| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
16 Apr 2004 06:23:05 PM |
| Object: |
Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404152015.5312e121@posting.google.com>:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all the difficult
challenges that await any creationist who questions their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially the
ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await any person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with faith in
the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence supporting
the blind watchmaker thesis.
Premise 1: either
a) Jehovah Witnesses' version of intelligent design
or
b) evolution
is responsible for the origin of plants and animals.
False dichotomy. There's always Young Earth Creationism.
[g]"False dichotomy." Agreed. [g]"There's always Young Earth
Creationism." There are also additional varieties of creationist
accounts.
I wish someone would defend at some length an
intelligent-design-of-common-descent hypothesis.
Premise 2: not a).
Conclusion: therefore b)-- evolution is responsible for the origin of
plants and animals.
Since Premise 1 is flawed, your conclusion is as well.
I agree that the first premise and the conclusion of the argument I
presented for scrutiny is flawed.
Compare
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c3njao%244o6%241%40hood.uits.indiana.edu
Which was unanswered...
In the Darlington thread, I made the following observation about that
post:
I succeeded in my effort to obtain from evolutionists criticism of a
Mayr allegation. Considering the heavy-duty reputation of one of the
authors of that criticism, and the impeccable nature of his comments
on the allegation, my effort was more successful than I had dared hope
for.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c3njao%244o6%241%40hood.uits.indiana.edu
and the last 2 blocks of text in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970805010133.12918J-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
Which seem to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
It reinforces your [g]"False dichotomy." observation.
[snip the rest]
.
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
16 Apr 2004 06:42:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:23:05 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <> wrote:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404152015.5312e121@posting.google.com>:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all the difficult
challenges that await any creationist who questions their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially the
ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await any person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with faith in
the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence supporting
the blind watchmaker thesis.
There is no blind watchmaker thesis, David. There is simply the observation
that the genetic makeup of populations change over time. There is no
evidence of intelligent tinkering/design/interference.
I tried to discuss this with you a while ago, but you ran away from the
thread. I almost get the feeling that when you feel the conversation
tending in a certain direction that you bolt rather than continue.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
17 Apr 2004 07:55:48 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc80rut.23s.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:23:05 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404152015.5312e121@posting.google.com>:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all the difficult
challenges that await any creationist who questions their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially the
ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await any person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with faith in
the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence supporting
the blind watchmaker thesis.
There is no blind watchmaker thesis, David.
Huh. gen2rev thinks there is, stating [g]"It's [i.e. the blind
watchmaker thesis is] simply the best explanation for the evidence."
There is simply the observation
that the genetic makeup of populations change over time.
I agree with the observation that the genetic makeup of populations
change over time. It has been observed, it would be hard for me to
deny it, and I don't wish to deny it.
Now, from my "concession" that yes, allele frequencies do change, I
hope that readers do not leap to the conclusion that I thereby also
agree with the proposition that life and biology arose and developed
through totally mindless processes.
There is no
evidence of intelligent tinkering/design/interference.
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
[AC]"intelligent tinkering/design/interference." Have you read
Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987)?
I tried to discuss this with you a while ago, but you ran away from the
thread. I almost get the feeling that when you feel the conversation
tending in a certain direction that you bolt rather than continue.
<snip>
I'm allergic to strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence
presented on behalf of the blind watchmaker thesis. So, feel free to
present some strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence for the
blind watchmaker thesis, so that I might get an allergic reaction and
disappear from this thread. I have already asked gen2rev for such.
Feel free to coordinate your presentations with him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
17 Apr 2004 11:50:17 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc80rut.23s.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:23:05 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404152015.5312e121@posting.google.com>:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all the
difficult challenges that await any creationist who questions
their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially the
ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await any person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with faith in
the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence supporting
the blind watchmaker thesis.
There is no blind watchmaker thesis, David.
Huh. gen2rev thinks there is, stating [g]"It's [i.e. the blind
watchmaker thesis is] simply the best explanation for the evidence."
No - gen2rev is taking it that by bwt you are referring to evolutionary
theory; AC is pointing out that bwt is your own term that corresponds to
nothing in the scientific literature.
There is simply the observation
that the genetic makeup of populations change over time.
I agree with the observation that the genetic makeup of populations
change over time. It has been observed, it would be hard for me to
deny it, and I don't wish to deny it.
Now, from my "concession" that yes, allele frequencies do change, I
hope that readers do not leap to the conclusion that I thereby also
agree with the proposition that life and biology arose and developed
through totally mindless processes.
There is no
evidence of intelligent tinkering/design/interference.
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
[AC]"intelligent tinkering/design/interference." Have you read
Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987)?
Quote-mining again? If you were trying to address the point made, you were
being dishonest, since Dawkins goes on to point out that the *appearance*
of design is illusory.
I tried to discuss this with you a while ago, but you ran away from the
thread. I almost get the feeling that when you feel the conversation
tending in a certain direction that you bolt rather than continue.
<snip>
I'm allergic to strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence
presented on behalf of the blind watchmaker thesis. So, feel free to
present some strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence for the
blind watchmaker thesis, so that I might get an allergic reaction and
disappear from this thread. I have already asked gen2rev for such.
Feel free to coordinate your presentations with him.
The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct - it's up to you to
present the evidence for it.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Honest, informed, IDC - pick 2.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
17 Apr 2004 08:43:09 PM |
|
|
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<dlmr5c.59s.ln@grendel.hayesway>...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc80rut.23s.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:23:05 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404152015.5312e121@posting.google.com>:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all the
difficult challenges that await any creationist who questions
their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially the
ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await any person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with faith in
the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence supporting
the blind watchmaker thesis.
There is no blind watchmaker thesis, David.
Huh. gen2rev thinks there is, stating [g]"It's [i.e. the blind
watchmaker thesis is] simply the best explanation for the evidence."
No - gen2rev is taking it that by bwt you are referring to evolutionary
theory; AC is pointing out that bwt is your own term that corresponds to
nothing in the scientific literature.
If and when gen2rev responds to my post, he can clarify the situation.
When he responded to me, he did not mention evolutionary theory. AC
didn't say anything about what is in or what isn't in the scientific
literature.
There is simply the observation
that the genetic makeup of populations change over time.
I agree with the observation that the genetic makeup of populations
change over time. It has been observed, it would be hard for me to
deny it, and I don't wish to deny it.
Now, from my "concession" that yes, allele frequencies do change, I
hope that readers do not leap to the conclusion that I thereby also
agree with the proposition that life and biology arose and developed
through totally mindless processes.
There is no
evidence of intelligent tinkering/design/interference.
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
[AC]"intelligent tinkering/design/interference." Have you read
Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987)?
Quote-mining again? If you were trying to address the point made, you were
being dishonest, since Dawkins goes on to point out that the *appearance*
of design is illusory.
I'm not sure how you consider me quoting AC to be [RL]"quote-mining
again." In your view, have I just now been [RL]"quote-mining" you?
[RL]"Dawkins goes on to point out that the *appearance* of design is
illusory." Citation, please. Note, also, the word "appearance"
within my comment, [df]"Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of [AC]"intelligent
tinkering/design/interference.""
I tried to discuss this with you a while ago, but you ran away from the
thread. I almost get the feeling that when you feel the conversation
tending in a certain direction that you bolt rather than continue.
<snip>
I'm allergic to strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence
presented on behalf of the blind watchmaker thesis. So, feel free to
present some strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence for the
blind watchmaker thesis, so that I might get an allergic reaction and
disappear from this thread. I have already asked gen2rev for such.
Feel free to coordinate your presentations with him.
The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct - it's up to you to
present the evidence for it.
[RL]"The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct" I disagree.
See Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987), 141, 147.
Dawkins, I love your book.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
17 Apr 2004 11:18:38 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<dlmr5c.59s.ln@grendel.hayesway>...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc80rut.23s.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:23:05 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404152015.5312e121@posting.google.com>:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all the
difficult challenges that await any creationist who questions
their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially
the ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await any
person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with faith
in the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the
evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence supporting
the blind watchmaker thesis.
There is no blind watchmaker thesis, David.
Huh. gen2rev thinks there is, stating [g]"It's [i.e. the blind
watchmaker thesis is] simply the best explanation for the evidence."
No - gen2rev is taking it that by bwt you are referring to evolutionary
theory; AC is pointing out that bwt is your own term that corresponds to
nothing in the scientific literature.
If and when gen2rev responds to my post, he can clarify the situation.
When he responded to me, he did not mention evolutionary theory. AC
didn't say anything about what is in or what isn't in the scientific
literature.
There is simply the observation
that the genetic makeup of populations change over time.
I agree with the observation that the genetic makeup of populations
change over time. It has been observed, it would be hard for me to
deny it, and I don't wish to deny it.
Now, from my "concession" that yes, allele frequencies do change, I
hope that readers do not leap to the conclusion that I thereby also
agree with the proposition that life and biology arose and developed
through totally mindless processes.
There is no
evidence of intelligent tinkering/design/interference.
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
[AC]"intelligent tinkering/design/interference." Have you read
Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987)?
Quote-mining again? If you were trying to address the point made, you
were being dishonest, since Dawkins goes on to point out that the
*appearance* of design is illusory.
I'm not sure how you consider me quoting AC to be [RL]"quote-mining
again."
I don't - I comnsider your reference to Dawkins' book, as if it supported
your position, to be quotemining.
In your view, have I just now been [RL]"quote-mining" you?
[RL]"Dawkins goes on to point out that the *appearance* of design is
illusory." Citation, please.
Page 5 (in chapter 1) of my edition of the book (1986 Penguin paperback).
He quotes several passages from Paley's "Natural Theology", paraphrasing
Paley's argument, finishing with:-
"Paley compares the eye with a designed instrument such as a telescope, and
concludes that 'there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for
vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it'. The eye
must have had a designer, just as the telescope had."
He goes on in the next paragraph to say that "Paley's argument...is wrong,
gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye,
between watch and living organism, is false. *All appearances to the
contrary*, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics.."
Note, also, the word "appearance"
within my comment, [df]"Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of [AC]"intelligent
tinkering/design/interference.""
So you don't argue that there is [AC] "evidence of intelligent
tinkering/design/interference, just [df] appearance? That means that you
weren't addressing the point that Aaron made; so my criticism doesn't apply
to you. It leaves you without an argument on the point, however...
I tried to discuss this with you a while ago, but you ran away from
the
thread. I almost get the feeling that when you feel the conversation
tending in a certain direction that you bolt rather than continue.
<snip>
I'm allergic to strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence
presented on behalf of the blind watchmaker thesis. So, feel free to
present some strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence for the
blind watchmaker thesis, so that I might get an allergic reaction and
disappear from this thread. I have already asked gen2rev for such.
Feel free to coordinate your presentations with him.
The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct - it's up to you to
present the evidence for it.
[RL]"The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct" I disagree.
See Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987), 141, 147.
Dawkins, I love your book.
My copy is the 1986 Penguin edition - give me the relevant passages, not
page numbers. It's a few years since I read it - but my recollection is
that Dawkins never used the expressions "blindwatchmakerism" or "the blind
watchmaker thesis"; but let's see your citations of him using those
expressions, and the meaning he attributes to them, before the discussion
goes further.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Honest, informed, YEC - pick 2.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
18 Apr 2004 01:27:44 PM |
|
|
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<8kkt5c.u2t.ln@grendel.hayesway>...
Robin Levett wrote:
david ford:
In your view, have I just now been [RL]"quote-mining" you?
[RL]"Dawkins goes on to point out that the *appearance* of design is
illusory." Citation, please.
Page 5 (in chapter 1) of my edition of the book (1986 Penguin paperback).
He quotes several passages from Paley's "Natural Theology", paraphrasing
Paley's argument, finishing with:-
"Paley compares the eye with a designed instrument such as a telescope,
and concludes that 'there is precisely the same proof that the eye was
made for
vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it'. The
eye must have had a designer, just as the telescope had."
He goes on in the next paragraph to say that "Paley's argument...is wrong,
gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye,
between watch and living organism, is false. *All appearances to the
contrary*, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics.."
Alternatively, try p21 (in my edition) - the opening page of chapter 2:-
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see
ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living
results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the
*appearance* of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the
*illusion* of design and plannng." (My emphasis, as in the quote before
it).
Dawkins continues, "The purpose of this book is to resolve this
paradox to the satisfaction of the reader...." Did Dawkins resolve in
his book [Dawkins]"this paradox" to your satisfaction?
At the end of the paragraph in question, Dawkins observes that "when
it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly even began
to state the case." Do you agree?
My copy has what you quoted on page 21, as well. Before you asked me
to [RL]"give me [i.e. RL] the relevant passages, not page numbers,"
did you look at your copy to see if the page numbers I provided
contained what I said they contained?
Note, also, the word "appearance"
within my comment, [df]"Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of [AC]"intelligent
tinkering/design/interference.""
So you don't argue that there is [AC] "evidence of intelligent
tinkering/design/interference, just [df] appearance? That means that you
weren't addressing the point that Aaron made; so my criticism doesn't
apply
to you. It leaves you without an argument on the point, however...
I tried to discuss this with you a while ago, but you ran away from
the
thread. I almost get the feeling that when you feel the conversation
tending in a certain direction that you bolt rather than continue.
<snip>
I'm allergic to strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence
presented on behalf of the blind watchmaker thesis. So, feel free to
present some strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence for the
blind watchmaker thesis, so that I might get an allergic reaction and
disappear from this thread. I have already asked gen2rev for such.
Feel free to coordinate your presentations with him.
The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct - it's up to you to
present the evidence for it.
[RL]"The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct" I disagree.
See Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987), 141, 147.
Dawkins, I love your book.
My copy is the 1986 Penguin edition - give me the relevant passages, not
page numbers. It's a few years since I read it - but my recollection is
that Dawkins never used the expressions "blindwatchmakerism" or "the blind
watchmaker thesis"; but let's see your citations of him using those
expressions, and the meaning he attributes to them, before the discussion
goes further.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
18 Apr 2004 05:24:29 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<8kkt5c.u2t.ln@grendel.hayesway>... Robin Levett wrote:
david ford:
In your view, have I just now been [RL]"quote-mining" you?
[RL]"Dawkins goes on to point out that the *appearance* of design is
illusory." Citation, please.
Page 5 (in chapter 1) of my edition of the book (1986 Penguin
paperback). He quotes several passages from Paley's "Natural Theology",
paraphrasing Paley's argument, finishing with:-
"Paley compares the eye with a designed instrument such as a telescope,
and concludes that 'there is precisely the same proof that the eye was
made for
vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it'. The
eye must have had a designer, just as the telescope had."
He goes on in the next paragraph to say that "Paley's argument...is
wrong,
gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye,
between watch and living organism, is false. *All appearances to the
contrary*, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of
physics.."
Alternatively, try p21 (in my edition) - the opening page of chapter 2:-
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see
ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the
living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the
*appearance* of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the
*illusion* of design and plannng." (My emphasis, as in the quote before
it).
Dawkins continues, "The purpose of this book is to resolve this
paradox to the satisfaction of the reader...." Did Dawkins resolve in
his book [Dawkins]"this paradox" to your satisfaction?
Yes.
At the end of the paragraph in question, Dawkins observes that "when
it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly even began
to state the case." Do you agree?
My copy has what you quoted on page 21, as well. Before you asked me
to [RL]"give me [i.e. RL] the relevant passages, not page numbers,"
did you look at your copy to see if the page numbers I provided
contained what I said they contained?
I did - they didn't even contain the terms you are using, let alone
definitions of those terms. Since we're discussing evolution, and the
relevant passages (now identified in your other post) related to
abiogenesis, they didn't even have the appearance of relevance.
<snippage>
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Honest, informed, YEC - pick 2.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
18 Apr 2004 01:08:56 PM |
|
|
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<jrus5c.8ss.ln@grendel.hayesway>...
david ford wrote:
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<dlmr5c.59s.ln@grendel.hayesway>...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc80rut.23s.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:23:05 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404152015.5312e121@posting.google.com>:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all the
difficult challenges that await any creationist who questions
their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially
the ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await any
person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with faith
in the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the
evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence supporting
the blind watchmaker thesis.
There is no blind watchmaker thesis, David.
Huh. gen2rev thinks there is, stating [g]"It's [i.e. the blind
watchmaker thesis is] simply the best explanation for the evidence."
No - gen2rev is taking it that by bwt you are referring to evolutionary
theory; AC is pointing out that bwt is your own term that corresponds to
nothing in the scientific literature.
If and when gen2rev responds to my post, he can clarify the situation.
When he responded to me, he did not mention evolutionary theory. AC
didn't say anything about what is in or what isn't in the scientific
literature.
There is simply the observation
that the genetic makeup of populations change over time.
I agree with the observation that the genetic makeup of populations
change over time. It has been observed, it would be hard for me to
deny it, and I don't wish to deny it.
Now, from my "concession" that yes, allele frequencies do change, I
hope that readers do not leap to the conclusion that I thereby also
agree with the proposition that life and biology arose and developed
through totally mindless processes.
There is no
evidence of intelligent tinkering/design/interference.
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
[AC]"intelligent tinkering/design/interference." Have you read
Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987)?
Quote-mining again? If you were trying to address the point made, you
were being dishonest, since Dawkins goes on to point out that the
*appearance* of design is illusory.
I'm not sure how you consider me quoting AC to be [RL]"quote-mining
again."
I don't - I comnsider your reference to Dawkins' book, as if it supported
your position, to be quotemining.
What's your definition of [RL]"quotemining"?
If journal paper A cites another paper B [RL]"as if it supported" a
position advocated by paper A, would paper A be [RL]"quotemining"?
In your view, have I just now been [RL]"quote-mining" you?
[RL]"Dawkins goes on to point out that the *appearance* of design is
illusory." Citation, please.
Page 5 (in chapter 1) of my edition of the book (1986 Penguin paperback).
He quotes several passages from Paley's "Natural Theology", paraphrasing
Paley's argument, finishing with:-
"Paley compares the eye with a designed instrument such as a telescope, and
concludes that 'there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for
vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it'. The eye
must have had a designer, just as the telescope had."
He goes on in the next paragraph to say that "Paley's argument...is wrong,
gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye,
between watch and living organism, is false. *All appearances to the
contrary*, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics.."
[Dawkins as quoted by RL]"the only watchmaker in nature is the blind
forces of physics" The watchmaker is blind-- a blind watchmaker.
Note, also, the word "appearance"
within my comment, [df]"Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of [AC]"intelligent
tinkering/design/interference.""
So you don't argue that there is [AC] "evidence of intelligent
tinkering/design/interference, just [df] appearance?
A very, very strong appearance. Dawkins agrees with me on this.
I go further, and propose that the very, very strong appearance of
intelligent design of biology is the product/result of intelligent
design, and not merely a (false) appearance.
That means that you
weren't addressing the point that Aaron made; so my criticism doesn't apply
to you. It leaves you without an argument on the point, however...
[AC]"There is no evidence of intelligent
tinkering/design/interference." The very, very strong appearance of
intelligent design of biology is evidence for the theory of
intelligent design.
I tried to discuss this with you a while ago, but you ran away from
the
thread. I almost get the feeling that when you feel the conversation
tending in a certain direction that you bolt rather than continue.
<snip>
I'm allergic to strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence
presented on behalf of the blind watchmaker thesis. So, feel free to
present some strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence for the
blind watchmaker thesis, so that I might get an allergic reaction and
disappear from this thread. I have already asked gen2rev for such.
Feel free to coordinate your presentations with him.
The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct - it's up to you to
present the evidence for it.
[RL]"The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct" I disagree.
See Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987), 141, 147.
Dawkins, I love your book.
My copy is the 1986 Penguin edition - give me the relevant passages, not
page numbers. It's a few years since I read it - but my recollection is
that Dawkins never used the expressions "blindwatchmakerism" or "the blind
watchmaker thesis"; but let's see your citations of him using those
expressions, and the meaning he attributes to them, before the discussion
goes further.
Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987), 141, 147: see chapter
"Origins and Miracles," about 3 pages in paragraph beginning "So,
cumulative"; and about 9 pages in paragraph beginning "I am a
biologist."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
18 Apr 2004 05:24:36 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<jrus5c.8ss.ln@grendel.hayesway>...
david ford wrote:
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<dlmr5c.59s.ln@grendel.hayesway>...
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc80rut.23s.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:23:05 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC),
(david ford) wrote in
<b1c67abe.0404152015.5312e121@posting.google.com>:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all
the difficult challenges that await any creationist who
questions their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially
the ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await
any person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with
faith in the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the
evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence
supporting the blind watchmaker thesis.
There is no blind watchmaker thesis, David.
Huh. gen2rev thinks there is, stating [g]"It's [i.e. the blind
watchmaker thesis is] simply the best explanation for the evidence."
No - gen2rev is taking it that by bwt you are referring to
evolutionary theory; AC is pointing out that bwt is your own term that
corresponds to nothing in the scientific literature.
If and when gen2rev responds to my post, he can clarify the situation.
When he responded to me, he did not mention evolutionary theory. AC
didn't say anything about what is in or what isn't in the scientific
literature.
There is simply the observation
that the genetic makeup of populations change over time.
I agree with the observation that the genetic makeup of populations
change over time. It has been observed, it would be hard for me to
deny it, and I don't wish to deny it.
Now, from my "concession" that yes, allele frequencies do change, I
hope that readers do not leap to the conclusion that I thereby also
agree with the proposition that life and biology arose and developed
through totally mindless processes.
There is no
evidence of intelligent tinkering/design/interference.
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product
of
[AC]"intelligent tinkering/design/interference." Have you read
Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987)?
Quote-mining again? If you were trying to address the point made, you
were being dishonest, since Dawkins goes on to point out that the
*appearance* of design is illusory.
I'm not sure how you consider me quoting AC to be [RL]"quote-mining
again."
I don't - I comnsider your reference to Dawkins' book, as if it supported
your position, to be quotemining.
What's your definition of [RL]"quotemining"?
If journal paper A cites another paper B [RL]"as if it supported" a
position advocated by paper A, would paper A be [RL]"quotemining"?
If journal paper A was referring to a passage in journal paper B as if it
supported the thesis of journal paper A's author, when in fact journal
paper B's conclusion was to the contrary - yes, in the same broad sense;
just as saying that "of course, Darwin found the idea of evolution of the
eye absurd in the extreme" is quotemining.
You referred to Dawkins' book as if it supported your claim - it does not.
In your view, have I just now been [RL]"quote-mining" you?
[RL]"Dawkins goes on to point out that the *appearance* of design is
illusory." Citation, please.
Page 5 (in chapter 1) of my edition of the book (1986 Penguin paperback).
He quotes several passages from Paley's "Natural Theology", paraphrasing
Paley's argument, finishing with:-
"Paley compares the eye with a designed instrument such as a telescope,
and concludes that 'there is precisely the same proof that the eye was
made for
vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it'. The
eye must have had a designer, just as the telescope had."
He goes on in the next paragraph to say that "Paley's argument...is
wrong,
gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye,
between watch and living organism, is false. *All appearances to the
contrary*, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of
physics.."
[Dawkins as quoted by RL]"the only watchmaker in nature is the blind
forces of physics" The watchmaker is blind-- a blind watchmaker.
Note, also, the word "appearance"
within my comment, [df]"Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of [AC]"intelligent
tinkering/design/interference.""
So you don't argue that there is [AC] "evidence of intelligent
tinkering/design/interference, just [df] appearance?
A very, very strong appearance. Dawkins agrees with me on this.
I go further, and propose that the very, very strong appearance of
intelligent design of biology is the product/result of intelligent
design, and not merely a (false) appearance.
....but cannot rely upon Dawkins to go with you - so you cannot argue from
his authority in support of your thesis.
So why do you say that the appearance is more than that? What evidence do
you have that the processes that Dawkins identifies as rendering that
appearance an illusion do not do so?
That means that you
weren't addressing the point that Aaron made; so my criticism doesn't
apply
to you. It leaves you without an argument on the point, however...
[AC]"There is no evidence of intelligent
tinkering/design/interference." The very, very strong appearance of
intelligent design of biology is evidence for the theory of
intelligent design.
Where processes have been identified that can produce that appearance
without design, it is no such evidence.
I tried to discuss this with you a while ago, but you ran away from
the
thread. I almost get the feeling that when you feel the
conversation tending in a certain direction that you bolt rather
than continue.
<snip>
I'm allergic to strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence
presented on behalf of the blind watchmaker thesis. So, feel free
to present some strong arguments and compelling lines of evidence
for the blind watchmaker thesis, so that I might get an allergic
reaction and
disappear from this thread. I have already asked gen2rev for such.
Feel free to coordinate your presentations with him.
The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct - it's up to you to
present the evidence for it.
[RL]"The blind watchmaker thesis is your own construct" I disagree.
See Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987), 141, 147.
Dawkins, I love your book.
My copy is the 1986 Penguin edition - give me the relevant passages, not
page numbers. It's a few years since I read it - but my recollection is
that Dawkins never used the expressions "blindwatchmakerism" or "the
blind watchmaker thesis"; but let's see your citations of him using those
expressions, and the meaning he attributes to them, before the discussion
goes further.
Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1987), 141, 147: see chapter
"Origins and Miracles," about 3 pages in paragraph beginning "So,
cumulative"; and about 9 pages in paragraph beginning "I am a
biologist."
Both of which passages refer to abiogenesis, not evolution; and neither of
which contains either of the terms you keeep on using.
So what are your definitions of the terms "blindwatchmakerism" and "the
blind watchmaker thesis"? For a start, you can say whether they are
limited in their scope to abiogenesis.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Honest, informed, YEC - pick 2.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gen2rev" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
17 Apr 2004 11:00:22 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:23:05 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404161525.34ad8d6f@posting.google.com>:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404152015.5312e121@posting.google.com>:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all the difficult
challenges that await any creationist who questions their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially the
ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await any person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with faith in
the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence supporting
the blind watchmaker thesis.
Heck, I can point you to 29. Go to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Premise 1: either
a) Jehovah Witnesses' version of intelligent design
or
b) evolution
is responsible for the origin of plants and animals.
False dichotomy. There's always Young Earth Creationism.
[g]"False dichotomy." Agreed. [g]"There's always Young Earth
Creationism." There are also additional varieties of creationist
accounts.
I wish someone would defend at some length an
intelligent-design-of-common-descent hypothesis.
You run every time someone does. This time will be no different.
Premise 2: not a).
Conclusion: therefore b)-- evolution is responsible for the origin of
plants and animals.
Since Premise 1 is flawed, your conclusion is as well.
I agree that the first premise and the conclusion of the argument I
presented for scrutiny is flawed.
Excellent. Please avoid your "Premise 1, Premise 2, therefore
Conclusion" format. It makes you look like an idiot.
Compare
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c3njao%244o6%241%40hood.uits.indiana.edu
Which was unanswered...
In the Darlington thread, I made the following observation about that
post:
I succeeded in my effort to obtain from evolutionists criticism of a
Mayr allegation.
Where was Mayr mentioned in that thread? I very much doubt that Mayr
would support your statements in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403221027.344b39d1%40posting.google.com
Considering the heavy-duty reputation of one of the
authors of that criticism, and the impeccable nature of his comments
on the allegation, my effort was more successful than I had dared hope
for.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c3njao%244o6%241%40hood.uits.indiana.edu
Which is the same post you linked to the first time.
and the last 2 blocks of text in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970805010133.12918J-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
Which seem to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
It reinforces your [g]"False dichotomy." observation.
Yes, you made a false dichotomy in that post too.
[snip the rest]
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
17 Apr 2004 09:41:04 PM |
|
|
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<eqh2805nbd561160gah0lutb8na3h06kte@4ax.com>...
david ford:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
david ford:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all the difficult
challenges that await any creationist who questions their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially the
ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await any person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with faith in
the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence supporting
the blind watchmaker thesis.
Heck, I can point you to 29. Go to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I see that you did respond to my reply.
I read the heading to that web page. In your view, is the blind
watchmaker thesis equivalent to the hypothesis of common descent?
For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
hypothesis of common descent. I propose that the environment (i.e.,
the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
common ancestors) to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
billion year existence. Experience with mutations in the laboratory
indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic material,
I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
for those alterations.
The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step fashion,
but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
new functions. Some of the new organisms became extinct through
exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms. The most
prominent of the various sets of alteration events was when a very
large number of alterations were done to produce the "Cambrian
explosion," which began 543 million years ago.
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
Premise 1: either
a) Jehovah Witnesses' version of intelligent design
or
b) evolution
is responsible for the origin of plants and animals.
False dichotomy. There's always Young Earth Creationism.
[g]"False dichotomy." Agreed. [g]"There's always Young Earth
Creationism." There are also additional varieties of creationist
accounts.
I wish someone would defend at some length an
intelligent-design-of-common-descent hypothesis.
You run every time someone does. This time will be no different.
I [g]"run every time someone does" what?
Who are 2 people that have done this?
Premise 2: not a).
Conclusion: therefore b)-- evolution is responsible for the origin of
plants and animals.
Since Premise 1 is flawed, your conclusion is as well.
I agree that the first premise and the conclusion of the argument I
presented for scrutiny is flawed.
Excellent. Please avoid your "Premise 1, Premise 2, therefore
Conclusion" format. It makes you look like an idiot.
[g]"avoid your" No, I won't.
Compare
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c3njao%244o6%241%40hood.uits.indiana.edu
Which was unanswered...
In the Darlington thread, I made the following observation about that
post:
I succeeded in my effort to obtain from evolutionists criticism of a
Mayr allegation.
Where was Mayr mentioned in that thread?
As far as I know, nowhere.
I very much doubt that Mayr
would support your statements in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403221027.344b39d1%40posting.google.com
I disagree. See Ernst Mayr, _The Growth of Biological Thought:
Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance_ (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982), 974pp., 840.
Perhaps some industrious person will scan or type for us the section
in question-- it is only a paragraph long. I do not feel like doing
it at the present time.
Considering the heavy-duty reputation of one of the
authors of that criticism, and the impeccable nature of his comments
on the allegation, my effort was more successful than I had dared hope
for.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c3njao%244o6%241%40hood.uits.indiana.edu
Which is the same post you linked to the first time.
Correct. It's a very good post.
and the last 2 blocks of text in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970805010133.12918J-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
Which seem to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
It reinforces your [g]"False dichotomy." observation.
Yes, you made a false dichotomy in that post too.
What was the [g]"false dichotomy in that post"?
[snip the rest]
.
|
|
|
| User: "gen2rev" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
19 Apr 2004 10:17:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:41:04 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404171843.13190328@posting.google.com>:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<eqh2805nbd561160gah0lutb8na3h06kte@4ax.com>...
david ford:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<snmv70h25n6movvcvdjkr77v6fmdlaimp5@4ax.com>...
david ford:
R Brown <rbrown@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XvJac.1846$Pk3.1101@pd7tw1no>...
<snip an excellent post>
I think Lodger's story, especially the ending, shows us all the difficult
challenges that await any creationist who questions their faith.
Absolutely. If I might generalize, Lodger's story, especially the
ending, shows us all the difficult challenges that await any person
with faith who questions their faith. Including those with faith in
the blind watchmaker thesis.
No faith required. It's simply the best explanation for the evidence.
Please briefly describe 2 of the better lines of evidence supporting
the blind watchmaker thesis.
Heck, I can point you to 29. Go to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I see that you did respond to my reply.
I read the heading to that web page. In your view, is the blind
watchmaker thesis equivalent to the hypothesis of common descent?
It occurs to me that we're talking about two different things. Perhaps
if you outlined what you mean by the Blind Watchmaker Thesis?
For purposes of argumentation, I will accept and utilize the
hypothesis of common descent. I propose that the environment (i.e.,
the wind, seasons, occasional asteroid impact, weather, etc.) and
surrounding organisms played a destructive role in killing/ driving to
extinction new creatures that couldn't handle the environment and/or
the other organisms. Alterations in organisms' genetic material gave
rise (via common descent from one or more intelligently-designed
common ancestors) to the numerous and varied organisms that the earth
has been home for throughout almost all of the course of its 4.5
billion year existence. Experience with mutations in the laboratory
indicates that mutations are not of a nature as to contribute to the
arrival in organisms of new structures having new functions.
Whose experience? Can you provide a citation?
Therefore, when I speak of alterations in organisms' genetic material,
I propose that one or more intelligent entities was/were responsible
for those alterations.
What do you base this claim on?
The alterations were not done in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step fashion,
but rather, were large sets of coordinated alterations that gave rise
to the sudden appearance of new organisms having new structures with
new functions.
What do you base this claim on?
Some of the new organisms became extinct through
exposure to the environment and surrounding organisms. The most
prominent of the various sets of alteration events was when a very
large number of alterations were done to produce the "Cambrian
explosion," which began 543 million years ago.
What do you base this claim on?
Biology strongly exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence, and biology _was_ the product of intelligence.
So far, that's an unsupported assertion.
Premise 1: either
a) Jehovah Witnesses' version of intelligent design
or
b) evolution
is responsible for the origin of plants and animals.
False dichotomy. There's always Young Earth Creationism.
[g]"False dichotomy." Agreed. [g]"There's always Young Earth
Creationism." There are also additional varieties of creationist
accounts.
I wish someone would defend at some length an
intelligent-design-of-common-descent hypothesis.
You run every time someone does. This time will be no different.
I [g]"run every time someone does" what?
Oops, I was confused as to what you were saying. I withdraw the comment.
Who are 2 people that have done this?
Premise 2: not a).
Conclusion: therefore b)-- evolution is responsible for the origin of
plants and animals.
Since Premise 1 is flawed, your conclusion is as well.
I agree that the first premise and the conclusion of the argument I
presented for scrutiny is flawed.
Excellent. Please avoid your "Premise 1, Premise 2, therefore
Conclusion" format. It makes you look like an idiot.
[g]"avoid your" No, I won't.
Hey, it's your funeral.
Compare
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c3njao%244o6%241%40hood.uits.indiana.edu
Which was unanswered...
In the Darlington thread, I made the following observation about that
post:
I succeeded in my effort to obtain from evolutionists criticism of a
Mayr allegation.
Where was Mayr mentioned in that thread?
As far as I know, nowhere.
I see...
I very much doubt that Mayr
would support your statements in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403221027.344b39d1%40posting.google.com
I disagree. See Ernst Mayr, _The Growth of Biological Thought:
Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance_ (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982), 974pp., 840.
Perhaps some industrious person will scan or type for us the section
in question-- it is only a paragraph long. I do not feel like doing
it at the present time.
Heck, I'll include the previous paragraph as well.
Concepts and theories are usually part of the total research
tradition of a specific branch of science, and it is in some
respects more instructive to study the factors which contribute to
(or impede) the maturation of such a scientific discipline than to
try to do this for a particular concept. Let me now discuss some of
these factors, not necessarily in any order of importance.
The Elimination of Invalid Theories or Concepts
Nothing strengthened the theory of natural selection as much as the
refutation, one by one, of all the competing theories, such as
saltationism, orthogenesis, an inheritance of acquired
characteristics, and so forth. Another example can be found in the
maturation of the modern concept of inheritance. About a dozen
previously held concepts from the Greeks to 1900 had to be refuted
in order to make room for the current concepts of transmission
genetics (see Chapter 16).
It's obvious that Mayr isn't arguing Natural Selection is proven by
other theories being disproven, but rather that it was the only one left
after the others were eliminated. Scientists don't research disproven
theories, and if there's only one contender, all efforts will flow into
it. Your conclusion that "Darwinian natural selection is extremely
well-supported by all the available evidence" because other theories
were disproven is just nonsense.
Considering the heavy-duty reputation of one of the
authors of that criticism, and the impeccable nature of his comments
on the allegation, my effort was more successful than I had dared hope
for.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c3njao%244o6%241%40hood.uits.indiana.edu
Which is the same post you linked to the first time.
Correct. It's a very good post.
It's not a bad post, but it's not a revelation either. And it's
certainly not in disagreement with Mayr.
and the last 2 blocks of text in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970805010133.12918J-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
Which seem to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
It reinforces your [g]"False dichotomy." observation.
Yes, you made a false dichotomy in that post too.
What was the [g]"false dichotomy in that post"?
The claim at the end that "it would seem that the Greco/Roman and Norse
gods are material entities, and thus to be discarded based on the big
bang's creation out of nothing."
I would suggest that gods can be material entities, and still create the
universe out of nothing.
[snip the rest]
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
19 Apr 2004 11:20:12 PM |
|
|
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:41:04 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404171843.13190328@posting.google.com>:
....
I read the heading to that web page. In your view, is the blind
watchmaker thesis equivalent to the hypothesis of common descent?
It occurs to me that we're talking about two different things. Perhaps
if you outlined what you mean by the Blind Watchmaker Thesis?
While you are at it, get him to define Neo-Darwinism...
....
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
25 Apr 2004 10:14:31 PM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<1gcjp5e.13sx7zp1rpa8w4N%>...
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:41:04 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404171843.13190328@posting.google.com>:
...
I read the heading to that web page. In your view, is the blind
watchmaker thesis equivalent to the hypothesis of common descent?
It occurs to me that we're talking about two different things. Perhaps
if you outlined what you mean by the Blind Watchmaker Thesis?
Dawkins on Blind Watchmaking
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312252139.7b1d31bf%40posting.google.com
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
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
While you are at it, get him to define Neo-Darwinism...
...
Compare
1st post in thread "Naive ?s on the Blindwatchmaker Thesis"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312242003.1777307%40posting.google.com
2nd post, on common descent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312262134.70086e1b%40posting.google.com
John Wilkins <> on 23 Mar 2004
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1gb3zey.1548km51v4sma6N%25john_SPAM%40wilkins.id.au
1982 Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn;
1940 Haldane on materialism; 1996 and 1995 Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley
on slow rate and gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of and
extracts from 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: POTM: you've changed my life. thanks, I think. |
01 May 2004 06:44:59 PM |
|
|
Hi David. I've changed my on-line name to "Augray" from "gen2rev".
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:14:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404251918.2d4518a1@posting.google.com>:
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<1gcjp5e.13sx7zp1rpa8w4N%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au>...
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:41:04 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404171843.13190328@posting.google.com>:
...
I read the heading to that web page. In your view, is the blind
watchmaker thesis equivalent to the hypothesis of common descent?
It occurs to me that we're talking about two different things. Perhaps
if you outlined what you mean by the Blind Watchmaker Thesis?
Dawkins on Blind Watchmaking
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312252139.7b1d31bf%40posting.google.com
In which you provide a quote from Dawkins comparing Natural Selection to
a Blind Watchmaker.
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
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
While you are at it, get him to define Neo-Darwinism...
...
Compare
1st post in thread "Naive ?s on the Blindwatchmaker Thesis"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312242003.1777307%40posting.google.com
Which doesn't mention Neo-Darwinism.
2nd post, on common descent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312262134.70086e1b%40posting.google.com
Which also doesn't mention Neo-Darwinism, but it does mention Common
Descent. However, Neo-Darwinism is not considered to be equivalent to
Common Descent. Are you claiming that it is?
John Wilkins <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> on 23 Mar 2004
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1gb3zey.1548km51v4sma6N%25john_SPAM%40wilkins.id.au
What does this have to do with Neo-Darwinism?
1982 Saunders & Ho
You refer to your post at
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com
and quote the second paragraph of Saunders & Ho:
There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and
surprisingly few writers on the subject seem to consider
it necessary to spell out precisely what it is that they are
discussing. This is especially curious in view of the
controversy which dogs the theory, for one might have
thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute
over its status would be to decide upon a generally
acceptable definition of it. Alternatively, if this turned
out not to be possible, then this might have indicated
clearly the source of the disagreement. Of course, the
lack of a firm definition does, as we shall see, make the
theory much easier to defend.
However, immediately following, Saunders & Ho write:
One neo-Darwinist who _has_ stated explicitly what he means by
neo-Darwinism is Maynard Smith (1969), and since his definition
tallies with what other adherents of the synthetic assume in their
work, we shall adopt it here.
[Saunders, P. T. & Ho, M. W. 1982. Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? -
And Does It Matter? Nature and System 4(4):179-196.]
You have, no doubt, read the Maynard Smith paper which Saunders & Ho
refer to. Do you agree with Maynard Smith's definition?
and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness;
You quote Gould as follows:
The version known as the "modern synthesis" or
"Neo-Darwinism" (different from what the late 19th
century called Neo-Darwinism-- see Romanes, 1900) is,
I think, fairly characterized in its essentials by Robson
and Richards. Its foundation rests upon two major
premises:....
You then continue the quote, but what have you omitted at the ellipses?
Just this:
(1) Point mutations (micromutations) are the ultimate source of
variability. Evolutionary change is a process of gradual allelic
substitution within a population. Events at broader scale, from the
origin of new species to long-ranging evolutionary trends,
represent the same process, extended in time and effect--large
numbers of allelic substitutions incorporated sequentially over
long periods of time. In short, gradualism, continuity and
evolutionary change by the transformation of populations. (2)
Genetic variation is raw material only. Natural selection directs
evolutionary change. Rates and directions of change are controlled
by selection with little constraint exerted by raw material (slow
rates are due to weak selection, not insufficient variation). All
genetic change is adaptive (through some phenotypic effects, due to
pleiotropy, etc., may not be). In short, selection leading to
adaptation.
[Gould, S. J. 1980. Is a new and general theory of evolution
emerging? Paleobiology 6(1):119-130.]
Do you agree with this definition of Neo-Darwinism?
1925 Osborn;
So what? It's almost 80 years out of date, and written before there
*was* a Neo-Darwinism.
1940 Haldane on materialism;
You quote Haldane as stating that:
WHEN I say that I am a materialist I mean that I believe
in the following statements:
1. Events occur which are not perceived by any mind.
2. There were unperceived events before there were any
minds.
And I also believe, though this is not a necessary logical
deduction from the former two, that:
3. When a man has died he is dead.
Further, I think that it is desirable that other people
should believe these statements.
But Haldane then continues:
I do not mean that I believe that the universe is a machine, nor
that I am a machine; nor yet that consciousness does not exist, or
has a lesser reality (whatever that means) than matter. When I say
"I believe" I do not mean the word in the sense in which a fervent
Christian uses it concerning the Virgin Mary, Pontius Pilate, and
others who figure in the creeds. I mean it in the ordinary sense,
in which, for example, I believe that dinner will be waiting when I
go home, though of course the cook may go on strike or the chimney
may catch fire. That is to say I act, and propose to act, on the
basis that materialism is true. But I am prepared to consider
evidence to the contrary. And I certainly don't get shocked or
angry if someone criticizes or doubts the truth of materialism.
[Haldane, J. B. S. 1940. Adventures of a Biologist. New York:
Harper & Brothers Publishers, page 225.]
This gives quite a different slant on Haldane's views than the excerpt
you posted. You're not quote mining, are you?
Besides, what does this have to do with Neo-Darwinism?
1996 and 1995 Dawkins
Neither of which mention Neo-Darwinism.
and 1960 J. Huxley
on slow rate and gradual nature of Darwinian NS;
What does this have to do with your definition of Neo-Darwinism? Are you
claiming that Neo-Darwinism is the same as Gradualism?
abstract of and
extracts from 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper
You quote Gould and Eldredge from page 129 of their paper:
We must not make up stories about the power of natural
selection, just because modern theory favors it as an
evolutionary agent. In so doing, we do not strengthen
the Darwinian cause, but only display our biases.
[Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the
tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3:115-151.]
But immediately before this, they wrote:
Kellogg proposes that _P. vema_ increased in width as waters became
colder; her "trend" could reflect migration rather than phyletic
change. And if the increase is phyletic (affecting the entire
species, through only sampled in one spot), why must we invoke
genetic change mediated by natural selection--as Kellogg does. For
basic dimensions of simple creatures, a purely phenotypic response
of an unaltered genotype to changing environments seems just as
likely.
It's now obvious that Gould and Eldredge aren't saying that *all*
stories about Natural Selection are made up, just that some can just as
easily be explained by other means.
The rest of the quotes from that paper don't mention Neo-Darwinism
either.
So, what is your definition of Neo-Darwinism?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Would you buy a way of life from a guru?
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason some
Ta
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The
| YOU FUCKING LOSERS NEED TO GET A LIFE!!!
Re: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father(God)(in Heaven), but by me." (John 14:6) This means that if you die without trusting in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour you will die in your sins and be foreve
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
I Dare You "Pro-Life" Fuckers Stop This Abortion!
290 Child Rape Victims Got Abortion in IL. I Dare You Pro-Life, Pro-Rapists' Righters Stop Them!
--- Are the little things bother you in your life?
OT: If you believe life begins at conception...
|
|
|
