it doesn't have to in the
real world as we know it.
Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of evolution.
Nope. But there might still be possible explanations
besides "creationism", which isn't an explanation at all.
A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
And the current understanding of evolution is that lateral transfer
hasn't been rampant in most groups [but likely important among modern
bacteria and the early lineages of life]. So, data showing that it was
rampant would indeed require overturning much of the present model
of evolution. Your point? Are you on some bogus "evolution is
unfalsifiable" kick?
Yes. He's parroting the argument of "The Biotic Message", which through
a perversion of logic argues that the earth's biota is specifically
constructed to resist evolutionary explanations. The supposed
compatibility of evolution with any conceivable set of data is one
element of this argument. Do look at my little parable, in this thread,
whose logic closely follows "Message".
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
15 Jan 2004 09:26:18 PM |
|
|
In article <40074401.4070303@pacbell.net>,
[John Harshman] wrote...
mel turner wrote:
[snip]
And the current understanding of evolution is that lateral transfer
hasn't been rampant in most groups [but likely important among modern
bacteria and the early lineages of life]. So, data showing that it was
rampant would indeed require overturning much of the present model
of evolution. Your point? Are you on some bogus "evolution is
unfalsifiable" kick?
Yes. He's parroting the argument of "The Biotic Message", which through
a perversion of logic argues that the earth's biota is specifically
constructed to resist evolutionary explanations.
Shhh, you'll somehow wind up misrepresenting him...
It's utterly ludicrous, of course. It's very easy to imagine
hypothetical findings or imaginary biotas that would be much less
compatible with evolution and common descent than the nested groups
and patterns of homologous traits that we do see. It so happens
that few or none of those hypotheticals apply to real cases.
The supposed
compatibility of evolution with any conceivable set of data is one
element of this argument.
Which makes sense in a way that's not very sensible.
Do look at my little parable, in this thread,
whose logic closely follows "Message".
Yes, I enjoyed it enough to think aloud "POTM!"
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan Baum" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? |
15 Jan 2004 11:45:04 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
hierarchy. Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of
evolution.
What's wrong with this is the lack of evidence for this world.
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested
hierarchy. Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of
evolution.
This is fine. The evidence does support the existance of this world.
A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? (A Parable) |
15 Jan 2004 10:55:07 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
What, if anything, is wrong with the following statements?
#1) Evolutionary theory can't conform with:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
Such a biological world would utterly refute the theory of evolution.
#2) Evolutionary theory can account extremely well for:
a biological world that couldn't be easily classified in a nested hierarchy.
Such a biological world would strongly support the theory of evolution.
A hint regarding #1: transposition/ lateral transfer of genetic material.
This is, I believe, a setup for Michael Denton's argument as presented
in The Biotic Message. Here's an analogy that might clarify things a bit:
The Parable
A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a tree
stump. Near it, flat on the ground, was a tree missing its bottom
portions, with a truncated lower end that seemed to match the stump
exactly. Lying on the stump was a chain saw, its engine still warm and
its teeth covered with fresh sawdust. "Aha," I said, "Someone has just
cut down a tree here."
"You poor, naive fool," said my creationist friend. "Sure, this is
compatible with the tree-cutting theory. But so is anything else we
might see. Suppose we came here and found nothing but a grassy meadow.
Isn't it possible that there had been a tree here, but someone came
along and cut it down, hauled away the lumber, pried out the stump,
filled in the hole, and laid down fresh sod? So since a grassy meadow is
as compatible with the tree-cutting theory as this stump and so forth
is, the tree-cutting theory is vacuous, and nothing can be evidence in
its favor.
"It's preferable to believe, as I do, that the stump, etc., were created
in their present form by an omnipotent being, just a few minutes before
we arrived. In fact, I have a book that says just that, written by the
omnipotent being himself. So it must be true. And the existence of sod
farms is proof of such creation, since the deity created them so the
world would resist a tree-cutting explanation."
A bit farther on, we ran into a man in a plaid shirt, his arms covered
with fresh sawdust, having a smoke, and I marveled at the completeness
of the creator's message.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Chez Watt nomination: Hierarchy for, against T0E? (A Parable) |
16 Jan 2004 08:52:41 AM |
|
|
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4006B794.8090701@pacbell.net...
snipples...is this a Harshman original?
The Parable
A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a tree
stump. Near it, flat on the ground, was a tree missing its bottom
portions, with a truncated lower end that seemed to match the stump
exactly. Lying on the stump was a chain saw, its engine still warm and
its teeth covered with fresh sawdust. "Aha," I said, "Someone has just
cut down a tree here."
"You poor, naive fool," said my creationist friend. "Sure, this is
compatible with the tree-cutting theory. But so is anything else we
might see. Suppose we came here and found nothing but a grassy meadow.
Isn't it possible that there had been a tree here, but someone came
along and cut it down, hauled away the lumber, pried out the stump,
filled in the hole, and laid down fresh sod? So since a grassy meadow is
as compatible with the tree-cutting theory as this stump and so forth
is, the tree-cutting theory is vacuous, and nothing can be evidence in
its favor.
"It's preferable to believe, as I do, that the stump, etc., were created
in their present form by an omnipotent being, just a few minutes before
we arrived. In fact, I have a book that says just that, written by the
omnipotent being himself. So it must be true. And the existence of sod
farms is proof of such creation, since the deity created them so the
world would resist a tree-cutting explanation."
A bit farther on, we ran into a man in a plaid shirt, his arms covered
with fresh sawdust, having a smoke, and I marveled at the completeness
of the creator's message.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Chez Watt nomination: Hierarchy for, against T0E? (A Parable) |
16 Jan 2004 09:14:46 AM |
|
|
Geoff wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4006B794.8090701@pacbell.net...
snipples...is this a Harshman original?
[modest shuffle, eyes averted]
It is.
The Parable
A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a tree
stump. Near it, flat on the ground, was a tree missing its bottom
portions, with a truncated lower end that seemed to match the stump
exactly. Lying on the stump was a chain saw, its engine still warm and
its teeth covered with fresh sawdust. "Aha," I said, "Someone has just
cut down a tree here."
"You poor, naive fool," said my creationist friend. "Sure, this is
compatible with the tree-cutting theory. But so is anything else we
might see. Suppose we came here and found nothing but a grassy meadow.
Isn't it possible that there had been a tree here, but someone came
along and cut it down, hauled away the lumber, pried out the stump,
filled in the hole, and laid down fresh sod? So since a grassy meadow is
as compatible with the tree-cutting theory as this stump and so forth
is, the tree-cutting theory is vacuous, and nothing can be evidence in
its favor.
"It's preferable to believe, as I do, that the stump, etc., were created
in their present form by an omnipotent being, just a few minutes before
we arrived. In fact, I have a book that says just that, written by the
omnipotent being himself. So it must be true. And the existence of sod
farms is proof of such creation, since the deity created them so the
world would resist a tree-cutting explanation."
A bit farther on, we ran into a man in a plaid shirt, his arms covered
with fresh sawdust, having a smoke, and I marveled at the completeness
of the creator's message.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Chez Watt nomination: Hierarchy for, against T0E? (A Parable) |
19 Jan 2004 02:54:29 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net>:
Geoff wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4006B794.8090701@pacbell.net...
snipples...is this a Harshman original?
[modest shuffle, eyes averted]
It is.
Wonderful, the last line is a delight. Out of the killfile for
you. (Ok, so you were never in the killfile nor have I ever
thought of such. But if I ever killfile you I won't do it.)
The Parable
A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a tree
stump. Near it, flat on the ground, was a tree missing its bottom
portions, with a truncated lower end that seemed to match the stump
exactly. Lying on the stump was a chain saw, its engine still warm and
its teeth covered with fresh sawdust. "Aha," I said, "Someone has just
cut down a tree here."
"You poor, naive fool," said my creationist friend. "Sure, this is
compatible with the tree-cutting theory. But so is anything else we
might see. Suppose we came here and found nothing but a grassy meadow.
Isn't it possible that there had been a tree here, but someone came
along and cut it down, hauled away the lumber, pried out the stump,
filled in the hole, and laid down fresh sod? So since a grassy meadow is
as compatible with the tree-cutting theory as this stump and so forth
is, the tree-cutting theory is vacuous, and nothing can be evidence in
its favor.
"It's preferable to believe, as I do, that the stump, etc., were created
in their present form by an omnipotent being, just a few minutes before
we arrived. In fact, I have a book that says just that, written by the
omnipotent being himself. So it must be true. And the existence of sod
farms is proof of such creation, since the deity created them so the
world would resist a tree-cutting explanation."
A bit farther on, we ran into a man in a plaid shirt, his arms covered
with fresh sawdust, having a smoke, and I marveled at the completeness
of the creator's message.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Re: Chez Watt nomination: Hierarchy for, against T0E? (A Parable) |
16 Jan 2004 11:17:45 AM |
|
|
news:0ZSNb.79987$xy6.137911@attbi_s02 by "Geoff"
<gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4006B794.8090701@pacbell.net...
snipples...is this a Harshman original?
The Parable
A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a tree
stump. [...]
Yeah. At this point, I am wondering what the upper limit is on how many
votes I personally can cast as the doorman of Chez Watt.
--
Ferrous Patella
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
--John Adams, letter to Abigail, 1797
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PeteM" |
|
| Title: Re: Hierarchy for, against T0E? (A Parable) |
16 Jan 2004 11:26:35 AM |
|
|
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> posted
The Parable
A creationist friend and I walked into a meadow and came across a tree
stump. Near it, flat on the ground, was a tree missing its bottom
portions, with a truncated lower end that seemed to match the stump
exactly. Lying on the stump was a chain saw, its engine still warm and
its teeth covered with fresh sawdust. "Aha," I said, "Someone has just
cut down a tree here."
"You poor, naive fool," said my creationist friend. "Sure, this is
compatible with the tree-cutting theory. But so is anything else we
might see. Suppose we came here and found nothing but a grassy meadow.
Isn't it possible that there had been a tree here, but someone came
along and cut it down, hauled away the lumber, pried out the stump,
filled in the hole, and laid down fresh sod? So since a grassy meadow is
as compatible with the tree-cutting theory as this stump and so forth
is, the tree-cutting theory is vacuous, and nothing can be evidence in
its favor.
Presumably this means "Some creationists point out that the theory of
evolution is compatible with both the flora and fauna we see today and
with many other different sets of flora and fauna that we don't see.
Therefore, they argue, the theory of evolution is empty."
Do they? I don't know. But anyway, how would this bear on the original
post?
--
PeteM
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
