Replies

I fully understand the context of these posts. Look, the Theory of Evolution is very creative (pun intended) idea devised by highly intelligent minds comparing anatomic features between various species, both living and extinct. The years of collecting data, making comparisons, disproving the null hypothesis, minimizing bias, statistical analyses, and finally wading through the peer-review process is laborious work. And all for a single data point.

Ah, but connecting these points is fairly easy, and I might add, open to debate. A creative mind, artistic flare and a rudimentary knowledge of biological sciences is about all that is required to understand the theory. Anyone who played "one of these things is not like the other..." can grasp it. It seems so satisfying. It appears to make teleologic sense. It is seductive. It can be skethced out on a peice of paper while sitting in in the drawing room on a comfortable oxblood chair. "We can easily get there from here."

Can we really? Mutation is lethal nearly every time its tried. Would not an incremental accumulation of hypothetically beneficial mutations pose an even geometrically greater satistical challenge? Are environmental pressures patient enough to allow an organism "to get there from here?" Can the fossil record be interpreted in another way?

Since historical events cannot be directly tested using classical scientific methodology, I view the Theory as another speculative discipline, like psychology and the social sciences (no disrespect intended). However, unlike these areas of study, defenders of evolutionary dogma seem to have a particular disdain for alternative points of view. Regards.

dd...

I fully understand the context of these posts. Look, the Theory of Evolution is very creative (pun intended) idea devised by highly intelligent minds comparing anatomic features between various species, both living and extinct. The years of collecting data, making comparisons, disproving the null hypothesis, minimizing bias, statistical analyses, and finally wading through the peer-review process is laborious work. And all for a single data point.

Ah, but connecting these points is fairly easy, and I might add, open to debate. A creative mind, artistic flare and a rudimentary knowledge of biological sciences is about all that is required to understand the theory. Anyone who played "one of these things is not like the other..." can grasp it. It seems so satisfying. It appears to make teleologic sense. It is seductive. It can be skethced out on a peice of paper while sitting in in the drawing room on a comfortable oxblood chair. "We can easily get there from here."

Can we really? Mutation is lethal nearly every time its tried. Would not an incremental accumulation of hypothetically beneficial mutations pose an even geometrically greater satistical challenge? Are environmental pressures patient enough to allow an organism "to get there from here?" Can the fossil record be interpreted in another way?

Since historical events cannot be directly tested using classical scientific methodology, I view the Theory as another speculative discipline, like psychology and the social sciences (no disrespect intended). However, unlike these areas of study, defenders of evolutionary dogma seem to have a particular disdain for alternative points of view. Regards.

640 posted on 01/19/2003 11:01 PM PST by diode

You're being overly kind // considerate to this menagerie . . .

Main Entry: me·nag·er·ie
Pronunciation: m&-'naj-rE, -'na-j&- also -'nazh-rE, -'na-zh&-
Function: noun
Etymology: French ménagerie, from Middle French, management of a household or farm, from menage
Date: 1676
1 a : a place where animals are kept and trained especially for exhibition b : a collection of wild or foreign animals kept especially for exhibition
2 : a varied mixture <
a wonderful menagerie of royal hangers-on -- V. S. Pritchett
>