Jason wrote:

In article <ChFsf.895$Hl6.408@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <v0Dsf.874$Hl6.470@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <3Crsf.39462$7h7.5692@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Mike
Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Douglas Berry wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and ZpiralZone
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> posting the following on Mon, 26
Dec 2005 14:07:55 -0500 iin alt.atheism?

Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.

Really?

THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:

If the rabid anti-evolution crowd actually understood what a theory

is they

should have no problem accepting evolution (or the theory that gave us
tunnel diodes) as the valid theory that it is.

No creationist has ever shown enough knowledge of a theory to say why.

Hello,
I recall having to conduct experiments in the college lab. We had to

dissect

a frog. Perhaps we should have "infered" that the frog did exist.
I once watched a science professor mix some chemicals together. We all

watched

what happened after the chemicals were mixed together in order to write a
report. Perhaps the professor should not have mixed the chemicals

and we could have just "inferred" the results of the experiments
I was under the impression (as a result of the above experiments and
research projects) that it was important to have proof and evidence. To
"infer" that there once existed a common ancestor for great apes and
mankind does not seem to me to be true science. Do you see my point? If
you had the skeleton of the common ancestor-that would be true science.
Jason

Yes, I see your point. However, the dissection can be repeated on
different frogs, so it is reasonable to infer their existence. You could
have made an inference about what would happen,then allow the actual
results to confirm or invalidate your hypothesis. That's good science.
No doubt the reaction being demonstrated fit into a theoretical
framework that had been the subject of discussion prior to the
demonstration. So your inference should have been supported by both
theory and observation. Isn't there usually a section of a lab report
discussing what the expected results were, then comparing them to
observations?

There are many situations in science that cannot be verified by
experiment, but can only be inferred. In many cases the theory preceeds
the ability to perform the experiment. Some examples:

Einstein's theory of gravitation, in which he theorized that gravity
could bend light waves. The result was controversial, and not verified
for some years after that.

The luminiferous aether, which was the cutting edge of physics for many
years until the Michaelson-Morley experiment disproved it.

In the latter case, everyone agreed with it because there was nothing
better, and once it was disproved experimentally, they went on to
develop other theories.

Evolution works similarly. Every fossil found is examined in detail and
compared with the features both of living creatures and other fossils.
Similarities imply a relationship, although there are cases of parallel
development of some characteristics. It's not an infallible process -
reclassification is not an infrequent event, and some dinosaurs,
brontosaurus for example, were found to be the result of combining the
fossils of several different dinosaurs. But the fact is that there is a
gread deal of information about fossils, including stratigraphic, that
can be used to fit each into a framework that is subject to peer review.

"Intelligent Design" OTOH is only a hypothesis. It has no experimental
backing, no evidence to lead to a specific inference for it. The only
potential evidence is negative - we don't have all the information yet.
But lack of evidence is not a proof or disproof - evidence will be found
one way or the other, in time. But until it is, we can only infer from
evidence and patterns that we have or can observe.

cactus,
Great post. You explain your points very well. As you know, some of the
things that scientists have infered (eg luminiferous aether) have later
been disporoved. My point was that it's possible that scientists will
prove that the common ancestor of mankind and great apes never existed.
The common ancestor assertion is an assumption--not a fact. Do you agree?
Related to your last point. I suggest that you read this book:
"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

Thank you. It's nice to have a real discussion, isn't it. (:-)

But, while it is possible that a common ancestor may be disproved, I do
not agree that its existence is an assumption: I regard the existence of
such an ancestor as inference from the information available.

As to Lubenow's book, I'm sorry to say I'm not going to read it. I will
wait for scientific recognition before I read more than the minimum on
the subject. Whatever one wants to say about his book, he only raises
questions. Nor does he have any mainstream scientists concurring with
him. If I agreed with his position to begin with,I might read it, but
the book is polemical in nature, and I rarely read polemics.

Not only that, the very assumptions underlying the creationist position
is not subject to any form of verification. I find that creationists
have to resort to more and more outlandish arguments to support their
literalist position. They will not have any credibility with me until
they have valid science behind what they say, and until they convince
the mainstream scientific community of the validity of their position.

cactus,
I understand your point of view. Stephen Jay Gould had some serious
problems with evolution theory but had even more problems with creation
science and ID.
You appear to think like Stephen Jay Gould which is a complement. I'm
hoping that a better theory is developed in the years to come that is
superior to evolution and creation science.
Jason

Time will tell.

Regards

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:59:03 -0800, in alt.atheism ,

I recall having to conduct experiments in the college lab. We had to dissect
a frog. Perhaps we should have "infered" that the frog did exist.
I once watched a science professor mix some chemicals together. We all

what happened after the chemicals were mixed together in order to write a
report. Perhaps the professor should not have mixed the chemicals together
and we could have just "inferred" the results of the experiments
I was under the impression (as a result of the above experiments and
research projects) that it was important to have proof and evidence. To
"infer" that there once existed a common ancestor for great apes and
mankind does not seem to me to be true science. Do you see my point? If
you had the skeleton of the common ancestor-that would be true science.

We had not seen the back side of the Moon until the 1960's. Was it
wrong to "infer" it existed? We have never seen the center of the
Earth, is it wrong to "infer" that it is hot and metallic? No one has
ever seen Pluto orbit the Sun, should we not infer that it does?