Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo freaky, I think the point was that there is a theory of gravity and a theory of evolution. Neither has been (or can be) ultimately proven but both could (at least theoretically) be disproved if they were wrong and both are extremely well supported by all the available evidence. If one is called a fairy story then so should the other.
Precisely part of the point, albeit somewhat off-track. Gravity: a force. Natural selection: hmmm... ?
Why is only one of them criticised by creationists?
Originally posted by PenguinThanks Penguin.
No freaky, I think the point was that there is a [b]theory of gravity and a theory of evolution. Neither has been (or can be) ultimately proven but both could (at least theoretically) be disproved if they were wrong and both are extremely well supported by all the available evidence. If one is called a fairy story then so should the other.
Why is only one of them criticised by creationists?[/b]
That was exactly my point.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat's your point?
Precisely part of the point, albeit somewhat off-track. Gravity: a force. Natural selection: hmmm... ?
We've been over this before.
Do you require that all scientific theories be based on or explained by one of the fundamental forces of nature?
If that's the case, then I'm sure we could start on with molecular biology and look at how the interactions of the strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces allow atoms to behave as they do in organic molecules, thus allowing evolution to work.
But of course, this is not a requirement of all scientific theories.
So what is this obsession you have with forces?
Get over it Freaky.
Evolution is not a force.
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, evolution is testable. It can be used to form hypotheses. For example, two species closely related will share a higher proportion of the same DNA (both nuclear and mitochondrial) than species less closely related. Two; species that evolved under similar conditions will have similar features (convergent evolution), even if they are not closely related (i.e. hair length in antarctic hares and in whooley mammoths). Three; organisms, when placed under stressfull conditions will evolve mechanisms to deal with it (copper tolerance in grasses, penecillin resistant bacteria). Four; organisms of the same species, when geographically isolated from each other will become more dissimilar to each other than organisms within any one group (i.e. speciation) (migratory date in ducks; human divergence, esp. mitochondrial DNA).
My gripe was with the gravity example; it addresses a force that acts
upon matter, the comparison as I read it, if gravity is true so is what
believed about evolution. I do accept evolution as it far as it has been
monitored, recorded, and viewed; however, making the claims it is
responsible for so much more is a matter of conjecture and belief.
The sp ...[text shortened]... ut solid evidence that doesn’t require someone
making claims that cannot be 2nd guessed.
Kelly
All tested, all positive results for evolution.
Originally posted by KellyJayExactly Kelly - every point joins to God - if you want it to enough.
You should try to engage that brain of yours so that it can see things
from another's point of view before you start implying anyone is stupid
or making claims they cannot think out properly those things before
them. I do not know who the last person you were talking to was, I do
not track your every post to know that you only talk to me and Freaky,
or ...[text shortened]... ts, otherwise they are simply just
fossils of creatures in the past nothing more.
Kelly
Originally posted by HalitoseActually, that's not why Gould did it at all. In fact, PE was in Darwinian model all the time.
[b]...you have been the only religious participant...
Of course we all know religious folk: they attend NASCAR races, talk in tongues and believe the earth is flat. They couldn't possibly understand a concept as complex as the TOE. Better to leave science to the non-religious/atheists such as Plank, Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Boyle, ...[text shortened]... be an intellectual and scientific discussion has to always attract the rabid converse.[/b]
Your point about the religious scientists you mentioned is moot. I've explained this to you before.
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, not inconclusive, but certainly incomplete. Tell me, do you need to join every dot up in a dot-to-dot puzzle before you can see the picture?
Be that as it may: whether PE was/is important is a moot point. The thrust of my argument (which seems to have come across too delicately) was Gould's admittance of [b]an inconclusive fossil record; or to put it more bluntly, a record that supplied insufficient conclusive evidence for the neo-darwinian theory.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou just don't like the word "selection". You think it requires a selector. Is this the same selector that sorts the grains of sand on a beach? Oh wait, that's gravity. No intelligence there. Is this the same selector that determines how far pollen grains travel? Oh wait, that's an interaction of pollen grain suface area to mass ratio, wind speed and height. No intelligence there. Is this the same selector which keeps the planets in orbit? Oh wait, that's a simple function of gravitational pull of larger bodies. No intelligence there.
Precisely part of the point, albeit somewhat off-track. Gravity: a force. Natural selection: hmmm... ?
No, selection can happen without a selector Freaky, as we've pointed out to you many times before.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIn fact, PE was in [the] Darwinian model all the time.
Actually, that's not why Gould did it at all. In fact, PE was in Darwinian model all the time.
Your point about the religious scientists you mentioned is moot. I've explained this to you before.
All the time? You sure?
For a Darwiniac, it's a shame you don't read your own "holy book". Here's what ol' Chuck had say:
On the other hand, I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time. (CR Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., p.153)
Punctuated equilibrium (as opposed to the neo-darwinian phyletic gradualism) is defined by Gould as a process where "favorable genes can quickly quickly spread throughout the population”*.
* http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_opus200.html (par. 19)
Your point about the religious scientists you mentioned is moot. I've explained this to you before.
There was no point... it was pure unadulterated sarcasm.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzTell me, do you need to join every dot up in a dot-to-dot puzzle before you can see the picture?
No, not inconclusive, but certainly incomplete. Tell me, do you need to join every dot up in a dot-to-dot puzzle before you can see the picture?
I wouldn't use that analogy if I were you: dot-to-dot puzzles are based on preconceived ideas and concepts -- that's why the "picture" is easy to envision. You don't want the flagship of modern science to be accused of the same, do you?
Originally posted by HalitoseFlagship of modern science?
[b]Tell me, do you need to join every dot up in a dot-to-dot puzzle before you can see the picture?
I wouldn't use that analogy if I were you: dot-to-dot puzzles are based on preconceived ideas and concepts -- that's why the "picture" is easy to envision. You don't want the flagship of modern science to be accused of the same, do you?[/b]
Hardly.
But interestingly there are some researchers suggesting that there may be constraints on what solutions the evolutionary process can come up with. Simon Conway-Morris (attacked by some) has suggested that a number of evolutionary adaptations are constrained to some degree or another - not that they are preconceived, but rather that in solving a particular problem, there are limits on what solutions natural selection can produce.
Originally posted by HalitoseIf you were aware of the nature and contexts of these quotes you'd know that the time period being referred to are not consistent.
[b]In fact, PE was in [the] Darwinian model all the time.
All the time? You sure?
For a Darwiniac, it's a shame you don't read your own "holy book". Here's what ol' Chuck had say:
[i]On the other hand, I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few ...[text shortened]... ined this to you before.[/b]
There was no point... it was pure unadulterated sarcasm.[/b]
That is, Darwin and Gould are both referring to significantly long periods of time, and in that sense evolution moves slowly.
Gould, in describing a faster process is still referring to a very slow process in human terms.
Originally posted by Halitosehttp://img95.imageshack.us/img95/7963/whatisitej2.gif
[b]Tell me, do you need to join every dot up in a dot-to-dot puzzle before you can see the picture?
I wouldn't use that analogy if I were you: dot-to-dot puzzles are based on preconceived ideas and concepts -- that's why the "picture" is easy to envision. You don't want the flagship of modern science to be accused of the same, do you?[/b]
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3341/ivegotitrm5.gif
Originally posted by HalitoseAnd a holy book?
In fact, PE was in [the] Darwinian model all the time.
All the time? You sure?
For a Darwiniac, it's a shame you don't read your own "holy book".
Hardly.
While some scientists and popular expositors of science have placed Darwin, Einstein and maybe one or two other scientists on pedestals, NO book, and NO scientist is treated as if the knowledge and models they contain/suggest are without possible error.
Originally posted by XanthosNZLOL. That second picture looks like a piece of work by my 3 1/2-year old girl which she brought home from preschool one day. I told her it's a good job, and she's vey proud of it!
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/7963/whatisitej2.gif
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3341/ivegotitrm5.gif