On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Severian wrote:
david ford:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, AC wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Mark VandeWettering wrote:
david ford wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Aaron Clausen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Barry OGrady:
What caused the big bang? Where did the material come from?
Science, unlike religion, is quite capable of saying "We don't know".
Not when it comes to the topic of evolution. Or am I wrong?
You're wrong.
How so-- in what ways?
Where biologists are uncertain, they will say so. They won't try to B.S.
their way through it. If they're guessing, they don't couch it in dogmatic
proclamations, but come out and admit it.
You didn't tell me in which ways I'm wrong. Perhaps I'll
have to.
This remark by the biologist Dawkins sounds like a dogmatic proclamation
to me:
Darwin's theory [of natural selection] is now supported by all
the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by
any serious modern biologist.
For the source for Dawkins's remark, see
Davies, National Academy of Sciences, Dawkins, Feynman
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990511230015.1040149B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Are biologists uncertain when it comes to the question of how life could
have come from non-life apart from the input of intelligence?
Well duh. Biologists are *uncertain* about most things. It's
unscientific and bombastic to claim absolute truth or absolute
knowledge.
When it comes to the topic of evolution, of what things are
biologists uncertain?
And as you've been told countless times, evolution is not a theory of
the origin of life, it's a theory of the origin of species: of how
life _changes_.
It is possible that the way life originated had a bearing
on what happened in biology after the 1st life originated.
For example, if the 1st lifeform was the product of intelligent
design, perhaps the designing intelligence(s) made that 1st lifeform
in a way/ manner/ fashion such that that 1st lifeform would later
give rise to all subsequent life.
1996 _Developmental Biology_ paper by Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980602230744.671C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Objecting to evolution by claiming it doesn't explain the origin of
life is like objecting to music because it doesn't explain the origin
of hearing!
See above.
But this is all moot, David. Your objections, which are damned few,
once you peel away the URL lists that are your excuse for your dialog,
tend to be little more than handwaving. We observe speciation. We
observe various mechanisms that lead to evolutionary processes. We have
the twin nested hierarchies, which, before you provide another URL, are
observations, and not prejudiced assertions.
Your case is overwhelming. Bacteria-like organisms really could have
developed into humans apart from the input of intelligence.
Life really could have come from non-life apart from the input of
intelligence. I am in awe of the evidence you have presented.
Why not? The ideas are completely reasonable to me. Have you a
simpler, better, scientific explanation? Or are you just bitching
because they don't match your world view, Ignatius?
Your arguments from ignorance and increduility are old here. Please
try to come up with something _interesting_.
Personal experience by engineers suggests that biology had
a designer(s).
Robert Dorit
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980627001309.6929A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
.
