| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
01 Dec 2003 10:36:38 PM |
| Object: |
Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
I agree that 1980 was a good time to re-examine the role of natural
selection. What do *you* think the outcome was, since this has been
done?
Please use your own words, as we have seen no evidence of any
understanding on your part.
Except for a few fervent believers such as Dawkins, those that have
considered the major problems with the theory of natural selection have
concluded that the theory cannot account for the _how_ of how the
biological world developed in the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year
existence, and have concluded that the theory does not find confirmation
in the fossil record, particularly at those locations in the fossil record
where we have particularly good and numerous specimens. Materialists that
have concluded that the theory of natural selection/ the neo-Darwinian
mechanism cannot account for the biological world believe that a superior
theory of a blindwatchmaking mechanism or cluster of blindwatchmaking
mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
.
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
02 Dec 2003 09:36:23 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in
<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0312012324460.21762-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
I agree that 1980 was a good time to re-examine the role of natural
selection. What do *you* think the outcome was, since this has been
done?
Please use your own words, as we have seen no evidence of any
understanding on your part.
Except for a few fervent believers such as Dawkins, those that have
considered the major problems with the theory of natural selection have
concluded that the theory cannot account for the _how_ of how the
biological world developed in the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year
existence, and have concluded that the theory does not find confirmation
in the fossil record, particularly at those locations in the fossil record
where we have particularly good and numerous specimens. Materialists that
have concluded that the theory of natural selection/ the neo-Darwinian
mechanism cannot account for the biological world believe that a superior
theory of a blindwatchmaking mechanism or cluster of blindwatchmaking
mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
No evidence at all supports the claim you just made.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
03 Dec 2003 11:25:23 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0312012324460.21762-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
Except for a few fervent believers such as Dawkins, those that have
considered the major problems with the theory of natural selection have
concluded that the theory cannot account for the _how_ of how the
biological world developed in the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year
existence, and have concluded that the theory does not find confirmation
in the fossil record, particularly at those locations in the fossil record
where we have particularly good and numerous specimens. Materialists that
have concluded that the theory of natural selection/ the neo-Darwinian
mechanism cannot account for the biological world believe that a superior
theory of a blindwatchmaking mechanism or cluster of blindwatchmaking
mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
Please point us to a scientifically established alternative that
supports the known facts better than the Theory of Evolution. You
can't? That's why we stick with evolution. Duhh!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
02 Dec 2003 06:13:07 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0312012324460.21762-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
I agree that 1980 was a good time to re-examine the role of natural
selection. What do *you* think the outcome was, since this has been
done?
Please use your own words, as we have seen no evidence of any
understanding on your part.
Except for a few fervent believers such as Dawkins, those that have
considered the major problems with the theory of natural selection have
concluded that the theory cannot account for the _how_ of how the
biological world developed in the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year
existence, and have concluded that the theory does not find confirmation
in the fossil record, particularly at those locations in the fossil record
where we have particularly good and numerous specimens.
Horse *****.
Name five degreed biologists who reject this.
Materialists that
have concluded
What the ***** is a "materialist". Is this your code word for
"atheist"? If so, would you mind explaining to me (1) why I accept
evolution when I am not an atheist, (2) why every mainstream Christian
denomination on the planet (with the sole exception fo the fundie
lunatic fringe) accepts evolutionary biology when they are
(presumably) not atheists, and (3) why IDers like Behe and Johnson and
Dembski have concluded that not only does ID "theory" not posit or
require any "suipernatural" or "non-materialist" entities, actions or
mechanisms (and they do not propose any), but that the "Intelligent
Designer" could well be nothing more than a plain old ordinary
materialist naturalisti secularist space alien.
After that, you can explain to me why evolution being "materialist" is
any worse than weather forecasting or accident investigation being
equally "materialist" (unless of course you can point to any
NON-materialist actions, entities or mechanisms considered anywhere in
weather forecasting or accident investigation).
that the theory of natural selection/ the neo-Darwinian
mechanism cannot account for the biological world believe that a superior
theory of a blindwatchmaking mechanism or cluster of blindwatchmaking
mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
Do let us know when you discover them, huh?
In the meantime, you seem to have . . . well . . . nothing. Other
than your religious hopes, anyway. <shrug>
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
02 Dec 2003 12:59:13 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0312012324460.21762-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
I agree that 1980 was a good time to re-examine the role of natural
selection. What do *you* think the outcome was, since this has been
done?
Please use your own words, as we have seen no evidence of any
understanding on your part.
Except for a few fervent believers such as Dawkins, those that have
considered the major problems with the theory of natural selection have
concluded that the theory cannot account for the _how_ of how the
biological world developed in the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year
existence, and have concluded that the theory does not find confirmation
in the fossil record, particularly at those locations in the fossil record
where we have particularly good and numerous specimens. Materialists that
have concluded that the theory of natural selection/ the neo-Darwinian
mechanism cannot account for the biological world believe that a superior
theory of a blindwatchmaking mechanism or cluster of blindwatchmaking
mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
Frankly this is an inadequate response because it is ambiguous.
Please rewrite with these issues in mind:
How *can* (not is!) natural selection be confirmed by the fossil
record?
(what should be seen and *why* it follows from natural selection
and taphonomy) If it *can't* be, then not confirming it is a red
herring. You certainly wouldn't want to use such a rhetorical device,
now would you?
Are there no gradual changes, or is there no *pattern* of gradual
change
(that is, gradual change everywhere).
What are the major problems with natural selection? If it is that NS
*alone* cannot explain all of evolution, that does not mean that
natural selection has been invalidated *in any manner* (in trouble, or
about to collapse, whatever). This is precisely what
Eldredge was talking about, and which you still seem unaware of.
Is it a major problem that a hammer can't be used as a saw, but that
both
are needed to build a house?
This lack of awareness is precisely why John Wilkins wants you define
what you mean by neo-Darwinism: if it is a theory that *only* has
natural selection as the mechanism, nobody thinks that.
Not even Dawkins.
Drop the blindwatchmaking as an adjective. It is stupid.
To be fair, I will summarize Eldredge in MY words:
A common view [one could argue whether it was common or a
caricature] is that evolution is gradual *constant* accumulation
of small improvements driven by natural selection. The fossil record
does not bear this out. Rather than assume it is a fault of
the fossil record, examine the theoretical assumptions. Natural
selection
is still valid, but not the driving force for *speciation*, when
genetic isolation occurs. Once isolation occurs, there are two random
walks (with some selection, so not completely random) rather than one,
so they wind up at quite different destinations,
the further apart as time progresses. This is what the record, both
fossil and genomic, shows.
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rip" |
|
| Title: Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
03 Dec 2003 03:27:21 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0312012324460.21762-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
I agree that 1980 was a good time to re-examine the role of natural
selection. What do *you* think the outcome was, since this has been
done?
Please use your own words, as we have seen no evidence of any
understanding on your part.
Except for a few fervent believers such as Dawkins, those that have
considered the major problems with the theory of natural selection have
concluded that the theory cannot account for the _how_ of how the
biological world developed in the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year
existence, and have concluded that the theory does not find confirmation
in the fossil record, particularly at those locations in the fossil record
where we have particularly good and numerous specimens. Materialists that
have concluded that the theory of natural selection/ the neo-Darwinian
mechanism cannot account for the biological world believe that a superior
theory of a blindwatchmaking mechanism or cluster of blindwatchmaking
mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
There is an interesting contrast between your comment that they "have
concluded that the theory does not find confirmation in the fossil
record, particularly at those locations in the fossil record where we
have particularly good and numerous specimens.", and your offense at
your perception that you have been called a liar about eveolution.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS |
02 Dec 2003 10:41:23 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Tracy Hamilton wrote:
david ford:
Eldredge, Niles. July 1980. "An Extravagance of Species"
_Natural History_, 47-51. Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
I agree that 1980 was a good time to re-examine the role of natural
selection. What do *you* think the outcome was, since this has been
done?
Please use your own words, as we have seen no evidence of any
understanding on your part.
Except for a few fervent believers such as Dawkins, those that have
considered the major problems with the theory of natural selection have
concluded that the theory cannot account for the _how_ of how the
biological world developed in the course of the earth's 4.5 billion year
existence, and have concluded that the theory does not find confirmation
in the fossil record, particularly at those locations in the fossil record
where we have particularly good and numerous specimens. Materialists that
have concluded that the theory of natural selection/ the neo-Darwinian
mechanism cannot account for the biological world believe that a superior
theory of a blindwatchmaking mechanism or cluster of blindwatchmaking
mechanisms will eventually be discovered.
Has no one pointed out to you that evolution does not address the origin of life?
--
Hitler toured occupied Paris and saw the sights in the city.
Bush snuck in and out of Bahgdad and never left the airport.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2937
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
