PDA

View Full Version : Charles Robert Darwin 1809-1882



antichrist
02-02-2005, 04:53 PM
Mod, it would be preferrable if you could do a professional job in transferring these posts, if you don't within tonight I will manually tidy up.

You may want to go back further. thanks
_____________________________________--


Barry is natural selection neccessarily anticreation? I have previously done some reading, but not for a while, quite a while.

Freddy

01-02-2005, 08:45 PM #47
David_Richards
CC Grandmaster




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 868 Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy
Barry is natural selection neccessarily anticreation? I have previously done some reading, but not for a while, quite a while.


Why ask Barry? he's a bloody mathematician! He's just messing with your head Scott. You need to ask that question to someone with an honours degree in Genetics from London, like what I've got Scotty! And the answer to your question is that natural selection is entirely consistent with Creationism. I mean, even Darwin knew there was a God! And there's even a suggestion there may be a God gene, put there by the Great Creator himself!
__________________
Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

David_Richards
View Public Profile
Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
Send a private message to David_Richards
Find More Posts by David_Richards
Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

01-02-2005, 09:27 PM #48
antichrist
CC Grandmaster


Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 710 Apes evolved out of Creationists.

antichrist
View Public Profile
Send a private message to antichrist
Find More Posts by antichrist
Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 12:39 AM #49
Barry Cox
Community Leader




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,511 Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy
Barry is natural selection neccessarily anticreation? I have previously done some reading, but not for a while, quite a while.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Richards
Why ask Barry? he's a bloody mathematician! He's just messing with your head Scott. You need to ask that question to someone with an honours degree in Genetics from London, like what I've got Scotty! And the answer to your question is that natural selection is entirely consistent with Creationism. I mean, even Darwin knew there was a God! And there's even a suggestion there may be a God gene, put there by the Great Creator himself!


Not sure that a degree in Genetics, honours or otherwise is really that helpful. And I'm not sure that Charles Darwin wasn't a aetheist he certainly made a number of concessions on account of his deeply religious wife and his retiring nature. But his deeply held views on religion is another question entirely and totally irrelevent to Scott's question.

Natural selection is basically the process which says specimens which are best suited to their environment will survive and displace those which are less well suited. Evolution says that random mutation with natural selection will cause species to evolve and eventually diverge to the point that one homogeneous population bcomes two populations which biologists would recognise as distinct species. On a larger timescale this leads to new families, orders, etc, etc, etc.

There is a school which says yes life started as a single cell ameoba (or whatever) and eventually produced the all the species of animals, plants and bacteria we see today. However, God provided the spark, guided the process, and always had in his mind to eventually wind up with humans, whom he then imbued with a soul, etc, etc, etc. This is probably the orthodox christian view.

Another school says God created all the species (as required) over a very long timescale. Evolution might make new races within species but never results in a new species. This school also sometimes uses the noun "kind" instead of species so as to be a little vague and have some leeway in their position. For the sake of the argument lets call these guys the special creationists.

Then you have the fringe who say natural selection doesn't change species at all, God created everything in 6 days like the good book said and there is a global conspiracy going on among scientists who say otherwise. I can't think of a polite name for these guys. But lets call them the young earthers as they also tend to think the earth can be no older than around 10,000 years. Which is just so unlikely it really is no longer funny.

So the problem with the orthodox position is they pretty much are forced to admit we are related to the apes. Which means if we go far enough back through your parents we will get to an smoething which is no longer human or even homonid. In fact, go far enough back and you and the chimpanzees at the zoo will have a common ancestor. What's more that common ancestor is the chimps closest common ancestor to any other species on earth. The current thinking is humans and chimps separated later than we did from the other apes, including gorillas (the chimps next closest relatives).

Now if this isn't foundation rocking enough, another thing which may be a problem is the origin of the original sin. If there was no single Adam and Eve and garden of Eden, how did original sin come into being, and if you toss out that, it makes much of the gospel more than a little irrelevent. Anyway, mileage may vary on this one depending on the theological importance of the original sin and so I won't say too much more.

The special creationists have the problem of God intervening quite a bit in the history of the earth. Not a major problem, but also taking quite a long time to get to "the point" from a religious angle. That is creating species that can actualy believe. I mean, why waste 200+ million years witht the dinosaurs only to wipe most of them out? Seems to present more questions than it answers.

The young earthers and just so wrong science-wise the position is only tenable in you accept the conspiracy explanation of scientific research in practically all the natural sciences. Hardly worth wasting breath on.

There are more than three positions and I might be accused of providing strawman refutations the the three I presented - so be it. But hopefully you find my post interesting and more use than just a couple of unfounded and misleading (in my view) statements about the importance of genetics (genetics and genes were unknown to Darwin when he wrote the Origin of Species) and Darwin's religious position (which in my view is by no means clear).
__________________
quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

Barry Cox
View Public Profile
Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
Send a private message to Barry Cox
Send email to Barry Cox
Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
Find More Posts by Barry Cox
Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 03:42 AM #50
antichrist
CC Grandmaster


Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 710 At the time of Darwin's death, Creationists reakoned that on is deathbed he recanted all of his On the Origin of the Species. But his wife soon after rebutted this and copies of her documents on this are available.

Even if Darwin recanted it is almost meaningless, a theory holds up or doesn't regardless.

And as someone doubted my credibility/repuatation earlier on another thread and I did not get around to answer, that if it was terrible Hitler who had discovered that two plus two equals four, it would still equal four.

So all the imbeciles who try to smear my views by "association" have now being taught another lesson.

antichrist
View Public Profile
Send a private message to antichrist
Find More Posts by antichrist
Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 07:36 AM #51
Frosty
CC Grandmaster




Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lilydale VIC Australia
Posts: 324 Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
And as someone doubted my credibility/repuatation earlier on another thread and I did not get around to answer, that if it was terrible Hitler who had discovered that two plus two equals four, it would still equal four.


All we need now is for someone to expand at little on the Hitler comments, a bit more to-ing and fro-ing, and then KB can invoke Godwin's law.

But you're right AC, a fact is a fact, regardless of who presents it.

See how conciliatory I can be? We might even become friends, who knows.
__________________
Korchnoi vs Karpov (Manila, 1978) triggered my first interest in chess ... wish Korchnoi had won!

Frosty
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Frosty
Send email to Frosty
Find More Posts by Frosty
Add Frosty to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 07:43 AM #52
Frosty
CC Grandmaster




Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lilydale VIC Australia
Posts: 324 Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cox
There is a school which says yes life started as a single cell ameoba (or whatever) and eventually produced the all the species of animals, plants and bacteria we see today. However, God provided the spark, guided the process, and always had in his mind to eventually wind up with humans, whom he then imbued with a soul, etc, etc, etc. This is probably the orthodox christian view.

Another school says God created all the species (as required) over a very long timescale. Evolution might make new races within species but never results in a new species. This school also sometimes uses the noun "kind" instead of species so as to be a little vague and have some leeway in their position. For the sake of the argument lets call these guys the special creationists.

Then you have the fringe who say natural selection doesn't change species at all, God created everything in 6 days like the good book said and there is a global conspiracy going on among scientists who say otherwise. I can't think of a polite name for these guys. But lets call them the young earthers as they also tend to think the earth can be no older than around 10,000 years. Which is just so unlikely it really is no longer funny.


Pretty good summary Barry. Problem with summaries though is that they tend to put people in boxes which (maybe) they don't quite belong in.

Myself for example ... if I had to choose between the three "boxes" above ... I'd fit more into the last one than the other two because I don't accept that natural selection produces change in species. But I don't believe in conspiracy theories either. I do believe that the earth appears to be substantially older than 10,000 years.

Maybe I'm a contradiction wrapped up in an anachronism?
__________________
Korchnoi vs Karpov (Manila, 1978) triggered my first interest in chess ... wish Korchnoi had won!

Frosty
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Frosty
Send email to Frosty
Find More Posts by Frosty
Add Frosty to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 08:15 AM #53
David_Richards
CC Grandmaster




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 868 Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cox
Not sure that a degree in Genetics, honours or otherwise is really that helpful. And I'm not sure that Charles Darwin wasn't a aetheist he certainly made a number of concessions on account of his deeply religious wife and his retiring nature. But his deeply held views on religion is another question entirely and totally irrelevent to Scott's question.

Natural selection is basically the process which says specimens which are best suited to their environment will survive and displace those which are less well suited. Evolution says that random mutation with natural selection will cause species to evolve and eventually diverge to the point that one homogeneous population bcomes two populations which biologists would recognise as distinct species. On a larger timescale this leads to new families, orders, etc, etc, etc.

There is a school which says yes life started as a single cell ameoba (or whatever) and eventually produced the all the species of animals, plants and bacteria we see today. However, God provided the spark, guided the process, and always had in his mind to eventually wind up with humans, whom he then imbued with a soul, etc, etc, etc. This is probably the orthodox christian view.

Another school says God created all the species (as required) over a very long timescale. Evolution might make new races within species but never results in a new species. This school also sometimes uses the noun "kind" instead of species so as to be a little vague and have some leeway in their position. For the sake of the argument lets call these guys the special creationists.

Then you have the fringe who say natural selection doesn't change species at all, God created everything in 6 days like the good book said and there is a global conspiracy going on among scientists who say otherwise. I can't think of a polite name for these guys. But lets call them the young earthers as they also tend to think the earth can be no older than around 10,000 years. Which is just so unlikely it really is no longer funny.

So the problem with the orthodox position is they pretty much are forced to admit we are related to the apes. Which means if we go far enough back through your parents we will get to an smoething which is no longer human or even homonid. In fact, go far enough back and you and the chimpanzees at the zoo will have a common ancestor. What's more that common ancestor is the chimps closest common ancestor to any other species on earth. The current thinking is humans and chimps separated later than we did from the other apes, including gorillas (the chimps next closest relatives).

Now if this isn't foundation rocking enough, another thing which may be a problem is the origin of the original sin. If there was no single Adam and Eve and garden of Eden, how did original sin come into being, and if you toss out that, it makes much of the gospel more than a little irrelevent. Anyway, mileage may vary on this one depending on the theological importance of the original sin and so I won't say too much more.

The special creationists have the problem of God intervening quite a bit in the history of the earth. Not a major problem, but also taking quite a long time to get to "the point" from a religious angle. That is creating species that can actualy believe. I mean, why waste 200+ million years witht the dinosaurs only to wipe most of them out? Seems to present more questions than it answers.

The young earthers and just so wrong science-wise the position is only tenable in you accept the conspiracy explanation of scientific research in practically all the natural sciences. Hardly worth wasting breath on.

There are more than three positions and I might be accused of providing strawman refutations the the three I presented - so be it. But hopefully you find my post interesting and more use than just a couple of unfounded and misleading (in my view) statements about the importance of genetics (genetics and genes were unknown to Darwin when he wrote the Origin of Species) and Darwin's religious position (which in my view is by no means clear).


Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies. What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?
__________________
Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

David_Richards
View Public Profile
Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
Send a private message to David_Richards
Find More Posts by David_Richards
Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 08:49 AM #54
Barry Cox
Community Leader




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,511 Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty
Pretty good summary Barry. Problem with summaries though is that they tend to put people in boxes which (maybe) they don't quite belong in.

Myself for example ... if I had to choose between the three "boxes" above ... I'd fit more into the last one than the other two because I don't accept that natural selection produces change in species. But I don't believe in conspiracy theories either. I do believe that the earth appears to be substantially older than 10,000 years.

Maybe I'm a contradiction wrapped up in an anachronism?


I don't intend to put people's views into boxes, but human nature is hard to avoid. It might be more useful to think about a belief continuum and what I described are just three point in a range of views.

Of course, you would know your own views best but you are sounding more like box #2 than #3 dweller to me. Perhaps I just didn't make box 2 sound inviting enough.
__________________
quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

Barry Cox
View Public Profile
Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
Send a private message to Barry Cox
Send email to Barry Cox
Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
Find More Posts by Barry Cox
Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 09:02 AM #55
Barry Cox
Community Leader




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,511 Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Richards
Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies.


Darwin didn't invent natural selection, he discovered it. Such linguistic abuse actually confuses your arguments. Had he invented it that would mean there could have been no evolution until the time of the publication of the Origin of Species.

I think the faith of Darwin is not a lay-down misere. He was a very retiring man and no doubt had a deeply religious upbringing and wife. He understood the theological implications of the Origin of Man but had the intellectual honesty to present to scientific results and have them stand on their merits without appeasing the religious opposition he knew it would attract.

Anyway, regardless of whether he invented NS or discovered it; regardless of whether Darwin was an aetheist or a Moony; the compatibilty of NS and creation is a complex question and should not be dismissed with some hand wavng and a vague statement on the supposed beliefs of Darwin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Richards
What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?


What I tried to describe was natural selection. Please describe how it is inconsistent with the neo-Darwinians, in your view.
__________________
quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

Barry Cox
View Public Profile
Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
Send a private message to Barry Cox
Send email to Barry Cox
Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
Find More Posts by Barry Cox
Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 02:37 PM #56
firegoat7
CC Grandmaster


Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MCC
Posts: 437 Hello,

I call for a democratic vote on whether this thread ought to be split. It is clearly off track, not that this is a bad thing. I just want to call the moderators on consistency.

Cheers FG7

P.S not that I believe that threads ought to be split, but I am curious to know whether Frosty does? Does this thread meet your criteria Frosty?
__________________
'Government's an affair of sitting, not hitting. You rule with the brains and buttocks, never with the fists. For example, there was the conscription of consumption.' Aldous Huxley- Brave New World

firegoat7
View Public Profile
Challenge firegoat7 in the Arcade
Send a private message to firegoat7
Find More Posts by firegoat7
Add firegoat7 to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 03:03 PM #57
Barry Cox
Community Leader




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,511 Quote:
Originally Posted by firegoat7
I call for a democratic vote on whether this thread ought to be split. It is clearly off track, not that this is a bad thing. I just want to call the moderators on consistency.


The importance of the role of evolution in undermining the absolutist position on the value of human life over all others I think warrants the digression and I don't feel it is as yet off-topic.

The question is if all (wo)mankind and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor in the reasonably recent past (last 10 million years say) then how can the position of a single human life being more valuable than all other life on the planet be sustained?
__________________
quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

Barry Cox
View Public Profile
Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
Send a private message to Barry Cox
Send email to Barry Cox
Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
Find More Posts by Barry Cox
Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 03:58 PM #58
Freddy
CC FIDE Master


Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 89 So Barry. I guess it is then fair to say that natural selection is not necessarily contradictory to evolution. I have absolutely no problem with it.
The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
Scott

Freddy
View Public Profile
Challenge Freddy in the Arcade
Send a private message to Freddy
Find More Posts by Freddy
Add Freddy to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 04:05 PM #59
Bruce Dickinson
Pure Imagination
Space Invaders Champion!
Asteroids Champion!
Tetris Champion!





Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Richards
Because language created God, he is the word. Without language God doesn't exist.


Nonsense. If your argument was true then if I was the only man left on earth God would simply cease to be as I have no one to communicate with or language to express myself.

Quote:
He can only be arrived at abstractly, and for that a language must exist capable of such conceptualisation.


Since when is language a prerequisite for abstraction? There are many things difficult to communicate, perhaps beyond our own capabilities.

Quote:
The Greeks even coined the term 'Son of Man' and explored some of these concepts.


You're focusing too much on the Logos and not enough on pure spirituality. You should see what some of these Eastern monks are capable of, without language.
__________________
"There is no other sense or meaning of Being than the one we bestow on entities in our understanding." - Martin Heidegger

Koopa Troopa!

Bruce Dickinson
View Public Profile
Challenge Bruce Dickinson in the Arcade
Send a private message to Bruce Dickinson
Send email to Bruce Dickinson
Visit Bruce Dickinson's homepage!
Find More Posts by Bruce Dickinson
Add Bruce Dickinson to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:22 PM #60
David_Richards
CC Grandmaster




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 868 Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
Nonsense. If your argument was true then if I was the only man left on earth God would simply cease to be as I have no one to communicate with or language to express myself.


Its a harsh judgement I know!


Quote:
Since when is language a prerequisite for abstraction? There are many things difficult to communicate, perhaps beyond our own capabilities.


Not for abstraction but to communicate abstraction, even to oneself.
__________________
Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

David_Richards
View Public Profile
Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
Send a private message to David_Richards
Find More Posts by David_Richards
Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

Page 4 of 5 « First < 2 3 4 5 >



« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Quick Reply
Message:


Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.
PGN Functions
PGN Uploader
PGN Recorder

Options




Originally Posted by David_Richards
Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies. What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?


Before reading the rest of the posts I read or seen on TV that Charlie became atheistic due to Problem of Evil, specifically, his young favourite daughter dying at an early age due to some disease. As he was earmarked by his father to become a pastor and had studied theology he did quite a turn around. I am sure this fact is easy to find.
Edit Post
Title:

Message:

Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies. What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?

Before reading the rest of the posts I read or seen on TV that Charlie became atheistic due to Problem of Evil, specifically, his young favourite daughter dying at an early age due to some disease. As he was earmarked by his father to become a pastor and had studied theology he did quite a turn around. I am sure this fact is easy to find.
Reason for Editing:

Signature

antichrist
View Public Profile
Send a private message to antichrist
Find More Posts by antichrist
Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:24 PM #62
David_Richards
CC Grandmaster




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 868 Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy
So Barry. I guess it is then fair to say that natural selection is not necessarily contradictory to evolution. I have absolutely no problem with it.
The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
Scott


Great post Scotty, I think you'll leave Barry gobsmacked!
__________________
Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

David_Richards
View Public Profile
Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
Send a private message to David_Richards
Find More Posts by David_Richards
Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:26 PM #63
David_Richards
CC Grandmaster




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 868 Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
Before reading the rest of the posts I read or seen on TV that Charlie became atheistic due to Problem of Evil, specifically, his young favourite daughter dying at an early age due to some disease. As he was earmarked by his father to become a pastor and had studied theology he did quite a turn around. I am sure this fact is easy to find.


If he was an atheist, they would never have let him in the Royal Society!
__________________
Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

David_Richards
View Public Profile
Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
Send a private message to David_Richards
Find More Posts by David_Richards
Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:29 PM #64
David_Richards
CC Grandmaster




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 868 Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cox
What I tried to describe was natural selection. Please describe how it is inconsistent with the neo-Darwinians, in your view.



Not inconsistent, just there is something more at work to explain diversity, speciation and gene creation than the Classical Theory. What is it - God knows!
__________________
Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

David_Richards
View Public Profile
Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
Send a private message to David_Richards
Find More Posts by David_Richards
Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:31 PM #65
antichrist
CC Grandmaster


Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 709 Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy
The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
Scott


The "Bible junkies" have interpreted the Bible to pinpoint the creation of the earth by God at 10am (Oxford Uni time maybe), some day in October in 2004 BC.

I actually put out a commerative issue of a magazine when "we" were exactly 6,000 years old, in 1996 I think it was.

In fact it was a bishop whose name I can't catch. I actually got a mention on the backpage of the SMH for picking up this fact.
Edit Post
Title:

Message:

The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
Scott

The "Bible junkies" have interpreted the Bible to pinpoint the creation of the earth by God at 10am (Oxford Uni time maybe), some day in October in 2004 BC.

I actually put out a commerative issue of a magazine when "we" were exactly 6,000 years old, in 1996 I think it was.

In fact it was a bishop whose name I can't catch. I actually got a mention on the backpage of the SMH for picking up this fact.
Reason for Editing:

Signature

antichrist
View Public Profile
Send a private message to antichrist
Find More Posts by antichrist
Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:33 PM #66
Bruce Dickinson
Pure Imagination
Space Invaders Champion!
Asteroids Champion!
Tetris Champion!





Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
The "Bible junkies" have interpreted the Bible to pinpoint the creation of the earth by God at 10am (Oxford Uni time maybe), some day in October in 2004 BC.

I actually put out a commerative issue of a magazine when "we" were exactly 6,000 years old, in 1996 I think it was.

In fact it was a bishop whose name I can't catch. I actually got a mention on the backpage of the SMH for picking up this fact.


It was Bishop Usher.
__________________
"There is no other sense or meaning of Being than the one we bestow on entities in our understanding." - Martin Heidegger

Koopa Troopa!

Bruce Dickinson
View Public Profile
Challenge Bruce Dickinson in the Arcade
Send a private message to Bruce Dickinson
Send email to Bruce Dickinson
Visit Bruce Dickinson's homepage!
Find More Posts by Bruce Dickinson
Add Bruce Dickinson to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:36 PM #67
antichrist
CC Grandmaster


Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 709 Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Richards
If he was an atheist, they would never have let him in the Royal Society!


Not necessarily, anyway I said atheistic, which in his case meant looking at the totalily of his views over a period of time. Not a in-your-face, down-your-throat, up-your-backside atheist like I am.

It was not him who defended himself at the Royal Society, it was Darwin's bulldog - Huxley.

Anyway how could a man who on one side had a ape as a grandparent defend himself. Was it Bishop Wilberforce who said that?
Edit Post
Title:

Message:

If he was an atheist, they would never have let him in the Royal Society!

Not necessarily, anyway I said atheistic, which in his case meant looking at the totalily of his views over a period of time. Not a in-your-face, down-your-throat, up-your-backside atheist like I am.

It was not him who defended himself at the Royal Society, it was Darwin's bulldog - Huxley.

Anyway how could a man who on one side had a ape as a grandparent defend himself. Was it Bishop Wilberforce who said that?
Reason for Editing:

Signature

antichrist
View Public Profile
Send a private message to antichrist
Find More Posts by antichrist
Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:38 PM #68
antichrist
CC Grandmaster


Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 709 Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
It was Bishop Usher.


That is correct, though a chance it may have been spelt "Ussher", but I think your spelling may be correct.
Edit Post
Title:

Message:

It was Bishop Usher.

That is correct, though a chance it may have been spelt "Ussher", but I think your spelling may be correct.
Reason for Editing:

Signature

antichrist
View Public Profile
Send a private message to antichrist
Find More Posts by antichrist
Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:39 PM #69
Barry Cox
Community Leader




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,511 Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Richards
Not inconsistent, just there is something more at work to explain diversity, speciation and gene creation than the Classical Theory. What is it - God knows!


Can you support this claim?
__________________
quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

Barry Cox
View Public Profile
Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
Send a private message to Barry Cox
Send email to Barry Cox
Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
Find More Posts by Barry Cox
Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:40 PM #70
David_Richards
CC Grandmaster




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 868 Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
Not necessarily, anyway I said atheistic, which in his case meant looking at the totalily of his views over a period of time. Not a in-your-face, down-your-throat, up-your-backside atheist like I am.

It was not him who defended himself at the Royal Society, it was Darwin's bulldog - Huxley.

Anyway how could a man who on one side had a ape as a grandparent defend himself. Was it Bishop Wilberforce who said that?


It was policitically unacceptable for him to have been forthright with his private thoughts - his work was too important. I guess we'll never know, but it's useful propaganda!
__________________
Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

David_Richards
View Public Profile
Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
Send a private message to David_Richards
Find More Posts by David_Richards
Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

02-02-2005, 05:46 PM #71
Barry Cox
Community Leader




Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,511 Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Richards
It was policitically unacceptable for him to have been forthright with his private thoughts - his work was too important. I guess we'll never know, but it's useful propaganda!


My guess is based on a number of his comments in various writings of Darwin over his career, is that by the end of his life he was as atheistic as was permissible by social convention of the time. That it to say he was probably whgat we would call today a deist or perhaps agnostic.

If we wish to discuss further, can repliers please reply in a new thread as I have pointed out earlier this is irrelevent.
__________________
quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

Barry Cox
View Public Profile
Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
Send a private message to Barry Cox
Send email to Barry Cox
Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
Find More Posts by Barry Cox
Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

Page 5 of 5 « First < 3 4 5



« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Quick Reply
Message:


Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.
PGN Functions
PGN Uploader
PGN Recorder

Options
Quote message in reply?



Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 3 (3 members and 0 guests)
antichrist, David_Richards

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Email this Page
Subscribe to this Thread
Display Modes
Linear Mode
Switch to Hybrid Mode
Switch to Threaded Mode
Search this Thread


Advanced Search
Rate This Thread
You have already rated this thread

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

antichrist
04-02-2009, 09:03 PM
It is 200 anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday coming up shortly, I think there are about a dozen new books abou t him being released

Rincewind
04-02-2009, 09:18 PM
Yep, 12th of February IIRC.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2009, 09:18 PM
Mod, it would be preferrable if you could do a professional job in transferring these posts, if you don't within tonight I will manually tidy up.

Sheesh, if you want me to do a professional job cleaning up that mess you can pay me!

If you're just referring to an old thread why not just post a link to it or make a new thread to that post?

If I'm ever over your way though, I am willing to spend a few hours teaching you how to do the quote thing properly. It's actually extremely easy.

antichrist
05-02-2009, 12:35 PM
Sheesh, if you want me to do a professional job cleaning up that mess you can pay me!

If you're just referring to an old thread why not just post a link to it or make a new thread to that post?

If I'm ever over your way though, I am willing to spend a few hours teaching you how to do the quote thing properly. It's actually extremely easy.

But after I beat you in a few friendly games you may tell me to clean it up myself. How old was that post of mine, a few years?

antichrist
05-02-2009, 12:38 PM
There is a full page on Charles Darwin in today's Sydney Moring Herald. Well worth reading.

He wanted evidence of any god before believing - and this was not forthcomig - note all you lousy Creationists.

His other reason for not believing was the problem of evil - not all you lousy obfusicantists(?)

Rincewind
05-02-2009, 12:56 PM
Darwin Day Celebrations (http://www.darwinday.org/)

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2009, 02:15 PM
obfusicantists(?)

Obfuscationists?

Or how about "obfuscants?"

MichaelBaron
05-02-2009, 03:45 PM
Thx, to Darwin, we know that whenever we go to the Zoo, we should not forget to greet or family over there :).

Adamski
05-02-2009, 07:30 PM
AC's initial post might be not only the longest but also the most repetitive post in the history of Chess Chat? AC can't you cut out some of the repetition?

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2009, 09:57 PM
AC's initial post might be not only the longest but also the most repetitive post in the history of Chess Chat? AC can't you cut out some of the repetition?

He seems to be trying to draw our attention to various posts on the previous thread http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=1932 so I suggest anyone interested in reading that thread ("Was Darwin a theist?") just go there.

arosar
06-02-2009, 10:53 AM
This article (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10581) is featured in today's Review section of the AFR.

See also "Darwin Anniversaries" (http://www.science.usyd.edu.au/darwinanniversaries/) over at USyd.

AR

antichrist
06-02-2009, 01:50 PM
Thx, to Darwin, we know that whenever we go to the Zoo, we should not forget to greet or family over there :).


But you don't really believe it do you?

antichrist
06-02-2009, 02:13 PM
This article (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10581) is featured in today's Review section of the AFR.

See also "Darwin Anniversaries" (http://www.science.usyd.edu.au/darwinanniversaries/) over at USyd.

AR

I will have to plan a quick demo at Byron Bay. The last one I did was all nudists except for myself. I came late and did not have a chance to strip. It was all cyclists who rode around the shopping centre and beaches nude, except for body paint in the nether regions - could you believe. I have some good shots of it. There was a big nude party afterwards - many young backpackers amongst them.

Spiny Norman
21-08-2009, 06:08 AM
ozQXDp0TDW0

Adamski
21-08-2009, 10:35 PM
There is a good documentary movie out about Darwin. It is called The Voyage that shook the World. A balanced consideration of the famous voyage of HMS Beagle with Darwin on board. Some great footage. It is on at various theatres. I saw it at Collaroy near me in the northern beaches of NSW. Last night, actually.

morebeer
22-08-2009, 11:05 AM
There is a good documentary movie out about Darwin. It is called The Voyage that shook the World. A balanced consideration of the famous voyage of HMS Beagle with Darwin on board. Some great footage. It is on at various theatres. I saw it at Collaroy near me in the northern beaches of NSW. Last night, actually.


A film commissioned by Creation Ministries International.

antichrist
03-09-2009, 07:59 AM
A film commissioned by Creation Ministries International.

So expect a lot of misrepresentations and as much tilting of the facts that took place on the Beagle.

Scientists do not present docos commenting on how God made the world so why do creationists make docos on how Darwin discovered evolution? They cant keep their greasy paws off it - that's why - it may ruin their fairy tale.

Adamski
03-09-2009, 08:08 AM
So expect a lot of misrepresentations and as much tilting of the facts that took place on the Beagle.

Scientists do not present docos commenting on how God made the world so why do creationists make docos on how Darwin discovered evolution? They cant keep their greasy paws off it - that's why - it may ruin their fairy tale.If you watch it you will see the treatment is very fair. Experts who are both evolutionists and creationists speak. It can of course be purchased through CMI but it is/ was also showing for a short time at various cinemas around the country. I saw it near my home.

Rincewind
03-09-2009, 08:32 AM
If you watch it you will see the treatment is very fair. Experts who are both evolutionists and creationists speak.

Scientifically there is nothing to discuss. Evolutionary theory is scientifically well-established, creationism is just religion. Pretending that there is anything more to it is the first misrepresentation.

Spiny Norman
04-09-2009, 05:56 AM
... creationism is just religion. Pretending that there is anything more to it is the first misrepresentation.
I see you're quite at home making misrepresentations yourself ... :whistle:

Rincewind
04-09-2009, 08:38 AM
I see you're quite at home making misrepresentations yourself ... :whistle:

My statement is backed up to evidence I have provided a number of times include the IAP statement on the teaching of evolution and US courts who have been asked to rule on the teaching of "creation science" in school science curricula, who have found that it is not appropriate to do so as creationism is religion, not science.

On the other hand, you have your own religion which you "feel" is correct and therefore should be taught as science. Your position is a joke and it is not even a very funny one.

antichrist
04-09-2009, 09:08 PM
My statement is backed up to evidence I have provided a number of times include the IAP statement on the teaching of evolution and US courts who have been asked to rule on the teaching of "creation science" in school science curricula, who have found that it is not appropriate to do so as creationism is religion, not science.

On the other hand, you have your own religion which you "feel" is correct and therefore should be taught as science. Your position is a joke and it is not even a very funny one.

Ah, you are finally beginning to learn from me, treat with the disdain that they deserve.

You will never get anywhere talking sensible with them. I learnt that 25 years ago. And it only took me about 5 mins to learn.

arosar
21-10-2009, 09:27 PM
[warning: some swearing in link - mod]

UPDATE: Oh yeah, I forgot. This is NSFW.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LxrorKWO09U&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LxrorKWO09U&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

And this is Ray Comfort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort). He might be BFFs with jono.

AR

Spiny Norman
22-10-2009, 05:01 AM
Incidentally, apropos of nothing, my copy of Darwinian Fairytales - Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and other Fables of Evolution by Australian philosopher David Stove (dec) arrived last week from Amazon. He writes in a very polemical style, so I suspect that he would probably have enjoyed a stoush with someone like Richard Dawkins. Stove describes Darwinism as "A Ridiculous Slander on Human Beings".

Rincewind
22-10-2009, 07:55 AM
Incidentally, apropos of nothing, my copy of Darwinian Fairytales - Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and other Fables of Evolution by Australian philosopher David Stove (dec) arrived last week from Amazon. He writes in a very polemical style, so I suspect that he would probably have enjoyed a stoush with someone like Richard Dawkins. Stove describes Darwinism as "A Ridiculous Slander on Human Beings".

I've not read this book (so the following could be completely wrong) but I would like to as well. My understanding is that Stove doesn't disagree with Evolution as an idea (that is, he is not an anti-Darwinist) however he believe there are many claims made which are too strong, particularly in the area of sociobiology but also the claims made by some biologists particularly in applying what Stove saw as a hard-line Darwinian view to human behaviour. I don't doubt Stove would have found some of the things Dawkins has said to be worthy of criticism, but I'm not sure how much material there would be for a debate (on the science of Evolution) unless the scope was very limited.

I'm sure Stove would find considerable scope for debate on Dawkins over his book on the God delusion even though I believe both are/were atheists.

Capablanca-Fan
22-10-2009, 08:54 AM
He might be BFFs with jono.
Not met him, actually.

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2009, 11:40 AM
Stove describes Darwinism as "A Ridiculous Slander on Human Beings".

Well, he's wrong; at law, a group as large as all humans cannot be slandered. :owned:

Adamski
22-10-2009, 12:35 PM
Not met him, actually.Well, I haven't exactly met Ray Comfort, but I have been present when he has conducted open air evangelism- and he is very good at it. Before he moved to the USA he was a regular open air preacher at the Square in Christchurch, NZ.

BTW "The Way of The Master" is much bigger than just Ray C. A prominent name in the group is John Legg. From AR's video it appears that the idea someone had of putting out a new version of Origins could even be seen as a master-stroke.

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2009, 01:01 PM
The thing about a work that's out of copyright is that anyone can put out their own version with a spurious or even hostile introduction if they want to.

The Comfort version (intro plus the original text) can be found at http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf . It's a 2 MB PDF download.

The intro is a rather strange effort. The first 30 pages or so start with bio then attempt to attack the science and then the last 20 pages run through the usual catalogue of guilt-by-association fallacies mixed with inept philosophising, preaching and a dash of self-advertising. I'd expect that the last 40% would undermine rather than increase any chance of the first 60% being taken seriously, but maybe Comfort has a better idea of what works on vulnerable minds than I do.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-10-2009, 01:59 PM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26244567-2703,00.html

The theory that human and monkeys have a common ancestors, or a theory that all life originated from a single cell or something like this is an interesting one. It has a right to exist.

However, given an absence of credible evidence, calling it a "scientific" theory is preposterous.

Given the current standards of proof and methodology in history, archaeology and palaeontology I would be very careful in classifying them as science.

arosar
22-10-2009, 02:44 PM
Look here youse lot. If we all evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys around? Sh*t. And youse think you're so bloody smart.

AR

morebeer
22-10-2009, 03:37 PM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26244567-2703,00.html

The theory that human and monkeys have a common ancestors, or a theory that all life originated from a single cell or something like this is an interesting one. It has a right to exist.

However, given an absence of credible evidence, calling it a "scientific" theory is preposterous.

Given the current standards of proof and methodology in history, archaeology and palaeontology I would be very careful in classifying them as science.

I'm sure scientists around the world are breathing a collective sigh of relief now that evolutionary theory's right to exist has been given your imprimatur.

Kevin Bonham
22-10-2009, 04:11 PM
Look here youse lot. If we all evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys around? Sh*t. And youse think you're so bloody smart.

:lol:

They are not the same "monkeys" that we evolved from.

Even if they were, if a small proportion of one species evolves into another, that doesn't mean the other species becomes extinct automatically.

Capablanca-Fan
22-10-2009, 04:32 PM
Look here youse lot. If we all evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys around? Sh*t. And youse think you're so bloody smart.
That is an argument CMI advises creationists NOT to use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#apes).

Rincewind
22-10-2009, 08:46 PM
However, given an absence of credible evidence, calling it a "scientific" theory is preposterous.

Given the current standards of proof and methodology in history, archaeology and palaeontology I would be very careful in classifying them as science.

If you quoted the Australian article as evidence that "the current standard of proof and methodology in history, archaeology and palaeontology" are lacking then I believe you are confusing the rigour of the scientific field with the interplay between science and the popular media. This is why Dr Seiffert concludes with the words...


"I think that the most responsible approach would be to create documentaries well after publication of scientific results."

which I agree with.

Regarding your other claim regarding the preposterousness of the theory of evolution: the historical sciences have collected overwhelming evidence which confirms the common ancestry of all life on earth and new discovers which are made made every day do not invalidate this theory but rather fill in the detail of Darwin's basic thesis. The are large modern sub-disciplines like molecular phylogenetics which have greatly informed biology and like all modern biology, the only make sense in the light case by evolution. As stated in the Interacademy Panel on International Issues statement on the teaching of evolution


"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."

Rincewind
22-10-2009, 09:32 PM
That is an argument CMI advises creationists NOT to use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#apes).

Scientists advise NOT to confuse creationism with science. (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=25)


Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

CMI free admit this in their ministerial creed (http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe) where they state...


The scientific aspects of creation ... are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

and


By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. ...

In short, religion is more important than truth and scripture trumps evidence (however compelling) every time. So by CMI methodology, ANY explanation (however unlikely) is preferable to the most well-established, evidence-based scientific theory, if the science contradicts their religious beliefs (which include a literal reading of Genesis and everything that entails).

Igor_Goldenberg
22-10-2009, 10:44 PM
If you quoted the Australian article as evidence that "the current standard of proof and methodology in history, archaeology and palaeontology" are lacking then I believe you are confusing the rigour of the scientific field with the interplay between science and the popular media. This is why Dr Seiffert concludes with the words...
My claim is not based on the article in "the Australian".
For example try to find a non-circular evidence based on primary source that Battle of Cannae happened on 2 August 216 BC. You'll be surprised how much is based on untested assumptions.



Regarding your other claim regarding the preposterousness of the theory of evolution: the historical sciences have collected overwhelming evidence which confirms the common ancestry of all life on earth and new discovers which are made made every day do not invalidate this theory but rather fill in the detail of Darwin's basic thesis.

The are large modern sub-disciplines like molecular phylogenetics which have greatly informed biology and like all modern biology, the only make sense in the light case by evolution. As stated in the Interacademy Panel on International Issues statement on the teaching of evolution


As professor Challenger in "The lost world" said: "It has to be proven".
In fact I doubt validity of those "overwhelming evidence" and happy to debate them.





"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve
Correct


in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision.

Does not make much sense to me.


Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."
Commonalities do not indicate their common primordial origin.


Scientists advise NOT to confuse creationism with science. (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=25)
Which I agree with. However, the theory of origin isn't any closer to the science, it is actually even more of a blind faith.
The part that relates to evolution itself, i.e. small changes that slightly improve existing species, is fine, even though it as not pioneered by Darwin (which he honestly acknowledged).

Rincewind
22-10-2009, 11:16 PM
My claim is not based on the article in "the Australian".
For example try to find a non-circular evidence based on primary source that Battle of Cannae happened on 2 August 216 BC. You'll be surprised how much is based on untested assumptions.

There are many things we will never know for certainty and perhaps the exact date of ancient battles are one of those. There is certainly plenty of evidence that Carthage and Roman were at war, that Carthage attempted to invade the Italian peninsula and Rome were winners in the long run (though not at Cannae).

Compare that with the Israelite enslavement by the Egyptians for which there is no corroborative evidence whatsoever and the Egyptian records are so complete that it is is almost unimaginable that a movement of people of that scale could have taken place and not appear anywhere in the records we have available.


As professor Challenger in "The lost world" said: "It has to be proven".

Um, so now you are quoting fictional characters to support your position?


In fact I doubt validity of those "overwhelming evidence" and happy to debate them.

Feel free. Go to any university library and get a good undergraduate text on biology and then organise a debate with a biologist.


Does not make much sense to me.

I think that says more about you than it does about the statement itself.


Commonalities do not indicate their common primordial origin.

If there was no pattern to the commonalities, that may be true. However, the commonalities are such that the molecular evidence can be used to study the relationship between populations from the same species as well as the relationship between various species, and this evidence corroborates the evidence obtained by other methods.


Which I agree with. However, the theory of origin isn't any closer to the science, it is actually even more of a blind faith.

How is accepting a scientific explanation which is based on empirical evidence and open to corrections to that understanding as more evidence comes to light MORE and act of blind faith than believing the literal reading of some texts that were scribbled down by iron age tribe as the immutable truth as revealed by your imaginary friend?

Igor_Goldenberg
23-10-2009, 08:37 AM
There are many things we will never know for certainty and perhaps the exact date of ancient battles are one of those. There is certainly plenty of evidence that Carthage and Roman were at war, that Carthage attempted to invade the Italian peninsula and Rome were winners in the long run (though not at Cannae).

Even of that there aren't that many primary evidences. However, many textbook specify the exact date as a proven facts.



Compare that with the Israelite enslavement by the Egyptians for which there is no corroborative evidence whatsoever and the Egyptian records are so complete that it is is almost unimaginable that a movement of people of that scale could have taken place and not appear anywhere in the records we have available.

And the point is?



Um, so now you are quoting fictional characters to support your position?

To put it mildly, that statement does not represent correctly what I wrote.



Feel free. Go to any university library and get a good undergraduate text on biology and then organise a debate with a biologist.

Are you saying that undergraduate text on biology discusses the origin of species at length and depth? Have you read one?



I think that says more about you than it does about the statement itself.

Is the cheap snipping remark the best you can do? Or you think the original pseudo-scientific phrase will make more sense after that?



If there was no pattern to the commonalities, that may be true. However, the commonalities are such that the molecular evidence can be used to study the relationship between populations from the same species as well as the relationship between various species, and this evidence corroborates the evidence obtained by other methods.

But what does it have to do with the hypothesis of common ancestor?


How is accepting a scientific explanation which is based on empirical evidence
It is not based on empirical evidence. Did you find the missing link?


and open to corrections to that understanding as more evidence comes to light
It is actually not open to correction, evidences against the hypothesis that come to light are routinely rejected and I am not aware of any new evidences to support the hypothesis.


MORE and act of blind faith than believing the literal reading of some texts that were scribbled down by iron age tribe as the immutable truth as revealed by your imaginary friend?
May I ask you who is my "imaginary friend"?
At least it admits to be faith based and does not pretend to be scientific.

Capablanca-Fan
23-10-2009, 01:28 PM
CMI free admit this in their ministerial creed where they state...
Broken record syndrome. In any case, there is more intellectual and political diversity in CMI than the typical leftard groupthinking university faculty.


Compare that with the Israelite enslavement by the Egyptians for which there is no corroborative evidence whatsoever and the Egyptian records are so complete that it is is almost unimaginable that a movement of people of that scale could have taken place and not appear anywhere in the records we have available.
Rubbish. Ancient rulers often did not record their defeats. E.g. Rameses II claimed victory at the Battle of Kadesh against the Hittites, whereas the Hittites had the better of a draw and Rameses was lucky to survive.

The Egyptians certainly enslaved "Asiatics", as Professor Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie FRS (1853–1942),discovered, and Dr Rosalie David noted in her book The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh’s Workforce (Guild Publishing, London, 1996):


‘It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt … . Their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined … . The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear.’

Baby skeletons have been found in Kahun on the Eastern part of Egypt, consistent with the killing of male babies:


‘Larger wooden boxes, probably used originally to store clothing and other possessions, were discovered underneath the floors of many houses at Kahun. They contained babies, sometimes buried two or three to a box, and aged only a few months at death.’

And there is evidence of a rapid departure of these inhabitants:


‘It is apparent that the completion of the king’s pyramid was not the reason why Kahun’s inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses.’

‘There are different opinions of how this first period of occupation at Kahun drew to a close ... . The quantity, range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may indeed suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated.’


A good explanation is the plagues, and the Ipuwer Papyrus sounds a lot like them:


‘Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … . Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water … . Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire … . Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere … . Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized … . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt … . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says "there is no more". The storehouse is bare … . It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.’


Feel free. Go to any university library and get a good undergraduate text on biology and then organise a debate with a biologist.
Dawko won't debate a creationist any more. Most likely this is because on Valentine’s Day 1986, he and John Maynard Smith (1920–2004) participated in the Huxley Memorial Debate at the Oxford Union, opposing the proposition, “That the doctrine of creation is more valid than the theory of evolution.” His opponents were two biblical creationist scientists, triple doctorate organic chemist and pharmacologist A. E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1985) and Edgar Andrews (1932– ), then Professor of Materials at the University of London. The audience vote of Oxford students was a narrow win for the evolution side, 198–115 (or possibly 150). Yet Dawkins was not happy—in his closing comments, he had “implored” the audience (his word) not to give a single vote to the creationist side, since every such vote “would be a blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford (http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/debate_gc.htm).”

Rincewind
23-10-2009, 01:33 PM
Even of that there aren't that many primary evidences. However, many textbook specify the exact date as a proven facts.

There is plenty of secondary and physical evidence to support that the Punic wars took place pretty much in the way that they are taught in school. Whether Cannae actually happened on the 2nd of August or some other date I don't know off-hand how good the evidence is and I can't see the point in researching it. Given that Rome was soundly defeated and we are told about it from Roman sources, I would be surprised if the details weren't pretty good and I very much doubt that the battle is a fiction.


And the point is?

The point is you seem to have a very shaky grip as to how historical science is performed and one important principle is corroboration of evidence. Your position seems to be "history is unscientific so Igor is just as justified to believe scripture as to believe history". However that position is indefensible.

History is the systematic study of sources of evidence and the formulation of a body of theory which best explains that body of evidence. The evidence is very good that the Battle of Cannae took place and the Romans legions involved were annihilated by Hannibal and the Carthagian forces. Anyone who believes that the Battle of Cannae represents an historical event is very justified in doing so.

However, many people believe that a middle eastern tribe (or collection of tribes) won their freedom from Egyptian enslavement in what amounted to a magic contest. Spent the next 40 years wandering around in the desert and eventually invaded and after a minor holocaust settled in the middle east. And while there are ancient religious texts purporting that story, there is no where near the level of evidence required for that story to be classified as history. In fact the lack of evidence is such that it amount to an Egyptian conspiracy theory is needed to be invoked to make is tenable. So such a belief is not justified by the evidence.


To put it mildly, that statement does not represent correctly what I wrote.

What you wrote (like much of what you've written) is rhetoric.


Are you saying that undergraduate text on biology discusses the origin of species at length and depth? Have you read one?

No the textbook will probably not contain all that much discussion but it will contain the common scientific understanding on the origins of life and common descent. The idea was for you to get some grounding in the subject before you made a fool of yourself.


Is the cheap snipping remark the best you can do? Or you think the original pseudo-scientific phrase will make more sense after that?

Not everyone is capable of understanding everything I write. I have placed you in that class a long time ago and after trying to explain things in simpler terms before you seem unable or unwill to comprehend. So as Boris says, sarcasm is just more fun.


But what does it have to do with the hypothesis of common ancestor?

You really need to do some research. But to cut you some slack I'll give you a brief description... We can use molecular phylogenetics to map the movement of populations in single species for which we have a good idea of the relationship between said populations. The process can be extended across longer timescale and used to propose relationships between larger and larger groups of more disparate populations (i.e. different species). The method confirms many of the existing theory about the genetic origin of species and also provides new insights to areas which were more contentious.

This adds evidence to the theory of common descent as the evidence is what one would expect to find. This is why common descent is by far the dominant scientific theory.

Sure you can believe anything you read in scripture as the literal truth, but there is no evidence to support your belief. However, there is tons of evidence to support common descent.


It is not based on empirical evidence. Did you find the missing link?

Not sure what you mean by missing link but it sounds like you have a misconception about the way evidence works (particularly the process of fossilisation) or the way evolution works or both. There are plenty of transitionary fossils between different forms. Perhaps some independent reading is in order.


It is actually not open to correction, evidences against the hypothesis that come to light are routinely rejected and I am not aware of any new evidences to support the hypothesis.

If you only read Jono's church website you might form tyhat opinion. However the truth is that new evidence comes to light all the time and additions and corrections of scientific knowledge is an ongoing process.

Of course there are those who claim they have the one piece of evidence which turns all scientific knowledge on its ear. However, by in large they are the same category of people who claim to have proved the Riemann hypothesis or think aliens are trying to talk to us by making cute geometric designs in wheat fields.


May I ask you who is my "imaginary friend"?
At least it admits to be faith based and does not pretend to be scientific.

It's your imagination, Igor. If you can't come up with a name than I can't help you.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-10-2009, 02:18 PM
There is plenty of secondary and physical evidence to support that the Punic wars took place pretty much in the way that they are taught in school. Whether Cannae actually happened on the 2nd of August or some other date I don't know off-hand how good the evidence is and I can't see the point in researching it. Given that Rome was soundly defeated and we are told about it from Roman sources, I would be surprised if the details weren't pretty good and I very much doubt that the battle is a fiction.

That's what you think because you just blindly believe the popular literature. The subject is much more complicated. In fact the time, the place and other circumstances of the battle and second Punic war (as well as the first and the third and the rest of antic history) is just one of the hypothesis.




The point is you seem to have a very shaky grip as to how historical science is performed and one important principle is corroboration of evidence. Your position seems to be "history is unscientific so Igor is just as justified to believe scripture as to believe history".


I am glad that you know my position better them myself. However, it would be prudent if you provide some evidences that my position is how you described it, just to avoid an accusation of deliberate misrepresentation.
I understand that evidences supporting claims is not your strongest trait, but it's never late to learn.



However, many people believe that a middle eastern tribe (or collection of tribes) won their freedom from Egyptian enslavement in what amounted to a magic contest. Spent the next 40 years wandering around in the desert and eventually invaded and after a minor holocaust settled in the middle east. And while there are ancient religious texts purporting that story, there is no where near the level of evidence required for that story to be classified as history. In fact the lack of evidence is such that it amount to an Egyptian conspiracy theory is needed to be invoked to make is tenable. So such a belief is not justified by the evidence.

In order to accept the story of Exodus you demand evidences that it happened. That's fine and reasonable.

Before accepting the story that life on Earth developed from some simple cell, I'd like to hear reasons and evidences that support it.
If you are unable to provide any, then honestly admit it instead of sputtering. If you have any, bring them forward.



No the textbook will probably not contain all that much discussion but it will contain the common scientific understanding on the origins of life and common descent. The idea was for you to get some grounding in the subject before you made a fool of yourself.
Another cheap remark. Patronising from someone is generally offensive. From you, however, it's pathetic. So far I haven't seen a shred of evidence that you know anything about the subject.




Not everyone is capable of understanding everything I write.

It's an indication of either inability of expressing your thoughts clearly or lack of your understanding of the subject or both (which is the most likely).
I am not surprised, however, as your inability to make logical conclusion has been long establish.
Your resort to personal abuse indicates that you are on a very shaky ground and trying to find (not very graceful, though) way out.



We can use molecular phylogenetics to map the movement of populations in single species for which we have a good idea of the relationship between said populations. The process can be extended across longer timescale and used to propose relationships between larger and larger groups of more disparate populations (i.e. different species). The method confirms many of the existing theory about the genetic origin of species and also provides new insights to areas which were more contentious.


Genetic similarities between species do not support or reject the hypothesis of common origin.


This adds evidence to the theory of common descent as the evidence is what one would expect to find. This is why common descent is by far the dominant scientific theory.
So, it's a theory, not a proven scientific fact?



Sure you can believe anything you read in scripture as the literal truth, but there is no evidence to support your belief.
And the point is? How does the lack of evidence of scripture or anything else validate the hypothesis of life originating from a simple cell?

Correct if I am wrong, but my impression was that you are an atheist. Why are you so preoccupied with the Bible? How is it relevant to testing the Darwinian theory of origin?


Not sure what you mean by missing link but it sounds like you have a misconception about the way evidence works (particularly the process of fossilisation) or the way evolution works or both. There are plenty of transitionary fossils between different forms.

Care to cite some?


So far Rincewind was very rich on abuse and generalisation and very light on substance, logic and facts. Hardly surprising.

Rincewind
23-10-2009, 02:37 PM
Broken record syndrome. In any case, there is more intellectual and political diversity in CMI than the typical leftard groupthinking university faculty.

No it was cited to prove the point at hand that there is scientific, evidence based study. And then there is the mob that Jono works for.


Rubbish. Ancient rulers often did not record their defeats. E.g. Rameses II claimed victory at the Battle of Kadesh against the Hittites, whereas the Hittites had the better of a draw and Rameses was lucky to survive.

So your "example" of an Egyptian defeat that was not recorded is a battle which was recorded?


The Egyptians certainly enslaved "Asiatics", as Professor Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie FRS (1853–1942),discovered, and Dr Rosalie David noted in her book The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh’s Workforce (Guild Publishing, London, 1996):


‘It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt … . Their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined … . The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear.’

No one disputes that the Egyptians used non Egyptian workforces over the years. Just there is no evidence that Israelites were enslaved and won their freedom in a magic battles and then were pursued by an Egyptian army which was drowned by an act of god.


Baby skeletons have been found in Kahun on the Eastern part of Egypt, consistent with the killing of male babies:


‘Larger wooden boxes, probably used originally to store clothing and other possessions, were discovered underneath the floors of many houses at Kahun. They contained babies, sometimes buried two or three to a box, and aged only a few months at death.’

If you are talking about the so called plague on the first-born male boys then you would expect children of various ages but consistently male. The above sounds more like a result of famine or disease.


And there is evidence of a rapid departure of these inhabitants:


‘It is apparent that the completion of the king’s pyramid was not the reason why Kahun’s inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses.’

‘There are different opinions of how this first period of occupation at Kahun drew to a close ... . The quantity, range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may indeed suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated.’


Again one settlement which "may suggest" rapid departure is hardly the smoking gun of Exodus. There are many cases of settlements being rapidly abandoned and the Israelite emancipation while rapid would not have been unexpected.


A good explanation is the plagues, and the Ipuwer Papyrus sounds a lot like them:


‘Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … . Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water … . Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire … . Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere … . Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized … . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt … . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says "there is no more". The storehouse is bare … . It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.’

Doesn't sound much like the Biblical account at all. You are really clutching at very short straws here Jono.


Dawko won't debate a creationist any more.

I doubt there is much to be gained by doing so and winning or losing a debate has nothing to do with the evidence on either side otherwise creationism would score zero. It has to the way the speakers make their case and make the opposition look like they don't know what they are talking about.

But it is an interest line of argument you make. "He refuses to debate creationists anymore cause the last time he did so he won handsomely." :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
23-10-2009, 02:43 PM
No it was cited to prove the point at hand that there is scientific, evidence based study. And then there is the mob that Jono works for.
Which uses scientific study, while Dawko tries to find support for his atheopathic faith.


So your "example" of an Egyptian defeat that was not recorded is a battle which was recorded?
That was a well known example, where the Hittite account contradicted the Egyptian account, and is believed to be more credible.


If you are talking about the so called plague on the first-born male boys then you would expect children of various ages but consistently male. The above sounds more like a result of famine or disease.
Unfortunately Petrie didn't think to test the sex of these babies.


Again one settlement which "may suggest" rapid departure is hardly the smoking gun of Exodus. There are many cases of settlements being rapidly abandoned and the Israelite emancipation while rapid would not have been unexpected.
It is consistent with it.


Doesn't sound much like the Biblical account at all. You are really clutching at very short straws here Jono.
Sounds a lot like it, and different enough that it's an independent account from a different point of view.


I doubt there is much to be gained by doing so and winning or losing a debate has nothing to do with the evidence on either side otherwise creationism would score zero. It has to the way the speakers make their case and make the opposition look like they don't know what they are talking about.
You were the one who brought up debating a biologist. Yet arguably the leading atheopathic evolutionary expert won't debate one.


But it is an interest line of argument you make. "He refuses to debate creationists anymore cause the last time he did so he won handsomely." :lol:
He evidently was very disappointed that so many Oxford students voted for the other side.


Another cheap remark. Patronising from someone is generally offensive. From you, however, it's pathetic. So far I haven't seen a shred of evidence that you know anything about the subject.
Yes, RW is just "opponents of evolution have faith; supporters of evolution have evidence", which in his case is "most scientists believe ..."


So far Rincewind was very rich on abuse and generalisation and very light on substance, logic and facts. Hardly surprising.
What else is new?

Rincewind
23-10-2009, 03:16 PM
That's what you think because you just blindly believe the popular literature. The subject is much more complicated. In fact the time, the place and other circumstances of the battle and second Punic war (as well as the first and the third and the rest of antic history) is just one of the hypothesis.

I think the commonly cited timing of second Punic war is more than just one of several competing hypotheses. And I very much doubt that there is a seriously credible hypothesis that it did not take place at all.

If that is your claim then perhaps you should produce some evidence for that claim. Personally I don't care too much for Roman history.


I am glad that you know my position better them myself. However, it would be prudent if you provide some evidences that my position is how you described it, just to avoid an accusation of deliberate misrepresentation.
I understand that evidences supporting claims is not your strongest trait, but it's never late to learn.

Igor you are in the running for the Starter memorial mop and bucket award. Instead of playing games why not just state your position. You never know, you might learn something from the process.

The comment which began this debate was...

"Given the current standards of proof and methodology in history, archaeology and palaeontology I would be very careful in classifying them as science."

Which is why I am explaining why you are mistaken on the claim that these fields are unscientific and in doing so I am contrasting it with an unscientific methodology like say believing the first thing you read on Jono's website, or in some religious scripture.


In order to accept the story of Exodus you demand evidences that it happened. That's fine and reasonable.

Before accepting the story that life on Earth developed from some simple cell, I'd like to hear reasons and evidences that support it.
If you are unable to provide any, then honestly admit it instead of sputtering. If you have any, bring them forward.

The historical evidence really is overwhelming, the fossil record the development of lifeforms confirmed by the dating of fossils and newer evidence from fields like molecular phylogenetics all confirm that common descent is firmly established by evidence.


Another cheap remark. Patronising from someone is generally offensive. From you, however, it's pathetic. So far I haven't seen a shred of evidence that you know anything about the subject.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. For example you comment below shows you don't even understand the scientific method let along any field of science.


It's an indication of either inability of expressing your thoughts clearly or lack of your understanding of the subject or both (which is the most likely).
I am not surprised, however, as your inability to make logical conclusion has been long establish.
Your resort to personal abuse indicates that you are on a very shaky ground and trying to find (not very graceful, though) way out.

Nope, the expression was fine and my opinion regarding your feeblemindedness is not a new hypothesis but one for which you have been providing corroborating evidence over some time.


Genetic similarities between species do not support or reject the hypothesis of common origin.

You seem to fail to realise (yet again) that there is more than just genetic similarities. It is the way that the similarities present themselves that provides evidences for common descent. But don;t take my word for it, 67 national academies of science from all over the world ratifed the statement that...


Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

This represents the scientific position science globally.


So, it's a theory, not a proven scientific fact?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That really is funny Igor. or it would be if you weren't being serious. Please tell me you are only joking.

Have you heard of the "theory" of relativity?


And the point is? How does the lack of evidence of scripture or anything else validate the hypothesis of life originating from a simple cell?

No one said it does. The point of contrasting science with biblical literalism is that science is evidence based, biblical literalism is not. That is not to say all biblical study is necessarily unscientific. Mainstream biblical scolarship is informed by science, but biblical literalism is not because any evidence that contradicts scripture is just ignored.


Correct if I am wrong, but my impression was that you are an atheist. Why are you so preoccupied with the Bible? How is it relevant to testing the Darwinian theory of origin?

I'm comparing the justification of a faith based belief with a evidence based belief. If your faith is strong enough you can believe anything however and evidence based belief is justified by accumulated knowledge and may be invalidated by future scholarship.


Care to cite some?

Fossils exist which are grouped into the following genera

Apidium
Aegyptopithecus
Proconsul
Pierolapithecus
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus

which possess transitional traits.


So far Rincewind was very rich on abuse and generalisation and very light on substance, logic and facts. Hardly surprising.

More rhetoric or do you have a point?

Rincewind
23-10-2009, 03:36 PM
Which uses scientific study, while Dawko tries to find support for his atheopathic faith.

Ipse dixit.


That was a well known example, where the Hittite account contradicted the Egyptian account, and is believed to be more credible.

But both accounts exist. The only account for the Israelite exodus is in Israelite religious text and there is zero corroborating evidence elsewhere. Your just-so stories not withstanding.


Unfortunately Petrie didn't think to test the sex of these babies.

I think from your perspective it is more likely to be fortunately.


It is consistent with it.

Again so what? Abandoned settlements are not a particular rarity that it needs an extraordinary explanation.


Sounds a lot like it, and different enough that it's an independent account from a different point of view.

If you are only looking for anything to prop up your preconceived ideas on the literal truth of the OT than maybe it would. But really it sounds like any of a number of accounts of bad times, like the medieval descriptions of the black death for example.

This could have been the result of a war, a famine, or some pestilence. It doesn't mention Israelites and there are other well established military incursions into Egypt which are consistent with the text. (Which after all talks about strangers coming into Egypt, not leaving it).


You were the one who brought up debating a biologist. Yet arguably the leading atheopathic evolutionary expert won't debate one.

Actually it was Igor who said he would like to when he said (in his unique idiom)...

"In fact I doubt validity of those "overwhelming evidence" and happy to debate them."

I just suggested that he did some research in biology and then look for an expert to debate.


He evidently was very disappointed that so many Oxford students voted for the other side.

Perhaps he felt the vote should be on the evidence alone rather than on the debate. But such debates tend to attract those who hold strong views either way to the exclusion of the middle and thus the difference in a vote before the debate is staged and afterwards is unlikely to change all that much.


Yes, RW is just "opponents of evolution have faith; supporters of evolution have evidence", which in his case is "most scientists believe ..."

Yep most scientist believe for one very good reason, it is the best explanation of the available evidence.


What else is new?

Well in your belief system nothing for 2,000 years since you believe...


By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

:lol:

Desmond
23-10-2009, 04:49 PM
Not everyone is capable of understanding everything I write. I have placed you in that class a long time ago and after trying to explain things in simpler terms before you seem unable or unwill to comprehend. So as Boris says, sarcasm is just more fun.If you are referring to what I think you are, then that was Garvin. I don't think you'll find me making fun of police (http://parlinfo.parliament.qld.gov.au/isysquery/c63387cc-5681-4e1a-aeeb-5d36b1b76368/10/doc/Dean%20Wells%20spk%20Murrumba%202009_09_15_91.pdf# xml=http://parlinfo.parliament.qld.gov.au/isysquery/c63387cc-5681-4e1a-aeeb-5d36b1b76368/10/hilite/).

Basil
23-10-2009, 04:55 PM
If you are referring to what I think you are, then that was Garvin. I don't think you'll find me making fun of police (http://parlinfo.parliament.qld.gov.au/isysquery/c63387cc-5681-4e1a-aeeb-5d36b1b76368/10/doc/Dean%20Wells%20spk%20Murrumba%202009_09_15_91.pdf# xml=http://parlinfo.parliament.qld.gov.au/isysquery/c63387cc-5681-4e1a-aeeb-5d36b1b76368/10/hilite/).
Respec!

Igor_Goldenberg
23-10-2009, 05:14 PM
The comment which began this debate was...

"Given the current standards of proof and methodology in history, archaeology and palaeontology I would be very careful in classifying them as science."

Which is why I am explaining why you are mistaken on the claim that these fields are unscientific and in doing so I am contrasting it with an unscientific methodology like say believing the first thing you read on Jono's website, or in some religious scripture.

You preoccupation with religious texts (quite unhealthy for an atheist) has been noted already. I did not know you are a frequent visitor to Jono's website. Care to share a link? Generally I would expect a website run by Jono to be of a high quality and quite interesting, however RW being a frequent visitor is a worrying sign.:lol:

On a serious note, your argument is again (surprise surprise) very weak. By contrasting with another methodology (which you view as unscientific) you do not prove anything.

For example, if you prove that intelligent design or creation or Bible is wrong, it does not provide support to Darwinian theory of origin.




No one said it does. The point of contrasting science with biblical literalism is that science is evidence based, biblical literalism is not. That is not to say all biblical study is necessarily unscientific. Mainstream biblical scolarship is informed by science, but biblical literalism is not because any evidence that contradicts scripture is just ignored.

About unhealthy preoccupation with biblical literalism see above.

Science indeed is evidence based. That's why I'd be careful in classifying history, archaeology and palaeontology as a science. Quite often many "scientists" in those area treat evidence quite voluntary, i.e uncritically accept those that confirm their theories and reject those that don't.



Fossils exist which are grouped into the following genera

Apidium
Aegyptopithecus
Proconsul
Pierolapithecus
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus

which possess transitional traits.


Finally an attempt to argue the subject:clap: :clap: Poor RW, had to learn few difficult words. Well done!

Report by Hisao Baba et all classified Javanese Australopithecus as homo erectus.

The overall morphology of Sm 4 is intermediate between that of earlier and later Javanese Homo erectus; apparent morphological specializations are more strongly expressed in the latter. This supports the hypothesis that later Pleistocene Javanese populations were substantially isolated and made minimal contributions to the ancestry of modern humans.

Some geological expeditions in 1990s in Kenia and South Africa found remains of homo sapiens and homo erectus that appear to exist at approximately the same time. It it's true, then it would be difficult for homo erectus to be an ancestor to homo sapiens.

I am not sure what is the consensus (if it exists) among scientists on that matter

Some archaeological excavation date human remains few million years.
Either "commonly accepted dateline", or dating techniques or both are wrong.

"Cambrian explosion" does not sit well with Darwinian theory of origin either.

It's amusing when the likes of Rincewind scream about opponents of common origin theory being "narrow minded biblical literalist" and, at the same time, do not want to consider any opposing theory or evidence.
I guess with supporters like RW "common origin" part of evolution theory does not really need any opponents.

morebeer
23-10-2009, 07:06 PM
Igor, comments like "So, it's a theory, not a proven scientific fact?" demonstrates miscomprehension about the nature of science at a fairly basic level.

Assertions made about science grounded on this level of comprehension are as meaningful as those made about Euclidean geometry whilst not knowing what a right angle is.

Nothing personal..I still think you are a nice guy!

Rincewind
23-10-2009, 07:22 PM
If you are referring to what I think you are, then that was Garvin. I don't think you'll find me making fun of police (http://parlinfo.parliament.qld.gov.au/isysquery/c63387cc-5681-4e1a-aeeb-5d36b1b76368/10/doc/Dean%20Wells%20spk%20Murrumba%202009_09_15_91.pdf# xml=http://parlinfo.parliament.qld.gov.au/isysquery/c63387cc-5681-4e1a-aeeb-5d36b1b76368/10/hilite/).

Noted thanks. ;)

Rincewind
23-10-2009, 07:56 PM
You preoccupation with religious texts (quite unhealthy for an atheist) has been noted already. I did not know you are a frequent visitor to Jono's website. Care to share a link? Generally I would expect a website run by Jono to be of a high quality and quite interesting, however RW being a frequent visitor is a worrying sign.:lol:

Normally I would not recommend reading Jono's website as it contains a lot of religious dogma dressed up to look like science and so would tend to lower the level of informed debate on scientific topics, but in your case I would make an exception.


On a serious note, your argument is again (surprise surprise) very weak. By contrasting with another methodology (which you view as unscientific) you do not prove anything.

And you again have displayed (surprise, surprise) very, very poor level of comprehension.

At no stage did I claim it proved anything. I originally introduced the subject with "Compare that with..." and when asked last time I told you it directly I was providing an alternative system of belief as a contrast and not as a providing evidence for evolution.


For example, if you prove that intelligent design or creation or Bible is wrong, it does not provide support to Darwinian theory of origin.

If you mean evolution (origin of species from common descent) I agree, if you mean origin of life (as in abogenesis) then we perhaps we are talking slightly cross purposes.


About unhealthy preoccupation with biblical literalism see above.

Not at all I find Jono's level of preoccupation unhealthy. My level of preoccupation is most healthy.


Science indeed is evidence based. That's why I'd be careful in classifying history, archaeology and palaeontology as a science. Quite often many "scientists" in those area treat evidence quite voluntary, i.e uncritically accept those that confirm their theories and reject those that don't.

More unsupported statements. Exactly who are these "many scientists" and which pieces of evidence are you talking about?

And after providing this you would have to show that this effects the discipline as a whole. For example, just because a scientist cherry picks some
data to try and promote their theory, that does not invalidate the whole discipline. The competing theories of the whole discipline and process of peer-review provide mechanisms to keep a check on such behaviour.


Finally an attempt to argue the subject:clap: :clap: Poor RW, had to learn few difficult words. Well done!

Report by Hisao Baba et all classified Javanese Australopithecus as homo erectus.

So what?


Some geological expeditions in 1990s in Kenia and South Africa found remains of homo sapiens and homo erectus that appear to exist at approximately the same time. It it's true, then it would be difficult for homo erectus to be an ancestor to homo sapiens.

Actually that is a a misconception. Speciation does not necessarily imply that the anteceding species becomes extinct. One possible scenario is that a population of H erectus is divided into two geographically separated groups, one population is subject to a selective pressure leading to the genetic change into a distinct species, H sapiens, say. Then the geographical barrier is removed and then you have H erectus and H sapiens in the same geographical location at the same time.


I am not sure what is the consensus (if it exists) among scientists on that matter

There are minor points of contention. There is not contention on the point of common descent which is what you claimed was "preposterous".


Some archaeological excavation date human remains few million years.
Either "commonly accepted dateline", or dating techniques or both are wrong.

Or perhaps the sample was simply misdated. Some dating is done based on the strata where the remains are found but it is not always clear that the sample was not displaced either due to natural forces like an eroding cliff face
or human intervention like the Paluxy hoaxes or benign cases like burials where remains are interred into old strata.


"Cambrian explosion" does not sit well with Darwinian theory of origin either.

Nope there is nothing in the cambrian explosion which invalidates evolution. Now if human remains were to be found in Cambrian rocks, that would be good evidence that something was amiss. But to date none have been found.


It's amusing when the likes of Rincewind scream about opponents of common origin theory being "narrow minded biblical literalist" and, at the same time, do not want to consider any opposing theory or evidence.

It is amusing that Igor finishes his posts with his clumsy attempts at rhetoric addressed to anyone who is interested claiming to shown this or that when generally all he has done has highlighted his own misconceptions on the working of science in general and the details of evolution in particular.


I guess with supporters like RW "common origin" part of evolution theory does not really need any opponents.

There are no serious opponents, just a few religious zealots. Common descent is the best explanation for biodiversity, the fossil record and the molecular biological examination of interspecies genetic comparisons. They all point overwhelmingly to common descent.

How do you explain biodiversity?

Rincewind
23-10-2009, 07:59 PM
Igor, comments like "So, it's a theory, not a proven scientific fact?" demonstrates miscomprehension about the nature of science at a fairly basic level.

...and the funny thing is that if Igor had seen the CMI page which Jono pointed Amiel to, he would have seen that this is precisely the sort of argument CMI advises creationist not to use. Priceless.

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2009, 12:31 AM
...and the funny thing is that if Igor had seen the CMI page which Jono pointed Amiel to, he would have seen that this is precisely the sort of argument CMI advises creationist not to use. Priceless.
Make up your mind, RW: do you want people to read our site or don't you? :wall:

Mind you, there is a colloquial use of “theory”, so evos should not whinge too much.

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2009, 12:41 AM
Normally I would not recommend reading Jono's website as it contains a lot of religious dogma dressed up to look like science and so would tend to lower the level of informed debate on scientific topics, but in your case I would make an exception.
Even Dawkins commended the existence of a Don't Use page.


If you mean evolution (origin of species from common descent) I agree, if you mean origin of life (as in abogenesis) then we perhaps we are talking slightly cross purposes.
Abiogenesis = chemical evolution.


Not at all I find Jono's level of preoccupation unhealthy. My level of preoccupation is most healthy.
Why? It would be analogous to my being preoccupied with attacking belief in Zeus or leprechauns, for example.


Nope there is nothing in the cambrian explosion which invalidates evolution. Now if human remains were to be found in Cambrian rocks, that would be good evidence that something was amiss. But to date none have been found.
Evos would find a way to explain it away. Yet the Cambrian Explosion was recognized as a difficult by Darwin, and is still one today. All the major groups (phyla) of animals appeared in what they call the Cambrian period (“dated” 542–488 Ma, named after Cambria, the classical name for Wales)—including the vertebrate (phylum Chordata) Haikouichthys. Furthermore, no new phyla have appeared since, i.e. no new major body plans (given the evolutionary dating). Jeffrey Levinton, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York, calls this evolution’s “deepest paradox” [The Big Bang of Animal Evolution, Scientific American 267:84–91, November 1992] In fact, compared to the 30+ animal phyla today, many estimate that as many as 100 existed in the Cambrian.

Under the Darwinian model, there should have been a huge amount of diversification, first to form new species, then new genera, then new families, … then new phyla. Or: increasing diversity of the lower taxa should precede the disparity of the higher taxa. Instead, there is wide disparity between the taxa and low species diversity, or The disparity of the higher taxa precedes the diversity of the lower taxa.

Two evolutionary palaeontologists recognize the problem:

“The required rapidity of the change implies either a few large steps or many and exceedingly rapid smaller ones. Large steps are tantamount to saltations and raise the problems of fitness barriers; small steps must be numerous and entail the problems discussed under microevolution. The periods of stasis raise the possibility that the lineage would enter the fossil record, and we reiterate that we can identify none of the postulated intermediate forms. Finally, the large numbers of species that must be generated so as to form a pool from which the successful lineage is selected are nowhere to be found. We conclude that the probability that species selection is a general solution to the origin of higher taxa is not great, and that neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans.” [Valentine, J., and Erwin, D. , “Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record”, p. 96 in: Raff, R.A. and E.C., Eds., Development as an Evolutionary Process, NY: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1985. ]

Darwin himself recognized the problem of sudden appearance of major groups (but note that in his day, the “Silurian” series defined by Sir Roderick Murchison (1792–1871) overlapped “Cambrian” strata named by Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873), an old-earth creationist and one of Darwin’s mentors then critics):

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.
“… the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 10:19 AM
Make up your mind, RW: do you want people to read our site or don't you? :wall:

Most people know more about science and reading your website does more harm than good. However, Igor does not fall into the "most people" category.


Mind you, there is a colloquial use of “theory”, so evos should not whinge too much.

Well if it was some random Joe who had a confusion about how science worked than I wouldn't fnid it so amusing. However Igor opened the debate pontificating with


However, given an absence of credible evidence, calling it a "scientific" theory is preposterous.

Given the current standards of proof and methodology in history, archaeology and palaeontology I would be very careful in classifying them as science.

So he is putting himself up as someone who has some idea about what science is and how it works and which disciplines are scientific and which are not.

When he then makes the sort of mistake that indicates not even a high-school level of understanding of the working of science it makes his position all the more laughable. Especially when you linked to your page telling creationist not to use that exact line of argument only a couple of days earlier.

Earlier he modelled himself on Professor Challenger but he has revealed that he is more of an Inspector Clouseau.

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 10:41 AM
Even Dawkins commended the existence of a Don't Use page.

You're whole website is a don't use page for the majority of people. However, the don't use page would save some time when people without a clue about how science works try to argue that this discipline or that one are "unscientific".


Abiogenesis = chemical evolution.

I know the meaning of the term I was trying to work out what Igor meant by "Darwinian theory of origin". Origin of life is a different from origin of species as well you know but I'm not so sure about Igor.


Why? It would be analogous to my being preoccupied with attacking belief in Zeus or leprechauns, for example.

Not really as you don;t live in a society where a significant majority snicerely believe in either Zeus or leprechauns. However I take your point that non evidential beliefs like 6 day-creation and leprechauns are on a par. ;)


Evos would find a way to explain it away. Yet the Cambrian Explosion was recognized as a difficult by Darwin, and is still one today.

It is true that Darwin saw the Cambrian fossil record (apparent sudden emergence of biodiversity) as one of the strongest objections to his theory. However, we have learnt quite a lot in the last 150 years. At the time there was very few Precambrian fossils and it appears as if life began and diversified very quickly around 530 mya.

However we now know that fossils of simple life forms are present in rocks much earlier than that. For example, at Warrawoona scientists have found fossils of stromatolites in rocks approximately 3,450 mya which at least six times older than the beginning of Paleozoic era (of which the Cambrian is the opening period).

Paleozoic actually got its name from the Greek meaning ancient life because of the belief at the time that this was the beginning of life as the fossil record is sparse before that. However with discoveries like that at Warranoona we now know that life got started long before the beginning of the Paleozoic and there is plenty of time for the diversity present in the Cambrian fossil record to have evolved. In fact, there is a factor of six times longer for life to evolve before the Cambrian than there has been after it.

Spiny Norman
24-10-2009, 10:52 AM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html


There is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.

Hmmm ... :hmm: ... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... its a duck.

Someone show me the evolution if the earliest possible common ancestor looks like a modern cell.

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 11:08 AM
Someone show me the evolution if the earliest possible common ancestor looks like a modern cell.

The mistake you make is confusing the earliest common ancestor of the simplest forms of life extant today archaea and bacteria, with the earliest form of life. There could have been other cell designs which predated the earliest common ancestor of all species still alive today which died out hundreds or even thousands of millions of years ago.

It is also important to remember that which archaea and bacteria possess certain features in common with the cells that make up fish and humans and other multicellular life, there are important fundamental differences from us and from each other. Most obvious is that neither archaea nor bacteria possess cell nuclei which is one major reason why taxonomists place them is separate domains.

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2009, 01:49 PM
The mistake you make is confusing the earliest common ancestor of the simplest forms of life extant today archaea and bacteria, with the earliest form of life. There could have been other cell designs which predated the earliest common ancestor of all species still alive today which died out hundreds or even thousands of millions of years ago.

A nice article of faith. Yet Dr Martin Line, a microbiologist in Tasmania, in an overview in Microbiology 148:21-27, 2002 (http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/148/1/21), admits that ‘there remain numerous unsolved “chicken and egg” problems’. But his major problem is the timing. That is, there is far too short a time interval, even according to evolutionary ‘dates’, between the earth becoming habitable and being inhabited. Earth was allegedly fit for life about 3.8. billion years ago, but ‘all basic types of bioenergetic processes probably existed 3·5 billion years ago and the biogeochemical cycling of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur was established as we know it today …’.


‘Hence the enigma: an origin of life on Earth appears highly improbable, an origin elsewhere is highly conjectural. While this conundrum has been identified in various forms for several decades, its magnitude has dramatically increased over the last five years as new constraints are placed on the timing of the primary divergence of the domains of life. …
‘If Earth was the cradle for life, the time interval between its origin and the existence of the LCC [Last Common Community] appears incomprehensibly short. In view of the apparent complexity of the LCC, particularly in terms of biochemistry, it would be reasonable to allow perhaps 4 gigayears for its evolution from the primordial cell.’
Thus he concludes:


‘Acceptance of such an extended period of evolution must however lead to the conclusion of an extra-terrestrial origin for life on Earth. … The concept of interstellar panspermia30 has been a philosophical luxury; it may soon become a necessity if constraints of evolutionary theory continue to conspire against an origin of life in our solar system.’


It is true that Darwin saw the Cambrian fossil record (apparent sudden emergence of biodiversity) as one of the strongest objections to his theory. However, we have learnt quite a lot in the last 150 years. At the time there was very few Precambrian fossils and it appears as if life began and diversified very quickly around 530 mya.

However we now know that fossils of simple life forms are present in rocks much earlier than that.
Indeed, so much so that there is now talk of an “Avalon Explosion”, whereby:


“A comprehensive quantitative analysis of these fossils indicates that the oldest Ediacara assemblage—the Avalon assemblage (575 to 565 Ma)—already encompassed the full range of Ediacara morphospace.” [Shen, B., Dong, L., Xiao, S. and Kowalewski, M., The Avalon explosion: evolution of Ediacara morphospace, Science 319:81–84, 2008.]
But these creatures are not ancestral to the Cambrian ones. Yet such fossils puts paid to Darwin's excuse, that the conditions were poor to fossilize the alleged ancestors of the Cambrian animals (as well as the widespread species diversification that would have accompanied the branching out into different phyla). There have been precambrian sponge embryos found as fossils (http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/667/preemies-from-the-precambrian), so clearly the conditions were good enough to fossilize Cambrian ancestors, if they existed.


For example, at Warrawoona scientists have found fossils of stromatolites in rocks approximately 3,450 mya which at least six times older than the beginning of Paleozoic era (of which the Cambrian is the opening period).
Stromatolites formed by cyanobacteria, hardly solve the problem of the missing antecedents to the Cambrian fauna.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2009, 02:30 PM
Igor, comments like "So, it's a theory, not a proven scientific fact?" demonstrates miscomprehension about the nature of science at a fairly basic level.

Bill, it was a response to Rincewind blubbering (which he conveniently took out of context).
I assume you made an understandable mistake of trusting Rincewind writing and won't hold it against you.:D

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 02:38 PM
A nice article of faith. Yet Dr Martin Line, a microbiologist in Tasmania, ...

Interstellar panspermia is a romantic notion but lacks much in the way of evidence. The point is there is plenty of time before the Cambrian and the so-called explosion is less of an issue than when Darwin wrote it was the biggest objection to evolution.


Stromatolites formed by cyanobacteria, hardly solve the problem of the missing antecedents to the Cambrian fauna.

I never claimed that the Stromalites were formed by the direct antecedents of Cambrian fauna. (In fact, that is an unlikely notion considering the enormity of the time period between their formation and the Paleozoic) . However, physical evidence of life that early demonstrate that there is plenty of time for antecedents to have evolved. A fact not available at the time Darwin wrote about the Cambrian explosion.

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 02:39 PM
Bill, it was a response to Rincewind blubbering (which he conveniently took out of context).
I assume you made an understandable mistake of trusting Rincewind writing and won't hold it against you.:D

Not even close to believable, Igor. I suggest you do some reading on science before returning to this thread. Your credibility on the topic is in ruins.

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 05:27 PM
I assume you made an understandable mistake of trusting Rincewind writing and won't hold it against you.:D

Nope. I think morebeer got it right the first time:


Igor, comments like "So, it's a theory, not a proven scientific fact?" demonstrates miscomprehension about the nature of science at a fairly basic level.

However I find your flailing amusing, keep it up. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2009, 06:06 PM
Actually that is a a misconception. Speciation does not necessarily imply that the anteceding species becomes extinct. One possible scenario is that a population of H erectus is divided into two geographically separated groups, one population is subject to a selective pressure leading to the genetic change into a distinct species, H sapiens, say. Then the geographical barrier is removed and then you have H erectus and H sapiens in the same geographical location at the same time.
Hypothesis based on dubious assumptions without any supporting evidence.
It can still be considered until proven true or false, but the honest scientist would admit that it'd just that - unlikely and unproven guess.



Or perhaps the sample was simply misdated. Some dating is done based on the strata where the remains are found but it is not always clear that the sample was not displaced either due to natural forces like an eroding cliff face
or human intervention like the Paluxy hoaxes or benign cases like burials where remains are interred into old strata.

What if they are found in the same layer of coal deposit?



Nope there is nothing in the cambrian explosion which invalidates evolution. Now if human remains were to be found in Cambrian rocks, that would be good evidence that something was amiss. But to date none have been found.

Can you explain the Cambrian explosion from evolution theory POV?




There are no serious opponents, just a few religious zealots.
How do you know they are religious zealots?



How do you explain biodiversity?
If you mean the origin of existing biolife, then I don't know. There are many things that science can't explain yet.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2009, 06:14 PM
Yet Dr Martin Line, a microbiologist in Tasmania, in an overview in Microbiology 148:21-27, 2002 (http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/148/1/21), admits that ‘there remain numerous unsolved “chicken and egg” problems’.
That doctor Martin Line is most probably a religious zealot, at least according to Rincewind.

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 07:43 PM
Hypothesis based on dubious assumptions without any supporting evidence.
It can still be considered until proven true or false, but the honest scientist would admit that it'd just that - unlikely and unproven guess.

I wasn't proposing a hypothesis I was just pointing out you again sprouted a complete misconception regarding evolution. You said...

"It[sic] it's true, then it would be difficult for homo erectus to be an ancestor to homo sapiens."

Demonstrating the misconception that an antecedent must go extinct to give rise to a descendant species. That notion is patently false and scenarios like the one I described has been in modern species.

I never proposed that was actually happened in the case of H erectus and sapiens.

That is why I began my paragraph with "One possible scenario..."


What if they are found in the same layer of coal deposit?

Yes, what if. Perhaps if you provided a link, I could have some idea what you are rabbitting on about.


Can you explain the Cambrian explosion from evolution theory POV?

One possible explanation is the conditions for fossilisation improved and thus the biodiversity present on earth at the time began to appear in the fossil record with greater occurrence than was possible earlier.


How do you know they are religious zealots?

I see them walking around, I hear about them giving "lectures" at local churches and I am aware of their websites where they dress up religion to make it appear scientific.


If you mean the origin of existing biolife, then I don't know. There are many things that science can't explain yet.

True. However, there are many things we are pretty confident about (from then IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution) ...


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under theeffect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

My emphasis.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2009, 08:43 PM
I wasn't proposing a hypothesis I was just pointing out you again sprouted a complete misconception regarding evolution. You said...

"It[sic] it's true, then it would be difficult for homo erectus to be an ancestor to homo sapiens."

Demonstrating the misconception that an antecedent must go extinct to give rise to a decedent species. That notion is patently false and scenarios like the one I described has been in modern species.

I never proposed that was actually happened in the case of H erectus and sapiens.

That is why I began my paragraph with "One possible scenario..."

One possible explanation is the conditions for fossilisation improved and thus the biodiversity present on earth at the time began to appear in the fossil record with greater occurrence than was possible earlier.


Trying to explain away (using unlikely scenarios) facts that do not sit well with the theory and then disregarding them, instead of studying those facts and then changing the theory (or rejecting if necessary) is the difference between pseudo-scientist and a scientist.

While I don't accept some of the Darwin's theories, I respect him for a gentlemanly behaviour and honesty (acknowledgement of Wallace work on natural selection preceding the work of Darwin, admitting the holes in the theory, etc.). Unfortunately the same can't be said about most of his followers.



... I hear about them giving "lectures" at local churches...

I'll take your word on it. I am quite surprised that an atheist goes to church. On the other hand, unhealthy obsession with biblical literalism has been noted before.



True. However, there are many things we are pretty confident about (from then IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution) ...


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under theeffect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

My emphasis.

In other words, it's true because it's true. Looks good as a postmodernist article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair), but hardly convincing

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 09:16 PM
Trying to explain away (using unlikely scenarios) facts that do not sit well with the theory and then disregarding them, instead of studying those facts and then changing the theory (or rejecting if necessary) is the difference between pseudo-scientist and a scientist.

I again repeat that I never posited that as anything other than a "possible scenario".

Your quite foolishly said that a species could not coexist with an antecedent species and you are quite wrong on that point. I have never claimed that happened with H Erectus and yout seeming inability to graps that point means you are being willingly mischievous or simply feebleminded.


While I don't accept some of the Darwin's theories, I respect him for a gentlemanly behaviour and honesty (acknowledgement of Wallace work on natural selection preceding the work of Darwin, admitting the holes in the theory, etc.). Unfortunately the same can't be said about most of his followers.

More unsubstantiated slander.

Come to think of it I can't remember you substantiating any of the claims you have made in this thread.


I'll take your word on it. I am quite surprised that an atheist goes to church. On the other hand, unhealthy obsession with biblical literalism has been noted before.

Why do you find it surprising? You went to a university and yet are unable to think.


In other words, it's true because it's true.

More rhetoric without substance, Igor? You really need to stop pontificating and start thinking.

The IAP statement was ratified by all the major academies of science globally including...

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian Academy of Science
4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
27. Royal Irish Academy
28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science Council of Japan
31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
45. National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
46. Polish Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)

Are you saying all these academies, representing the most distinguished scientists in all these countries, just don't know what constitutes good science...

but you do?

ER
24-10-2009, 09:37 PM
... but hardly convincing
:P was he talking about his ratings calculator thingy again? :)

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2009, 10:34 PM
:P was he talking about his ratings calculator thingy again? :)
Jak, I am not sure he knows himself what he was talking about. But schhh, it's a secrect!

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 10:52 PM
I am not sure...

Story of your life, Igor. As demonstrated in this thread with such gaffes as...


"So, it's a theory, not a proven scientific fact?"

Displaying a categorical misunderstanding of the nature of science at a fundamental level.

and


"Some geological expeditions in 1990s in Kenia and South Africa found remains of homo sapiens and homo erectus that appear to exist at approximately the same time. It it's true, then it would be difficult for homo erectus to be an ancestor to homo sapiens."

Displaying a basic lack of knowledge on Evolution and the idea of a species evolving in geographic separation and then being reintroduce to the geographical range of the antecedent population.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2009, 10:59 PM
I again repeat that I never posited that as anything other than a "possible scenario".

Your quite foolishly said that a species could not coexist with an antecedent species and you are quite wrong on that point. I have never claimed that happened with H Erectus and yout seeming inability to graps that point means you are being willingly mischievous or simply feebleminded.

For the record:
I said it was unlikely for Homo erectus and Homo sapiens to exist in the same area and in the same time if one is the genetic ancestor to another, I did not say they could not coexist.

If you think that your "possible scenario" proves it wrong, then your grasp of simple logic even weaker then I gave your credit for.





The IAP statement was ratified by all the major academies of science globally including...

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian Academy of Science
4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
27. Royal Irish Academy
28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science Council of Japan
31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
45. National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
46. Polish Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)


Congratulation! Excellent copy and paste skill :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Are you saying all these academies, representing the most distinguished scientists in all these countries, just don't know what constitutes good science...


How could I? Racist interpretation will be racist, you know..:hand:

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 11:07 PM
For the record:
I said it was unlikely for Homo erectus and Homo sapiens to exist in the same area and in the same time if one is the genetic ancestor to another, I did not say they could not coexist.

By contrast your cut and past skills are sorely lacking.

For the record, you said...


It it's true, then it would be difficult for homo erectus to be an ancestor to homo sapiens.
(my emphasis)

Since you were implying this was a point against the scientific basis of common descent you clearly meant very difficult.

As I pointed out, it is not difficult at all and the evolution of new species without the antecedent population going extinct happens all the time.

As I said,the temporary geographical isolation scenario is only one of many and there are other mechanism whereby antecedent and descendant species can coexist in the same place and time.

Spiny Norman
25-10-2009, 06:14 AM
Try my cut-n-paste skills then:
http://www.nymc.edu/sanewman/PDFs/CNS_Evolution_08.pdf


Incremental changes in an existing biological structure the alterations in beak shape of the finches that so impressed Charles Darwin during his voyage to the Galapagos Islands, for instance – can indeed be attributed to natural selection. Even most creationists do not deny this. But when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures (‘‘morphological novelties’’) such as segmentally organized bodies (seen in earthworms, insects, and vertebrates such as humans, but not jellyfish or molluscs), or the hands and feet of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs), Darwin’s mechanism comes up short. This is a reality that is increasingly acknowledged by biologists, particularly those working in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘‘EvoDevo.’’

...

Derision of a traditionalist segment of the public for not immediately jumping into line with standard selectionist narratives (however far-fetched they may be), is not the answer here. The scientific mainstream should rightly be prevailing in the evolution debate, since the living world is manifestly a product of evolution. But it and its liberal advocates are so wedded to a neo-Darwinism that has effectively become the house philosophy of the market economy that they are barely holding on in their attempts to prevent naturalistic accounts of the history of life from being expunged from school curricula. Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.

What I find most amusing about this paper though is the author's basic contention:
-- people won't believe evolution/Darwinism because the evidence is not compelling (in fact, is manifestly inadequate); and
-- evolution is obviously true (one wonders how he arrived at this p.o.v. given the inadequate evidence he describes

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 09:18 AM
Try my cut-n-paste skills then:
http://www.nymc.edu/sanewman/PDFs/CNS_Evolution_08.pdf

I read that paper but I wonder if you read the same one if your summary below is meant to be accurate.


What I find most amusing about this paper though is the author's basic contention:
-- people won't believe evolution/Darwinism because the evidence is not compelling

The author's contention was that gradual change by incremental change is not the whole picture when it comes to evolution and in particular other mechanism may be more suited to explain novel morphology.


(in fact, is manifestly inadequate); and

I assume this is your interpretation and not the author's because I could not see anything that justifies that summary. You should be more careful in identifying your comments as a parenthetical comment like this is quite misleading.


-- evolution is obviously true (one wonders how he arrived at this p.o.v. given the inadequate evidence he describes

Yes, this is summed up by the opening sentence...

"The fact that organic evolution occurred, and continues to occur, is as solid as any conclusion science has yet produced."
___

However these two points are not in conflict. The author was discussing means of evolution. He takes Darwinism to mean purely the mechanism of accumulation of small incremental changes, which is well established to occur. But puts forward other possibilities for evolutionary change from insights gained in the emerging field of evolutionary developmental biology.

I'm sure if you read the paper again in the cold light of day you will see there is no inconsistency in the author's basic contention.

Spiny Norman
25-10-2009, 09:32 AM
I should then just repost the key sentence:


... when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures (‘‘morphological novelties’’) such as segmentally organized bodies (seen in earthworms, insects, and vertebrates such as humans, but not jellyfish or molluscs), or the hands and feet of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs), Darwin’s mechanism comes up short.

The rest is window dressing. Darwinism is inadequate as an explanation. You are right in suggesting that another mechanism is needed; quite right. So lets have it: what is that mechanism?

Unknown, at least to science. So spare me please this idea that science knows how life started. It doesn't. It just has its own myths and fables.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2009, 10:41 AM
What I find most amusing about this paper though is the author's basic contention:
-- people won't believe evolution/Darwinism because the evidence is not compelling (in fact, is manifestly inadequate); and
-- evolution is obviously true (one wonders how he arrived at this p.o.v. given the inadequate evidence he describes
That sort of approach (quite common in other disciplines like archaeology, history and palaeontology) is what sparked by initial remark. Witnessed many occasions in Russian "scientific" literature. My guess it's not confined to one language.

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 10:42 AM
Unknown, at least to science. So spare me please this idea that science knows how life started. It doesn't. It just has its own myths and fables.

I find your cherry picking amusing. You read a sentence like...

"The fact that organic evolution occurred, and continues to occur, is as solid as any conclusion science has yet produced."

And dismiss it out of hand and yet in the same article you read a sentence like...

"... when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures ... Darwin’s mechanism comes up short."

and you leap to the preposterous conclusion that this means science is nothing but a house of cards constructed on myths and fairytales.

It is clear that you have your faith and the mountains of scientific evidence for Evolution (Darwinism and which have convinced several Popes and the at least the present Archbishop of Canterbury) are insufficient to dislodge your literal interpretation of genesis.

There is still a lot of debate in science and there are many things we are yet to know. We know that Darwinism (ie natural selection) is one mechanism whereby evolution takes place but we don't know that it is the only one. In fact there is good evidence that other mechanisms like horizontal gene propagation does occur.

Basiclly it comes down to this...

A part of accepting conclusions of science is accepting the position that we can never know everything. But if we give up looking and retreat into superstition then we will never know anything.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2009, 10:44 AM
For the record, you said...


It it's true, then it would be difficult for homo erectus to be an ancestor to homo sapiens.
(my emphasis)


If you can't see the similarity between "would be difficult" and "unlikely", it's your problem.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2009, 10:59 AM
There is still a lot of debate in science and there are many things we are yet to know. We know that Darwinism (ie natural selection) is one mechanism whereby evolution takes place but we don't know that it is the only one. In fact there is good evidence that other mechanisms like horizontal gene propagation does occur.


Strange logic. One part of Darwinism (natural selection) is correct.
It's not the only mechanism and cannot explain the other part of Darwinism (origin of life).
Why do we have to accept the other part of the theory?


Basiclly it comes down to this...

A part of accepting conclusions of science is accepting the position that we can never know everything. But if we give up looking and retreat into superstition then we will never know anything.
Finally a little sense. Not accepting a flawed hypothesis means search for other explanations. However, if we accept flawed theory, we'll stop looking for truth.
How blind acceptance of flawed theory and unwillingness to even think of alternatives is not a superstition?

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2009, 12:38 PM
Interstellar panspermia is a romantic notion but lacks much in the way of evidence.
Agreed. But the materialist Line is driven to it because the evidence shows there is not enough time for life to have evolved on Earth, even allowing for uniformitarian dating.


The point is there is plenty of time before the Cambrian and the so-called explosion is less of an issue than when Darwin wrote it was the biggest objection to evolution.
Yet Darwin claimed that precambrian conditions were inadequate for fossilization, which is disproven by the Avalon Explosion. So this ruins Darwin's main excuse.


However, physical evidence of life that early demonstrate that there is plenty of time for antecedents to have evolved. A fact not available at the time Darwin wrote about the Cambrian explosion.
It was; Darwin knew about lots of sedimentary rocks below the Cambrian ones.

Note also, long periods of time are bad for chemical evolution, because it allows more time for biomolecules to break down.

RNA is even less stable than DNA, which is much less stable than proteins. Recent estimates of DNA stability put its upper limit of survival at 125,000 years at °C, 17,500 at 10°C and 2500 at 20°C. [Nielsen-Marsh, Christina, Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance (http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf), The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June 2002]

Even the simpler “building blocks” are unstable in abiotic environments. The half life of ribose is only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0°C. It’s even worse at high temperatures—73 minutes at 100°C. And RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C, a problem for “warm ponds” or hydrothermal theories —adenine and guanine having half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days. [Larralde, R., Robertson, M.P. and Miller, S.L., Rates of decomposition of ribose and other sugars: Implications for chemical evolution, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 92:8158–8160, 1995. Levy, M and Miller, S.L., The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933–38, 1998]

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2009, 12:45 PM
Congratulation! Excellent copy and paste skill :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
And example of groupthink. According to Thomas Bouchard, a US psychologist famous for his research on twins raised apart, even scientists with good reason to believe that the majority are wrong can be silenced. The reason is the huge pressure to conform, the “powerful human urge to belong inside the group, to think like the majority … and to win the group’s approval by trashing dissenters.” Science [/I][B]325(5936):27, 3 July 2009. ]

Even that leftist rag, the New York Times, had an article about Bouchard (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/researcher-condemns-conformity-among-his-peers/) saying, “conformity and group-think are attitudes of particular danger in science … because progress often depends on overturning established wisdom”. Bouchard was not necessarily against consensus, but with the peer-pressure silencing of critics, saying that his field has “whole domains we can’t talk about”. The NY Times article says that if “the brightest minds on Wall Street got suckered by group-think into believing house prices would never fall”, who knows about such bandwagons as global warming, saying sarcastically, “You mean it might be harder to model climate change 20 years ahead than house prices 5 years ahead? Surely not—how could so many climatologists be wrong?”

RW's whole approach reminds me of an honest admission by the evolutionary science writer Gordy Slack about many of his fellow evolutionary believers [What neo-creationists get right: An evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp, The Scientist, June 2008]


Which leads me to a final concession to my ID foes: When they say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they’re right. A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn’t know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. They’re still correct when they say evolution happens. But I’m afraid they’re wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots. Ideological zeal isn’t incompatible with good science; its coincidence with a theory proves nothing about that theory’s explanatory power.

This was after he had admitted:


I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close. I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.


How could I? Racist interpretation will be racist, you know..:hand:
Of course; the answer to criticisms of the Zimbabwean Academy (and Obamov's policies).

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2009, 12:57 PM
The IAP statement was ratified by all the major academies of science globally including...


That is misleading.
1. Who decides which academy of science is major and which is minor?
2. Only 67, not all academies of science ratified the statement. I wanted to check on IAP website (http://www.interacademies.net/) their composition, but the web site was down. From my limited knowledge of world affair, there are many more then 67 countries in the world, most of them with academy of Science. It means that similar number of academies did not ratify the statement. I'll be happy to correct it when someone publishes the exact number or IAP website is back on line.

I think academies that did not ratify were approached by IAP, but refused sign. Why? Maybe they are run be religious zealots?

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 02:23 PM
If you can't see the similarity between "would be difficult" and "unlikely", it's your problem.

I didn't say they weren't similar, although "unlikely" (implying a probability) is weaker than "difficult" which implies a potentially insurmountable barrier.

However, when stating something "for the record" you should make sure it is correct verbatim, lest it appears that you are wiggling for room.

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 02:33 PM
Strange logic. One part of Darwinism (natural selection) is correct.
It's not the only mechanism and cannot explain the other part of Darwinism (origin of life).
Why do we have to accept the other part of the theory?

You are patent evidence that you don;t HAVE to accept anything. However the evidence is such that you ought to accept evolution and common descent. Certainly one mechanism for evolution is natural selection (which the author of Frosty's article termed consistently "Darwinism"). In that terminology, Darwinism is the name of one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates, not the whole shooting match.


Finally a little sense. Not accepting a flawed hypothesis means search for other explanations. However, if we accept flawed theory, we'll stop looking for truth.
How blind acceptance of flawed theory and unwillingness to even think of alternatives is not a superstition?

You correctly identify one of the problems with superstitious beliefs. However Evolution is not a superstitious belief. The common descent of all species including man is well established with evidence. However, we don't know everything and Evolution may be advanced by many mechanisms. Certainly natural selection is a major one but others may be discovered without invalidating the theory of Evolution.

You are trying to advance a god of the gaps type of argument. If there is any uncertainty in a field of endeavour then the whole discipline is necessarily flawed. If that were justified then EVERY field not just biology would be considered superstitious.

Your illogic on this point again underscores your fundamental misconceptions on the nature of science.

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 02:39 PM
Agreed. But the materialist Line is driven to it because the evidence shows there is not enough time for life to have evolved on Earth, even allowing for uniformitarian dating.

I don't see why I or science generally needs to defend what may just be a lack of imagination on the part of the proponents of an unestablished hypothesis. Until evidence comes to light interstellar panspermia remains a romantic notion.


Yet Darwin claimed that precambrian conditions were inadequate for fossilization, which is disproven by the Avalon Explosion. So this ruins Darwin's main excuse.

No because many more fossils are available today including fossils showing life began much earlier than generally believed at the time of Darwin's writing.


It was; Darwin knew about lots of sedimentary rocks below the Cambrian ones.

He knew there was time but there was little evidence for life. here is much better established evidence that life existed on Earth for something like 6 times longer than the period since the Cambrian explosion.

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 02:56 PM
That is misleading.
1. Who decides which academy of science is major and which is minor?

I tell you what, Igor. Come up with a nation that has an academy of science which refused to ratify the statement and get back to me.

Just because the data is easily available, here are the top 30 countries by GDP for 2008. Since research is an expensive business these economies also approximately represent the major researching nations of the world...

1 United States 14,204,322
2 Japan 4,909,272
3 China 4,326,187
4 Germany 3,652,824
5 France 2,853,062 a
6 United Kingdom 2,645,593
7 Italy 2,293,008
8 Brazil 1,612,539
9 Russian Federation 1,607,816
10 Spain 1,604,174
11 Canada 1,400,091
12 India 1,217,490
13 Mexico 1,085,951
14 Australia 1,015,217
15 Korea, Rep. 929,121
16 Netherlands 860,336
17 Turkey 794,228
18 Poland 526,966
19 Indonesia 514,389
20 Belgium 497,586
21 Switzerland 488,470
22 Sweden 480,021
23 Saudi Arabia 467,601
24 Norway 449,996
25 Austria 416,380
26 Iran, Islamic Rep. 385,143
27 Greece 356,796
28 Denmark 342,672
29 Argentina 328,385
30 Venezuela, RB 313,799

A quick look revealed that I think Saudi Arabia is the first country listed by GDP who is not represented.

If you were to list academies of science by order of number of Nobel prizes then the results would be even more favourable that all the major academies are included.


2. Only 67, not all academies of science ratified the statement. I wanted to check on IAP website (http://www.interacademies.net/) their composition, but the web site was down. From my limited knowledge of world affair, there are many more then 67 countries in the world, most of them with academy of Science. It means that similar number of academies did not ratify the statement. I'll be happy to correct it when someone publishes the exact number or IAP website is back on line.

I think academies that did not ratify were approached by IAP, but refused sign. Why? Maybe they are run be religious zealots?

I think you are mistaken when you say most countries have academies of science. For starters some of the academies which did ratify the statement are international academies like

58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)

Secondly many of the worlds 200+ countries are poor and don't have any or a well-established scientific academy. Unless the country has a well-established and well-funded research community such academies non-existent or only fledgling.

Therefore you are incorrect with your conclusion that a similar number did not ratify. No doubt with a little research you may be able to find a small number. However, if you list the academies by number of Nobel prizes then how major are the academies you are looking for?

I'd be very surprised if you could dig up a number approximating 67 which refused to ratify. And even if you could, then compare the credentials of your 67 with the 67 that did ratify using say a Nobel prize count and see how that comparison looks.

antichrist
25-10-2009, 06:04 PM
Talking to the hopeless.

I was once a Creationist-believing Catholic.

It took me two sentences to forget the whole deal.

1. I learnt how the universe worked based on gravity.
2. I learnt that the Theory was we came from the common ancestery(?) as apes.

That was enough for me. Absolutely nothing else was necessary to convince me of a godless world.

I don't claim to be the brainest guy in the world - so why cant you all you brainer guys see it?

I am sorry to say but you are making public fools of yourselves for all the world to see.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2009, 06:38 PM
You are patent evidence that you don;t HAVE to accept anything. However the evidence is such that you ought to accept evolution and common descent. Certainly one mechanism for evolution is natural selection (which the author of Frosty's article termed consistently "Darwinism"). In that terminology, Darwinism is the name of one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates, not the whole shooting match.

Impeccable logic! Natural selection is one mechanism for evolution, therefore we have to accept the theory of common descent? Brilliant!!!



You correctly identify one of the problems with superstitious beliefs. However Evolution is not a superstitious belief.

No, it's not. But blind believe and narrow-minded refusal to critically examine it is like a superstition.



The common descent of all species including man is well established with evidence.

Repeating it many times does not make it true. If it's established with evidence you should be able to demonstrate it. So far you haven't.



However, we don't know everything and Evolution may be advanced by many mechanisms. Certainly natural selection is a major one but others may be discovered without invalidating the theory of Evolution.

Here we go again. Natural selection is a major mechanism of "Evolution", but it does not explain it, some other mechanisms that we don't know must explain, but you ought to accept.
You call it a scientific approach? Good luck!
Please come back with something more credible and convincing.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2009, 06:53 PM
And example of groupthink. According to Thomas Bouchard, a US psychologist famous for his research on twins raised apart, even scientists with good reason to believe that the majority are wrong can be silenced. The reason is the huge pressure to conform, the “powerful human urge to belong inside the group, to think like the majority … and to win the group’s approval by trashing dissenters.” Science [/I][B]325(5936):27, 3 July 2009. ]

Groupthink could be present, but I think there are other reasons as well.
Academy of Science in country is a bureaucratic organisation, like a government. It does not do research, academics that form it do. Many of them work in other fields and can't be bothered with evolution theory.
if Academy of Science can be likened to a government, then IAP can be likened to UN, which is bureaucracy of bureaucracy. I wouldn't be surprised if it's plagued with similar problems.
Add to this conventional wisdom, desire to use Darwinism as a political tool and the result is not surprising.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2009, 06:57 PM
1. I learnt how the universe worked based on gravity.
Discovered by the creationist Newton (http://creation.com/sir-isaac-newton-1642-1727)!


2. I learnt that the Theory was we came from the common ancestery(?) as apes.
I learned why this doesn't make sense (http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-6-humans-images-of-god-or-advanced-apes).


I don't claim to be the brainest guy in the world — so why cant you all you brainer guys see it?
So why not be more open-minded and think that maybe we brainier guys have a point!

arosar
25-10-2009, 07:22 PM
An upcoming show on ABC1 is Darwin's Brave New World (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200911/programs/DO0752V001D2009-11-08T193000.htm).

AR

morebeer
25-10-2009, 08:22 PM
Discovered by the creationist Newton (http://creation.com/sir-isaac-newton-1642-1727)!


Creationist and alchemist.

Fortunately his physics trumped his metaphysics.

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 08:31 PM
Creationist and alchemist.

Not to mention Unitarian!

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 08:40 PM
Impeccable logic! Natural selection is one mechanism for evolution, therefore we have to accept the theory of common descent? Brilliant!!!

If you got that from my posting then you have bigger problem than even I thought.


No, it's not. But blind believe and narrow-minded refusal to critically examine it is like a superstition.

No, your thinking of religion now.


Repeating it many times does not make it true. If it's established with evidence you should be able to demonstrate it. So far you haven't.

No repeating it many time is necessary due to a dysfunction between your ears and your brain. It is the dominant theory because it is supported by a huge body of evidence. All of which is available for you to examine and none of which you have made the slightest dent in challenging although you have sprouted on endlessly with unsubstantiated rhetoric.


Here we go again. Natural selection is a major mechanism of "Evolution", but it does not explain it, some other mechanisms that we don't know must explain, but you ought to accept.
You call it a scientific approach? Good luck!
Please come back with something more credible and convincing.

Igor, I have long identified you as a hopeless case and lazy arguments like the passage above will no doubt convince others. The nub of Frosty issue with Stuart Newman's article is I believe a confusion over the terminology of "evolution" and "Darwinism". I've tried to explain it to you twice so I won't bother continuing on a lost cause, but others make like to read further up.

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 08:52 PM
1. I learnt how the universe worked based on gravity.
2. I learnt that the Theory was we came from the common ancestery(?) as apes.

Many people come to the truth in various ways. I too was a raised in a reasonably staunch Catholic family but knew there were problems with the church from a reasonably early age (around 14). However I was open to a spiritual experience until some time after that. After examining various alternatives including new age mysticism, I was pretty sure there was nothing at all "out there" from around the age of 20.

Personally, Evolution had very little to do with my deconversion. Evolution and Natural selection made sense to me from the first time I studied it in high school. Likewise I could tell creationism was just a bunch of people (some of them surprisingly smart) practicing self-delusion.

My science teacher at school was reasonably open and we actually had a creationist come to our biology class to explain creationism. Water canopy theory was the big thing at the time apparently. It was very obvious to me that this was something that the presenter really wanted to be true. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2009, 09:03 PM
If you got that from my posting then you have bigger problem than even I thought.

So, you don't even understand your own posting?



No, your thinking of religion now.


It's funny how you keep bringing religion into discussion about supposedly scientific theory. About clinical preoccupation see above.



No repeating it many time is necessary due to a dysfunction between your ears and your brain.
You also a renowned physicians, aren't you? I am sure you don't suffer from the above dysfunction because of the brain missing.



It is the dominant theory because it is supported by a huge body of evidence. All of which is available for you to examine and none of which you have made the slightest dent in challenging although you have sprouted on endlessly with unsubstantiated rhetoric.


unsubstantiated rhetoric is what we observe as your response to simple questions posed in the thread. You failed to explain Cambrian explosion. Your failed to explain absence of transitional fossils.
Finally you failed to mention any of supposedly "huge body of evidence". I would suggest to examine it yourself, but not sure you have the instrument with which other people do it.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2009, 09:07 PM
Creationist and alchemist.

Fortunately his physics trumped his metaphysics.
Yet his own writings indicate that his physics research was motivated by his metaphysics.


Not to mention Unitarian!
Not according to Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997. Most of the claims about uniformitarianism copy from each other; at best they rely on Newton's forays into textual criticism which at most dispute the authenticity of some passage not the doctrine they support.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2009, 09:11 PM
It's funny how you keep bringing religion into discussion about supposedly scientific theory.
Par for the course with evolutionary propagandists. Leftards do the same with politics and economics.


unsubstantiated rhetoric is what we observe as your response to simple questions posed in the thread. You failed to explain Cambrian explosion. Your failed to explain absence of transitional fossils.
Finally you failed to mention any of supposedly "huge body of evidence". I would suggest to examine it yourself, but not sure you have the instrument with which other people do it.
And failed to explain origin of first life, which natural selection can't explain. Chemical evolution has so many problems that some evolutionists postulate an extra-terrestrial origin (Line and Crick, for example).

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 09:12 PM
unsubstantiated rhetoric is what we observe as your response to simple questions posed in the thread. You failed to explain Cambrian explosion.

I explained it and you have made no effort to challenge that explanation.


Your failed to explain absence of transitional fossils.

I gave you many transitional genera all of which we have fossil evidences for. You then blathered on about H erectus and H sapiens coexisting but that was just demonstrating that you don't understand the mechanisms of evolution, which I have tried to clear you up on. Apart from that, no objection.


Finally you failed to mention any of supposedly "huge body of evidence". I would suggest to examine it yourself, but not sure you have the instrument with which other people do it.

In the very first post I told you to consult a biology text book and organise a debate with a biologist. I can't help it if you are too stupid to learn or take good advise.

Evolution is the dominate scientific theory and just about every biologist in the world accepts it as evidenced by things like the IAP statement on the teaching of evolution and the National Academies ebook on Science, Evolution and Creationism. Both of which I have link to from this thread. If you are too lazy to read, then I your argument boils down to this.

Igor is too lazy to find out what evidence there is for evolution therefore there must be none.

Igor, the time have come for you to start substantiating your claims. I know it is a huge change in style for you but you may have to do some work.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2009, 09:16 PM
Igor, the time have come for you to start substantiating your claims. I know it is a huge change in style for you but you may have to do some work.
Why don't you lead by example?

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 09:18 PM
Par for the course with evolutionary propagandists. Leftards do the same with politics and economics.

:lol:

Rich coming from someone prostituting his scientific qualification in the service of his church. What does it say on your website again. Oh, yes that's right...


The scientific aspects of creation ... are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.


And failed to explain origin of first life, which natural selection can't explain. Chemical evolution has so many problems that some evolutionists postulate an extra-terrestrial origin (Line and Crick, for example).

As Natural Selection is a bit difficult for Igor to understand I don't like my chances of getting into that one.

However, Igor original which was with common descent which is demonstrably true and doesn't need to address first life to do so.

Rincewind
25-10-2009, 09:19 PM
Why don't you lead by example?

Oh come on Igor, you are getting lazier and lazier all the time. Get off your arse for a change.

Spiny Norman
26-10-2009, 05:04 AM
I find your cherry picking amusing. You read a sentence like...

"The fact that organic evolution occurred, and continues to occur, is as solid as any conclusion science has yet produced."

And dismiss it out of hand and yet in the same article you read a sentence like...

"... when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures ... Darwin’s mechanism comes up short."

and you leap to the preposterous conclusion that this means science is nothing but a house of cards constructed on myths and fairytales.
Since the conclusion you attribute to me (namely "science is nothing but a hour of cards constructed on myths and fairytales") is not even close to true, we need to look further back in the discussion to find out where things have gone wrong.

In another post you surmise that the problem might be due to misintepreting or misunderstanding evolution and Darwinism. I think I understand them perfectly well. So the problem, as I see it anyway, is that they are either used interchangeably by people (which is wrong) ... or ... people equivocate when using the word evolution, sometimes meaning "origins" and other times meaning less controversial things such as "change within species over time".

I think its a worldview issue. Your worldview predisposes you to see certain things in the text(s), whereas my worldview predisposes me to see other things (and the same goes for the weight we place on certain statements, and so on).

Getting back to what the guy wrote, about Darwinism, and since this is a thread about Darwinism ... "Darwin's mechanism comes up short" ... and he is right ... it DOES come up short. It can explain some change in existing structures, but it most certainly does NOT explain the origin of novel structures ... and that, when you boil it down, is the point.

The rest is window-dressing. When science claims it can explain the origin of novel structures, it lies; it cannot. More work needs to be done there, rather than trotting out origin-of-life fairytales and speculative and wishful thinking.

Rincewind
26-10-2009, 07:31 AM
Since the conclusion you attribute to me (namely "science is nothing but a hour of cards constructed on myths and fairytales") is not even close to true, we need to look further back in the discussion to find out where things have gone wrong.

I believe you spoke about science when you said...

"Unknown, at least to science. So spare me please this idea that science knows how life started. It doesn't. It just has its own myths and fables."

Obviously we are talking about the scientific theory of evolution not every scientific theory.


In another post you surmise that the problem might be due to misintepreting or misunderstanding evolution and Darwinism. I think I understand them perfectly well. So the problem, as I see it anyway, is that they are either used interchangeably by people (which is wrong) ... or ... people equivocate when using the word evolution, sometimes meaning "origins" and other times meaning less controversial things such as "change within species over time".

Words have different meanings in different contexts and we just have to deal with that. In the article you brought up the author seems to use Darwinism to refer specifically to the idea of natural selection and and evolution as the idea of the change of species over time. The article was saying

- Evolution is manifestly true
- Darwinism cannot explain ALL novel morphology
- therefore we need another explanation
- EvoDevo provides a possible answer where small genetic variation can lead to large morphological change.


I think its a worldview issue. Your worldview predisposes you to see certain things in the text(s), whereas my worldview predisposes me to see other things (and the same goes for the weight we place on certain statements, and so on).

Well thank you for (mis)representing my worldview.

My worldview if one of accessing claims based on evidence rather than believing any text. This is the nature of science and the best explanation of the evidence is the one I believe in.

To even the score your worldview is certainly heavily weighted to believing literally in some 2000 year old texts and you obviously believe that science has made absolutely zero contribution in any field which impinges on iron age creation fairytales.


Getting back to what the guy wrote, about Darwinism, and since this is a thread about Darwinism ... "Darwin's mechanism comes up short" ... and he is right ... it DOES come up short. It can explain some change in existing structures, but it most certainly does NOT explain the origin of novel structures ... and that, when you boil it down, is the point.

Well what one author wrote (when he agrees with you) is obviously right and when the same author writes something you don;t agree with he is "obviously wrong".

Why do you accept his statement that Darwinism "comes up short" and yet reject his statement that "The fact that organic evolution occurred, and continues to occur, is as solid as any conclusion science has yet produced."?


The rest is window-dressing.

You seem to like that phrase. A less charitable person might say you are trying to dumb the debate down to the creationist level. ;)


When science claims it can explain the origin of novel structures, it lies; it cannot. More work needs to be done there, rather than trotting out origin-of-life fairytales and speculative and wishful thinking.

The exact mechanisms of evolution remain debatable and the gene switching ideas being put forward by Newman in that article could well be part of the picture, I believe it probably is. What remains in contention is exactly how important that idea is. As a proponent of a new explanation that author obviously wants to make out that his ideas are very important and science is in great need of them. However, many scientists would disagree with that view.

However that contention does not mean that the theory of Evolution is flawed or even that Darwinism is flawed. Both are well established from historical as well as experimental evidence. However science always looks forward and there is plenty of details to be discovered in any theory.

Finally, regarding the scientific merit of the article as a whole. It was written by a widely-respected scientist but the article appeared in the journal of a political organisation. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal and what the author says and how he expresses it should not be taken to be a general consensus of the scientific view.

antichrist
26-10-2009, 03:20 PM
RW, I feel sorry for you single-handedly holding back the ignorant barbarians. Stopping them is like trying to reform my chesschat bad habits. You should ban them temporarily every time they make a comment against science. Well that is a more serious offence than what I commit.

antichrist
26-10-2009, 03:26 PM
Discovered by the creationist Newton (http://creation.com/sir-isaac-newton-1642-1727)!


I learned why this doesn't make sense (http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-6-humans-images-of-god-or-advanced-apes).


So why not be more open-minded and think that maybe we brainier guys have a point!

Well it works both ways. A fool in his emptish head can reason that there is no god. It is just so basic a conclusion.

On the other side someone I know really brilliant like Darwin watched the recent series on Darwin SBS (at my urging). He really respects Darwin now because of Darwin's observation ability and to come to so many successful conclusions in spite of only visiting various places for only relatively a short period.

If Newton was around after Darwin's time I feel it would have been odds on he would have an evolutionist.

It must be God's biggest disappointment creating Creationists.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2009, 04:04 PM
The IAP statement was ratified by all the major academies of science globally including...

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian Academy of Science
4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
27. Royal Irish Academy
28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science Council of Japan
31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
45. National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
46. Polish Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)


"all the major academies of science globally" is wrong. It does not include Russian Academy of Science. May be it's minor (or run by religious zealots?) according to Rincewind's definition, but I doubt many would agree.

IAP website site is finally up, so I checked their composition.

98 country members (64 ratified)
5 global academies (3 ratified)
11 observers (1 endorsed)

As far as the reputation of each individual academy of Science concerned I cannot comment. Rincewind praised Zimbabwean Academy of Science, so it must be strong. Others probably not bad either, but the only first hand knowledge I have is about former USSR. In Soviet era each republic had a very strong Academy of Science, don't think anybody who has a slightest knowledge of USSR would dispute it. So I looked at them to see what did they do.

Azerbaijan - not a member
Armenia - didn't ratify
Belarus - didn't ratify
Estonia - didn't ratify
Georgia - didn't ratify
Kazakhstan - didn't ratify
Kyrgyzstan - ratified
Latvia - ratified
Lithuania - ratified
Moldova - didn't ratify
Russia - didn't ratify
Tajikistan - ratified
Turkmenistan - not a memenr
Ukraine - didn't ratify
Uzbekistan - ratified



Just because the data is easily available, here are the top 30 countries by GDP for 2008. Since research is an expensive business these economies also approximately represent the major researching nations of the world...

1 United States 14,204,322
2 Japan 4,909,272
3 China 4,326,187
4 Germany 3,652,824
5 France 2,853,062 a
6 United Kingdom 2,645,593
7 Italy 2,293,008
8 Brazil 1,612,539
9 Russian Federation 1,607,816
10 Spain 1,604,174
11 Canada 1,400,091
12 India 1,217,490
13 Mexico 1,085,951
14 Australia 1,015,217
15 Korea, Rep. 929,121
16 Netherlands 860,336
17 Turkey 794,228
18 Poland 526,966
19 Indonesia 514,389
20 Belgium 497,586
21 Switzerland 488,470
22 Sweden 480,021
23 Saudi Arabia 467,601
24 Norway 449,996
25 Austria 416,380
26 Iran, Islamic Rep. 385,143
27 Greece 356,796
28 Denmark 342,672
29 Argentina 328,385
30 Venezuela, RB 313,799

A quick look revealed that I think Saudi Arabia is the first country listed by GDP who is not represented.

Russia, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia and Norway, to be precise. While the size of GDP relates to amount spend on research, it is not the only factor to determine the strength of scientific research in a particular country.


I think you are mistaken when you say most countries have academies of science. For starters some of the academies which did ratify the statement are international academies like

58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)

That's also wide of the mark. There are many countries in the Carribean, Africa and developing world that are direct members of IAP (and some ratified the statement directly). Check the list on their web site by regions.


Secondly many of the worlds 200+ countries are poor and don't have any or a well-established scientific academy. Unless the country has a well-established and well-funded research community such academies non-existent or only fledgling.

This claim is also unsubstantiated. Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are not members, but I would not call their academies non-existent or fledgling.
That's just among former USSR republics. I am sure there are examples in other parts of the world, but I don't want to go through 100+ countries that are not members of IAP checking the status of the Academies.

Desmond
26-10-2009, 04:20 PM
"Russia, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia and Norway, to be precise. While the size of GDP relates to amount spend on research, it is not the only factor to determine the strength of scientific research in a particular country. There's a Swiss one.

antichrist
26-10-2009, 04:22 PM
And I don't think you even get an argument from the Vatican about it. Israel is there as well. So what point was it you were trying to make Igor?

Rincewind
26-10-2009, 04:35 PM
RW, I feel sorry for you single-handedly holding back the ignorant barbarians. Stopping them is like trying to reform my chesschat bad habits. You should ban them temporarily every time they make a comment against science. Well that is a more serious offence than what I commit.

While I disagree with what they say I defend their write to say it in the appropriate threads. The last four words should be noted.

Desmond
26-10-2009, 05:01 PM
And I don't think you even get an argument from the Vatican about it. Israel is there as well. So what point was it you were trying to make Igor?Perhaps it was meant to be a warning to others; if you're going to nit-pick, don't stuff it up and make mistakes yourself!

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2009, 05:42 PM
There's a Swiss one.
Ok, I stand corrected, missed this one.

Rincewind
26-10-2009, 06:16 PM
"all the major academies of science globally" is wrong. It does not include Russian Academy of Science. May be it's minor (or run by religious zealots?) according to Rincewind's definition, but I doubt many would agree.

I do not claim the Russian Academy of Science is minor. That was an oversight by me.

Although the Russian academy suffered terribly at the hands of Lysenko under whose influence the field of genetics was forbidden in post WWII Soviet Union. And in recent years it has been hurt by the brain drain to the West. Certainly of all the sciences Biology would be the one field where the ex-Soviet republics are the weakest.


IAP website site is finally up, so I checked their composition.

98 country members (64 ratified)
5 global academies (3 ratified)
11 observers (1 endorsed)

Now I see why you don't do research. You're not very good at it.

For starters the statement was released in 2006 and at the time there were

88 country members (of which 64 ratified and 24 didn't)
4 global academies (of which 3 ratified and 1 didn't)

and observers are hardly likely to endorse given the status of observer (although I note one did).

So the countries/global academies which didn't ratify were...

Armenia
Belarus
Bolivia
Cameroon
Dominican Republic
Estonia
Finland
Georgia
Ghana
Guatemala
Pontificia Academia Scientiarvm
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea, Republic of
Madagascar
Malaysia
Moldova, Republic of
Nepal
Norway
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Thailand
Ukraine

Latin American Academy of Sciences - ACAL

So while Russia was a major non-ratifier compared with those that did ratify the non ratifying nations Russia was the stand out and they seemed to have held sway with much of the former Soviet republics since the trend (one third of the non-ratifying countries) of

Armenia
Belarus
Estonia
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Moldova, Republic of
Russia
Ukraine

Is a little conspicuous.


As far as the reputation of each individual academy of Science concerned I cannot comment.

Rincewind praised Zimbabwean Academy of Science, so it must be strong. Others probably not bad either, but the only first hand knowledge I have is about former USSR. In Soviet era each republic had a very strong Academy of Science, don't think anybody who has a slightest knowledge of USSR would dispute it. So I looked at them to see what did they do.

Azerbaijan - not a member
Armenia - didn't ratify
Belarus - didn't ratify
Estonia - didn't ratify
Georgia - didn't ratify
Kazakhstan - didn't ratify
Kyrgyzstan - ratified
Latvia - ratified
Lithuania - ratified
Moldova - didn't ratify
Russia - didn't ratify
Tajikistan - ratified
Turkmenistan - not a memenr
Ukraine - didn't ratify
Uzbekistan - ratified

I take it your first-hand knowledge is not related directly to the fields of Biology and Genetics.

Perhaps the conspicuous ex-Soviet non-ratification has to do with the ongoing effects of Lysenko who all but crippled the study of Biology in the Soviet Union. According to Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: a short history (1993) by Loren R. Graham...


"...even today genetics in the republics of the Soviet Union - a field which Soviet scientists like Vavilov, Kol'tsov and Chetverikov were pioneers in the twenties - suffers from the effects of the Lysenko years. Young biologists in the seventies, eighties and nineties, struggling to resurrect the field, had difficulty finding role models among their elders or sustaining traditions in their institutions."


Russia, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia and Norway, to be precise.

Wrong again!

The Swiss did ratify. Look at number 56. (edit: I now see that you had admitted to this mistake, one wonders if you will admit to all the others).

And Saudi Arabia doesn't appear to have a member academy, even today (refer your earlier research). So of the top 30 economies we have just Russia and Norway as being members and not ratifying.

Therefore, I will correct my previous assertion to...

The IAP statement was ratified by virtually all the major academies of science globally...


That's also wide of the mark. There are many countries in the Carribean, Africa and developing world that are direct members of IAP (and some ratified the statement directly). Check the list on their web site by regions.

Not wide of the mark at all. Yes some countries in those regions have individual nations with academies which are direct members. How does that invalidate what I said?


This claim is also unsubstantiated. Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are not members, but I would not call their academies non-existent or fledgling.

You're basically you're quibbling over Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan? While they might be as esteemed as some present members of the IAP but they cannot be called major scientific academies and it doesn't change the import of my original claim.

Rincewind
26-10-2009, 06:31 PM
Perhaps it was meant to be a warning to others; if you're going to nit-pick, don't stuff it up and make mistakes yourself!

Given Igor's record of stuffing up simple cut and pastes of his own words "for the record", nit-picking would seem to be a low-percentage strategy for him to employ.

But you never know, perhaps he is "trying a new tack". :lol:

Spiny Norman
26-10-2009, 07:45 PM
The article was saying:
- Evolution is manifestly true
- Darwinism cannot explain ALL novel morphology
- therefore we need another explanation
- EvoDevo provides a possible answer where small genetic variation can lead to large morphological change

"Evolution is manifestly true" can only be true if one equivocates about the meaning of the word evolution. The original article referred specifically to organic evolution. Definition:


the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

Even that definition (from one of the online dictionaries) is not sufficiently specific. If by "evolutionary development of a species" it means variations within species over time, I have no problem with it. If it means "generation of novel morphology" (or perhaps generation of new species) then the original article says that it is false, if one is considering Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms.

"Darwinism cannot explain ALL novel morphology" ... you've introduced that ALL, and have CAPITALISED it ... why? I suspect its your worldview on display. Lets look at the last paragraph from the article:


Derision of a traditionalist segment of the public for not immediately jumping into line with standard selectionist narratives (however far-fetched they may be), is not the answer here. The scientific mainstream should rightly be prevailing in the evolution debate, since the living world is manifestly a product of evolution. But it and its liberal advocates are so wedded to a neo-Darwinism that has effectively become the house philosophy of the market economy that they are barely holding on in their attempts to prevent naturalistic accounts of the history of life from being expunged from school curricula. Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.

Makes it pretty clear. Darwinism is a dying theory. If it were able to explain much of novel morphology, it would probably be worth keeping. But it cannot. Your faith in it, as you seem to think it capable of being able to explain nearly ALL novel morphology, is profoundly misplaced.

Rincewind
26-10-2009, 08:03 PM
"Evolution is manifestly true" can only be true if one equivocates about the meaning of the word evolution. The original article referred specifically to organic evolution. Definition:


the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

Even that definition (from one of the online dictionaries) is not sufficiently specific. If by "evolutionary development of a species" it means variations within species over time, I have no problem with it. If it means "generation of novel morphology" (or perhaps generation of new species) then the original article says that it is false, if one is considering Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms.

"Darwinism cannot explain ALL novel morphology" ... you've introduced that ALL, and have CAPITALISED it ... why? I suspect its your worldview on display. Lets look at the last paragraph from the article:

I'm not sure why my summary of the article seems to make you think is giving such a great insights into my worldview. I was outlining the contention of someone else's article. An article you fond in some Envirosocialist political magazine. And my comments to you regarding it has been to do with your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what the author is saying.


Makes it pretty clear. Darwinism is a dying theory. If it were able to explain much of novel morphology, it would probably be worth keeping. But it cannot. Your faith in it, as you seem to think it capable of being able to explain nearly ALL novel morphology, is profoundly misplaced.

Again you cherry pick the sound bites which you think support your view of science. Unfortunately you leap to unsubstantiated conclusions and the expert witness for the prosecution is not a scientific work.

Go back to your posts in this thread ad prefix all your statements regarding this article with...

"one scientist writing in a political journal in support of his own hypotheses said..." and then come back to me.

The rest of what I could say on the matter I have said before. The fact that we don;t know everything in science in not proof of an irrational belief in fairytales, it is proof that we are still looking for answers. It doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong. It doesn't mean the mechanism of natural selection is wrong.

We do know that evolution occurs, that is, new species can come about from the action of natural selection.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2009, 08:20 PM
We do know that evolution occurs, that is, new species can come about from the action of natural selection.
That would make me and most informed creationists believers in "evolution" then! Good little bait-and-switch.

Rincewind
26-10-2009, 08:26 PM
That would make me and most informed creationists believers in "evolution" then!

So you have seen the light.

In fact, I think you liked to say you did believe in Evolution, what is your word for it? micro-evolution? Or evolution within the poorly defined term "kinds"

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2009, 08:36 PM
So you have seen the light.
No, why should natural selection (http://creation.com/natural-selection-questions-and-answers) and speciation (http://creation.com/speciation-questions-and-answers)be a problem for biblical creationists. They don't show that bacteria evolved into brain surgeons.


In fact, I think you liked to say you did believe in Evolution, what is your word for it? micro-evolution?
Try reading the Don't Use page (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#micro_macro) you recommend to others.


Or evolution within the poorly defined term "kinds"
No more poorly defined (http://creation.com/response-to-pbs-nova-evolution-series-episode-1-darwins-dangerous-idea#kinds) than "species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_of_defining_.22species.22_and_i dentifying_particular_species)", so stop grousing.

Rincewind
26-10-2009, 08:54 PM
No, why should natural selection (http://creation.com/natural-selection-questions-and-answers) and speciation (http://creation.com/speciation-questions-and-answers)be a problem for biblical creationists. They don't show that bacteria evolved into brain surgeons.

Keep pedaling Jono the gaps get smaller each day. :)


Try reading the Don't Use page (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#micro_macro) you recommend to others.

Hey! No fair. I only recommended that Igor use that. And he is a "special" case.


No more poorly defined (http://creation.com/response-to-pbs-nova-evolution-series-episode-1-darwins-dangerous-idea#kinds) than "species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_of_defining_.22species.22_and_i dentifying_particular_species)", so stop grousing.

Hardly. While ring species do present challenges in defining species since a species are nothing more than a convenient collection of individuals and thus continua of reproductively viable individuals is not unexpected in some special cases.

However biologist have defined thousands if not millions of reproductively distinct species and grouped them into larger groupings including the next level up from species: genus. There are no ring genera that I know of and something like a few hundred thousand genera defined by Biology.

What have the creationists done for kinds?

Rincewind
26-10-2009, 10:12 PM
Just a pause to mention that (mainstream religions agree that) an acceptance of science is not a denial of faith. Only denial of a literal reading of genesis.

The following story is about one individual who is a geneticist and Dominican priest.

The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-christian-mans-evolution)

Igor_Goldenberg
27-10-2009, 01:42 PM
Although the Russian academy suffered terribly at the hands of Lysenko under whose influence the field of genetics was forbidden in post WWII Soviet Union. And in recent years it has been hurt by the brain drain to the West. Certainly of all the sciences Biology would be the one field where the ex-Soviet republics are the weakest.

"Lysenkoism" finished completely in 1964.
While genetic research only resumed in mid-50s, theory of evolution (and darwinism) by itself was the one officially endorsed. In fact no other theory was even remotely allowed in USSR.
The raft between Lysenko and genetics (and other scientists) was about which methods to use to increase agricultural output.

Personally I have no idea why Russian academy did not ratify IAP statement, but blaming Lysenko for it is, softly speaking, naive.



For starters the statement was released in 2006 and at the time there were

88 country members (of which 64 ratified and 24 didn't)
4 global academies (of which 3 ratified and 1 didn't)

and observers are hardly likely to endorse given the status of observer (although I note one did).


Given highly politicised nature of the statement, I'd be surprised if IAP bureaucracy didn't approach non member academies. Unless the committee working on the document was be so narrow-minded that they did not consider other countries might have academies as well.

And if one observer endorsed the statement, what stopped others from doing so?


So while Russia was a major non-ratifier compared with those that did ratify the non ratifying nations Russia was the stand out and they seemed to have held sway with much of the former Soviet republics since the trend (one third of the non-ratifying countries) of

Armenia
Belarus
Estonia
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Moldova, Republic of
Russia
Ukraine

Is a little conspicuous.

Anyone remotely familiar with the realities of former USSR (or capable of doing a few minutes reading) knows there are a lot of frictions and rifts between former republics of USSR and animosity toward Russia. Try to find another explanation.


Perhaps the conspicuous ex-Soviet non-ratification has to do with the ongoing effects of Lysenko who all but crippled the study of Biology in the Soviet Union. According to Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: a short history (1993) by Loren R. Graham...


"...even today genetics in the republics of the Soviet Union - a field which Soviet scientists like Vavilov, Kol'tsov and Chetverikov were pioneers in the twenties - suffers from the effects of the Lysenko years. Young biologists in the seventies, eighties and nineties, struggling to resurrect the field, had difficulty finding role models among their elders or sustaining traditions in their institutions."


Indeed, your ignorance can only be rivalled by your aplomb. "Lysenko years" happened half a century ago. Are you implying that Russian academia is so weak that they cannot form an opinion of darwinism?
Btw, Darwinism is inalienable part of Marxism, part of communist ideology. It is still part of any textbook that deals with origin.



Not wide of the mark at all. Yes some countries in those regions have individual nations with academies which are direct members. How does that invalidate what I said?

Your original statement implied their signatories superseded those of member academies and meant that the actual number is even higher. It's untrue as any academy supporting the statement did it individually, not as a member of regional body.


You're basically you're quibbling over Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan?
Was it me who said that countries that are not part of IAP have no academies or those academies are fledgling?

While they might be as esteemed as some present members of the IAP but they cannot be called major scientific academies and it doesn't change the import of my original claim.
May they at least be deemed as advanced as Zimbabwean Academy of Science?

Rincewind
27-10-2009, 03:12 PM
"Lysenkoism" finished completely in 1964.

Lysenko was discredited in 1964 however you can't get say it "finished completely". The effects of losing a generation of geneticists had an ongoing effect and according to Graham the effects were still being felt in the mid 90s.

The other problem is there was a loss of Soviet scientific expertise with the brain drain to the west post-1991. In 2002 the number was claimed to be half a million scientists which is a large number, even for Russia.


While genetic research only resumed in mid-50s, theory of evolution (and darwinism) by itself was the one officially endorsed.

Darwinism without sensible genetics does not lead to world expertise.


Personally I have no idea why Russian academy did not ratify IAP statement, but blaming Lysenko for it is, softly speaking, naive.

I have no explanation for it either and in fact I didn't claim that it was the cause. My argument is that Lysenko's legacy is that biology is perhaps the weakest of Russian sciences. That combined with the loss of huge numbers of scientists means that the Russian Academy is not a good as they once were and particularly weak in the area of biology.


Given highly politicised nature of the statement, I'd be surprised if IAP bureaucracy didn't approach non member academies. Unless the committee working on the document was be so narrow-minded that they did not consider other countries might have academies as well.

Given that not one academy who is not a member ratified the statement I think your statement is just wild conjecture.


And if one observer endorsed the statement, what stopped others from doing so?

Your argument if illogical here. Saying that if one observer endorsed the statement then the non-endorsement of other observers was stopped in some way does not make sense. They are observers and not expected to participate.


Anyone remotely familiar with the realities of former USSR (or capable of doing a few minutes reading) knows there are a lot of frictions and rifts between former republics of USSR and animosity toward Russia. Try to find another explanation.

Anyone remotely familiar with the dynamics of family politics or voting at Eurovision knows that while siblings may fight bitterly among one another. When the interests of those outside the family are involved - family comes first.

The networking between ex-Soviet republic institutions is likely to be an order of magnitude more developed than between academies from outside the region and thus bloc voting is a likely possibility. As I said, the fact that one third of the non-ratifying nations are ex-Soviet academies is a striking trend.


Indeed, your ignorance can only be rivalled by your aplomb. "Lysenko years" happened half a century ago. Are you implying that Russian academia is so weak that they cannot form an opinion of darwinism?
Btw, Darwinism is inalienable part of Marxism, part of communist ideology. It is still part of any textbook that deals with origin.

Repetitive, see above.



Your original statement implied their signatories superseded those of member academies and meant that the actual number is even higher. It's untrue as any academy supporting the statement did it individually, not as a member of regional body.

No I didn't, not even a little bit. Again your failure with the English language is exposed. I said...


I think you are mistaken when you say most countries have academies of science. For starters some of the academies which did ratify the statement are international academies like

58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)

Secondly many of the worlds 200+ countries are poor and don't have any or a well-established scientific academy. Unless the country has a well-established and well-funded research community such academies non-existent or only fledgling.

The meaning is clear to anyone who reads at a 12-year-old level or better. The existence and membership of regional academies like the three I mention above is evidence that not every country will have their own national academy of science.

Anyone familiar with science in the Pacific region for example will know that very few small Pacific nations have their own university, let alone academy of science.

There is not even the hint of signatories superseding those of countries who didn't ratify. The discussion was to do with the number of nations who could possibly have a national academy.


Was it me who said that countries that are not part of IAP have no academies or those academies are fledgling?

May they at least be deemed as advanced as Zimbabwean Academy of Science?

They may. Either way neither can be compared with the US National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society if you compare the memberships using some measure of scientific achievement. Like (for example) number of Nobel Laureate members.

Spiny Norman
28-10-2009, 04:13 PM
Someone forgot to tell the Wall Street Journal that this is "bow down to Darwin" year:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125624463802402117.html

Bye bye Archaeopteryx, O Great Ancestor of all Birds, it seems now that you are but a reptile after all ...

Rincewind
28-10-2009, 04:40 PM
Someone forgot to tell the Wall Street Journal that this is "bow down to Darwin" year:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125624463802402117.html

Bye bye Archaeopteryx, O Great Ancestor of all Birds, it seems now that you are but a reptile after all ...

The article doesn't seem to be all that badly written, although the headline is a little misleading. (As headlines generally are, almost by definition).

Not much has changed regarding the understanding of Archaeopteryx except that a study of bone cells has determined that it grew more slowly than modern birds.

The classification of Archaeopteryx as a bird or a reptile is just proposed and hasn't reached general consensus just yet. But regadless of what happens it is a moot point anyway since any reclassification has more to do with the change in definition of what it means to be a bird or reptile than any dramatic reassessment of what we know about Archaeopteryx.

Is it an ancestor to all modern birds? Who knows? It is a fossil which shows transitional traits but direct descent is the sort of thing which is difficult to prove from the fossil record alone. Perhaps wings evolved on dinosaurs more than once. They certainly evolved independently in the case of bats and the new Chinese fossils found in the last few decades point to the development of feathers at an earlier stage than once thought, so it is a possibility.

Just another case of science advancing thanks to the discovery of new evidence.

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2009, 06:03 PM
Bye bye Archaeopteryx, O Great Ancestor of all Birds, it seems now that you are but a reptile after all ...

Claims that Archaeopteryx is better considered as a dinosaur have been around for ages with various claimed reasons cited and then disputed; one new piece of evidence on the side of the "reptile" case is hardly going to swing the debate on what it is, nor debunk the idea that it is in some senses transitional (between what and what being another question).

It's amusing to view the contrast between your eagerness to declare Archaeopteryx a reptile and the views of this board's #1 creationist. Here (http://creation.com/archaeopteryx-unlike-archaeoraptor-is-not-a-hoaxit-is-a-true-bird-not-a-missing-link) we have Jono reporting that a creationist anatomist has ruled it to be "a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form—and certainly not a feathered dinosaur."

Now on the basis of oversimplified pop-science reporting of one (1) item of evidence more compatible with a reptilian nature than a birdlike one we have you declaring that it seems it is "but a reptile after all", as if that one piece of information makes the whole case for the bird side fly (or glide) out the window. Wonder what Jono's creationist anatomist colleague would make of that? What I make of it is that your eagerness to accept it as one or the other (really doesn't matter which) in order to avoid considering more difficult possibilities is palpable. In taxonomy this trait is commonly known as "shoehorning".

Indeed even the authors of the article (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007390;jsessi onid=F7E462DE00439EEA45BCC1AF96012EE0) are not arguing that it makes Archaeopteryx a reptile. They explicitly maintain its position as a bird. In the abstract they say the first birds "were simply feathered dinosaurs with respect to growth and energetic physiology." They do not say that that makes them dinosaurs fullstop.

By the way I commend CMI on their rejection of the Archaeopteryx hoax claims and their refusal to stock books promoting them without appropriate disclaimers. :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2009, 08:02 PM
It's amusing to view the contrast between your eagerness to declare Archaeopteryx a reptile and the views of this board's #1 creationist. Here (http://creation.com/archaeopteryx-unlike-archaeoraptor-is-not-a-hoaxit-is-a-true-bird-not-a-missing-link) we have Jono reporting that a creationist anatomist has ruled it to be "a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form—and certainly not a feathered dinosaur."
You beat me to it, Kevin ;) :confused: :eh:


By the way I commend CMI on their rejection of the Archaeopteryx hoax claims and their refusal to stock books promoting them without appropriate disclaimers. :clap:
Thanx. Even Dawko commends this list, although he attributes it to AiG rather than CMI

Spiny Norman
29-10-2009, 04:48 AM
I'm just pointing out that the story keeps changing ... and it will continue to do so.

Speaking of pomo con jobs: I'm starting to think the pomo crowd have some ideas worth considering. I probably need to read some Standley Fish ...

Rincewind
29-10-2009, 07:29 AM
I'm just pointing out that the story keeps changing ... and it will continue to do so.

I think you are starting to understand the scientific method. When you are used to being able to read the creation myths of iron age tribes and assume they are the immutable truth then Science (humanity thinking for itself) is a difficult concept to understand.

There is no one there telling us what is right and what is wrong. We have to work that out for ourselves. What is a dinosaur? What is a bird? Where do you draw the line between them? These questions are never completely closed.


Speaking of pomo con jobs:

I didn't think anyone was - but go on...


I'm starting to think the pomo crowd have some ideas worth considering. I probably need to read some Standley Fish ...

Did you know Fish is a relative of Theodore Sturgeon? I kid you not.

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2009, 11:50 AM
I think you are starting to understand the scientific method. Yeah, yeah, it's self-correcting. But then why should Christians try to marry their theology to the science of today, as you advocate? They might be widowed tomorrow at the next correction—their re-interpretations of Scripture might have to be re-interpreted!

Rincewind
29-10-2009, 02:56 PM
Yeah, yeah, it's self-correcting. But then why should Christians try to marry their theology to the science of today, as you advocate? They might be widowed tomorrow at the next correction—their re-interpretations of Scripture might have to be re-interpreted!

Oooh. Scary.

morebeer
29-10-2009, 03:09 PM
Yeah, yeah, it's self-correcting

Self correction distinguishes science from dogma

antichrist
29-10-2009, 05:20 PM
You could have (and do have) an open and shut case for science yet you could not get through the gullibility and stupidity of these creationist fools. "Isn't there a frontline we can put them on?" I think in my dreams.

Spiny Norman
29-10-2009, 05:50 PM
Well when they've finished their self-correcting and have something to tell me that they know to be true, I'll be ready and listening.

antichrist
29-10-2009, 05:53 PM
Well when they've finished their self-correcting and have something to tell me that they know to be true, I'll be ready and listening.

How is it important what you think how the creatures appeared? I could not give a poop - as long as the bacon is tasty and no antibiotics, the fish juicy and tasty and the birds stuffed Lebo style with plenty of dried herbs - all the world is fine.

Why don't you mind your own business where the animals come from - do they bother to find out where you come from?


The situation is very simple - believe in Creationism and be stupid - what else is there in the equasion?

morebeer
29-10-2009, 07:07 PM
Well when they've finished their self-correcting and have something to tell me that they know to be true, I'll be ready and listening.

Inductive reasoning can't provide the type of absolutes those with an intolerance to ambiguity crave.

However, in a shoot-out with supernaturalism, for me it is a sans brainer.

Rincewind
29-10-2009, 07:14 PM
Well when they've finished their self-correcting and have something to tell me that they know to be true, I'll be ready and listening.

Science is just being honest. Belief in an absolute truth is wishful thinking at best.

Saying that you know the Bible to be true doesn't make it so. And the fact that some of your beliefs require a rejection of most of theories of biology, paleontology, geology and astronomy (to name just a few). I have more reason to think those beliefs are false rather than simply unjustified.

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2009, 07:24 PM
Belief in an absolute truth is wishful thinking at best.
Do you believe that the above is an absolutely true statement?

Rincewind
29-10-2009, 07:32 PM
Do you believe that the above is an absolutely true statement?

Not an absolute certainty, no.

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2009, 08:58 PM
I'm just pointing out that the story keeps changing ... and it will continue to do so.

The story keeps being added to with various pieces of new evidence on the bird side, the reptile side (or even the evolved-from-reptile-but-not-necessarily-the-same-thing-as-bird side). But all that shows is that the creature's features are taxonomically confusing and the creature doesn't fit neatly into any box. That's exactly what is to be expected from creatures that are in some sense transitional.

One of the snails I work on is a similar case on a smaller scale. It is apparently a primitive form of one particular family, but is the only known member of that family to have a certain feature in common with another related family, which it also resembles in another way too. This snail has caused such confusion that previous taxonomists confusedly distributed specimens of it among three different genera in two different families before I noticed that they were focusing on different features of the same beast and all these names refer to the same thing.

Desmond
19-11-2009, 08:07 PM
FauGMaKTCRs

Spiny Norman
26-11-2009, 06:11 PM
Yum

Rincewind
26-11-2009, 06:19 PM
Nature celebrates Darwin's 200 (http://www.nature.com/news/specials/darwin/index.html)

Rincewind
26-11-2009, 06:37 PM
15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS
Henry Gee, Rory Howlett and Philip Campbell*

Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years. They get on with researching and teaching in disciplines that rest squarely on that foundation, secure in the knowledge that natural selection is a fact, in the same way that the Earth orbits the Sun is a fact.

Given that the concepts and realities of Darwinian evolution are still challenged, albeit rarely by biologists, a succinct briefing on why evolution by natural selection is an empirically validated principle is useful for people to have to hand. We offer here 15 examples published by Nature over the past decade or so to illustrate the breadth, depth and power of evolutionary thinking. We are happy to offer this resource freely and encourage its free dissemination.

Read more... (http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf)

Rincewind
15-12-2009, 10:17 AM
Is evolution predictable?

Simon Conway Morris seems to think so. He was invited to write this perspective for the 350th anniversary of the Royal Society.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1537/133.full.pdf+html


Evolution: like any other science it is predictable
Simon Conway Morris

Abstract

Evolutionary biology rejoices in the diversity of life, but this comes at a cost: other than working in the common framework of neo-Darwinian evolution, specialists in, for example, diatoms and mammals have little to say to each other. Accordingly, their research tends to track the particularities and peculiarities of a given group and seldom enquires whether there are any wider or deeper sets of explanations. Here, I present evidence in support of the heterodox idea that evolution might look to a general theory that does more than serve as a tautology (‘evolution explains evolution’). Specifically, I argue that far from its myriad of products being fortuitous and accidental, evolution is remarkably predictable. Thus, I urge a move away from the continuing obsession with Darwinian mechanisms, which are entirely uncontroversial. Rather, I emphasize why we should seek explanations for ubiquitous evolutionary convergence, as well as the emergence of complex integrated systems. At present, evolutionary theory seems to be akin to nineteenth-century physics, blissfully unaware of the imminent arrival of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Physics had its Newton, biology its Darwin: evolutionary biology now awaits its Einstein.

---

The article should be free to access (at least until March 2010) as a part of the Royal Society's 350 year celebration.

antichrist
05-06-2011, 03:05 PM
A program about Charles Darwin is on SBS now - be there

Darwin's Lost Paradise

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
07-08-2011, 11:30 PM
ive come up with my own theory.

its called serendipitous selection.

i dont claim it follows any pattern other than it doesnt follow any known pattern.

my theory also claims that nothing is and will ever be categorically evolving.

kind regards,
professor tappy tibbons esq.

antichrist
04-09-2013, 02:18 PM
I am wondering if Jono admits to having the Darwin Grief Muscle?