How about these (not to scale):
Orohippus, 52-45 MYA
Mesohippus, 37-32 MYA
Miohippus, 32-25 MYA
Parahippus, 24 -17 MYA
Pliohippus 12-6 MYA
Equus, 5 MYA-present
Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The "philosophy" by which science is run is to investigate what can be investigated. If you have a way to investigate the supernatural (other than arduously eliminating the natural), then feel free to suggest it.
If this statement is not true, then the correct response would be to counter it -- not change the subject and try to demonstrate that the statement is irrelevant.
The subject is why scientists investigate the natural, and eschew the supernatural. See above. I don't know why that relatively simple subject needs to be dressed up in philosophical jargonese, and I don't know what all the philosophical jargonese brings to the table -- other than obfuscation.
And so many people use their gift of intelligence to deny the giver of intelligence.
Simply sad.
Thanks for the ping. And I'm not an atheist.
It might. Those arguing for a young earth and a literal global flood about 4,350 years ago are doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and based on virtually no supporting evidence.
By origins I mean origins. Origins must be separated from evolution, as I stated.
Here are five possible origins for the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
Noted.
I didn't say that--what I said was that the concept of "natural process" doesn't apply to the big bang because etc. But it appears I may be mistaken (see next comment).
I meant "Singularity" which is described as being about the size of a dime and that from which our universe was born.
Okay, but your link doesn't say there was any "substance" to that singularity. It credits the appearance of the singularity to a "vacuum fluctuation," a term I wasn't familiar with. First I tried reading the Wikipedia entry, but I couldn't make head nor tail of it; but a search on "'vacuum fluctuation' 'big bang'" led me to a page with this fascinating section:
"The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?
"It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)
"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)"
So apparently, according to modern physics, the big bang is far from impossible and, in fact, may be the "path of least resistance"!
How about these (not to scale):
Orohippus, 52-45 MYA
Mesohippus, 37-32 MYA
Miohippus, 32-25 MYA
Parahippus, 24 -17 MYA
Pliohippus 12-6 MYA
Equus, 5 MYA-present
" If the means for determining whether something is supernatural is to eliminate all possible natural explanations, then it certainly seems that scientists are performing precisely that task. And it seems that those who complain about a "naturalistic" bias should instead be pleased by the persistent existence of that bias. After all, how else is the supernatural going to be located?
The question is, of course, at what point do you call off the investigation and announce "it's supernatural"? That "throw in the towel" declaration doesn't have a very good track record."
We could use the same method to investigate the idea that God set it all in motion in the same way investigate the idea that the big bang set it all in motion. The big bang idea says that a long time ago there was nothing, then it fluctuated, grew to the size of a dime, then exploded. Furthermore, it requires that the current laws of physics not be in force -- a condition that we have absolutely no proof of. The big bang is impossible today, and we have no proof that it could have happened then or that there was ever nothing.
How is that really any more scientific then saying that a long time ago God created the universe? Science can accept a scientifically impossible action of creation of all matter, as long as it's the big bang.
Now I'm not saying that it's bad that science is rigid and accepts only solid evidence. But all tools have limitations and it's important to know that the limitation of your (and the popular) definition of science is not allowed to address some issues which could turn out to be true. But I see no reason that if a supernatural thing did exist or happen that science couldn't study that as well.
The subject is why scientists investigate the natural, and eschew the supernatural. See above. I don't know why that relatively simple subject needs to be dressed up in philosophical jargonese, and I don't know what all the philosophical jargonese brings to the table -- other than obfuscation.
Are you talking about philosophical jargonese that I spoke? I think I stated it pretty simply. "The philosophy by which science is run categorically rejects as untrue something that is a possibility." If you can find a simpler way to state it, be my guest. But the fact remains that it's true.
So what if there was an intelligent creator? What if he did create the universe? Science would just rule it out. Why? Because of lack of evidence? No, because it doesn't fall within the realm of purely natural process.
But as long as it is possible that a non-natural process contributed to our existence, then it is possible that science could go terrible wrong -- not because it didn't have the evidence before it -- but because it catagorically rejects the possibility of supernaturalness existing.
But then there is the big bang, where science says "Well, it couldn't happen naturally now, and we have no evidence that it could have ever happened, and we don't understand how it happened, but we'll teach it to all the students as if it did anyway." For all practical purposes, that is very similar to saying "Well, we don't know how God did it or if he even existed, but we're going to teach the students that God did do it." Whether I say that "God did it by going outside of the laws of physics" or you say "The big bang did it by the laws of physics not existing" -- either way it's a beyond-natural (supernatural) event.
Would it not be better to be more evidence based then dogma based? Why does the clause that science must have been caused by natural process need to be in there? Why throw out evidence that might be true, just on a dogma? Why not let the evidence alone determine the outcome? If I see a baseball flying overhead, it's perfectly scientific for me to measure its speed, temperature, color, size, etc. And it's perfectly plausible for me to hypothesize that somebody threw it, but until I catch the thrower, that part would be unproven. If somebody finds the evidence point to a creator (after all, a creator IS possible) it's perfectly correct for them to hypothesize that a creator created it all. It's still a faith, just like the big bang, of course. But aside from a certain dogma, it would be just as scientific as the big bang.
-Jesse
post ping apocalypse placemarker
Thanks for the pictures. But that doesn't look to be any more variation then has happened to the dog, in the last 150 years or whatever. Compare a great dane to a teacup poodle -- the bones you list don't appear to me to provide evidence of anything other then variation within a kind (which I already know is true. I grew up on a farm.)
Is that really all the change there was in 45 million years? No more then intentional dog variation in 150 years?
But the sort of "yet undiscovered intermediate fossils" which I was talking about are the sort that get from dog to horse, and from fish to dog. There are certainly lots of fossils from each group, but what's lacking is the fossils that build a fine chain from one group to another.
-Jesse
PS: Also let us not forget that the shape of these skeletons and their posture has been somewhat influenced by the preconceptions of the people who pinned them all back together. I'm not saying they did it wrong just that we need to remember that a person, who never saw the animal alive, did pin them together.
No. To imply that is to ignore the huge changes that occurred.
For example, you are not seeing the change from 4 toes on each front foot and 3 on the hind feet, to only one on each foot in modern horses.
Do you have an example of when it should?
It is not the business of science to locate the supernatural.
Agreed.
The correct way to deal with a phenomena with no natural explanation is to say, 'this is beyond science', and then leave it at that until more empirical evidence is available.
This makes no sense. Where is this generic "empirical evidence" coming from? And what is it "empirical evidence" of? You seem to be saying that the correct way for science to investigate the presently inexplicable is to just not investigate it.
The naturalistic method of saying, 'we cannot explain it naturally, so we will just make up some conjecture and call it fact' does not have a very good track record either and is not empirical science.
Of course, this cute caricature of science is nonsense. But you know that.
I find it almost funny, The Naturalistic method of science commits the exact fallacy, to the other extreme, that you are falsely claiming my method of empirical science commits.
What fallacy are you talking about? And what, specifically, is your "method of empirical science," and how does it differ from the scientific method?
Empirical science is wherever the evidence leads.
Once again, that big pile of generic evidence. How do you know where that evidence is leading if you don't ask, don't hypothesize, don't infer or deduce, don't theorize?
You might have a point if they were all running around today, or if Equus skeletons were found mixed in with Orohippus skeletons. But they're not.
But the sort of "yet undiscovered intermediate fossils" which I was talking about are the sort that get from dog to horse, and from fish to dog.
Maybe you don't mean that literally, but in case you do: nobody thinks dogs evolved into horses, and only in the broadest sense do they think fish evolved into dogs. You've got to go all the way back to the development of jaws to find the common ancestor of fish and dogs, and then you have one line developing into today's fishes, and another leading to dogs (with lots of other branches, of course). There are transitional specimens along each branch, but nothing that shows something intermediate between branches--one wouldn't expect there to be.
"The axiom of Naturalistic Science dictates there is no supernatural, so the 'towel' never gets thrown in, even if it should.""Do you have an example of when it should?"
"It is not the business of science to locate the supernatural.""Agreed.""The correct way to deal with a phenomena with no natural explanation is to say, 'this is beyond science', and then leave it at that until more empirical evidence is available.""This makes no sense. Where is this generic "empirical evidence" coming from? And what is it "empirical evidence" of? You seem to be saying that the correct way for science to investigate the presently inexplicable is to just not investigate it."
"Empirical science is wherever the evidence leads.""Once again, that big pile of generic evidence. How do you know where that evidence is leading if you don't ask, don't hypothesize, don't infer or deduce, don't theorize?"
"What fallacy are you talking about? And what, specifically, is your "method of empirical science," and how does it differ from the scientific method?"
[[For example, you are not seeing the change from 4 toes on each front foot and 3 on the hind feet, to only one on each foot in modern horses]]
Lol- the horse ‘evolution’ hypothesis has been already discounted by science
“even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.”
The evolution of hte horse was disproven over 40 years ago, yet sadly, many school texts still display this false account of hte horse-
“The fact geography does not rule out the possibility that the modern horse descended from Hyracotherium provides no support for the claim of universal common ancestry. Assuming that Equus descended from Hyracotherium, that is merely diversification within the family Equidae. The change from Hyracotherium to Equus is trivial compared to the changes required by the theory of universal common ancestry.” http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1c.asp
“We should also consider regulatory genes that switch other genes ‘on’ or ‘off’. That is, they control whether or not the information in a gene will be decoded, so the trait will be expressed in the creature. This would enable very rapid and ‘jumpy’ changes, which are still changes involving already created information, not generation of new information, even if latent (hidden) information was turned on. For example, horses probably have genetic information coding for extra toes, but it is switched off in most modern horses. Sometimes a horse is born today where the genes are switched on, and certainly many fossil horses also had the genes switched on. This phenomenon explains the fossil record of the horse, showing that it is variation within a kind, not evolution. It also explains why there are no transitional forms showing gradually smaller toe size” http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
“Who’s Really Pushing Bad Science?”
“However, this horse ‘series’ is constructed from a rock badger on the bottom, while the rest comprises nothing but different varieties of horses, little different in many respects from the range of sizes, toe number, etc. seen in horses living today” http://www.trueorigin.org/lerner_resp.asp
“I am not a believer in design theory because of I have a problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with chimps. This possibility really does not bother me at all. What bothers me is that I know of various functions in different creatures that are separated by large neutral gaps in function. Such neutral gaps cannot be crossed except via random drift. This drift cannot be guided by the forces of natural selection toward any particular genetic sequence over any other particular genetic sequence - be it beneficially functional or not. Such random drift simply takes too long to produce the various independent functions that we do observe in living things. It is this problem that has convinced me of the truth of design theory and of the implausibility of common decent as an overriding explanation for the huge range in life forms that we see in the natural world. A selection mechanism that is phenotypically based cannot direct neutral genotypic changes. This is my problem with the theory of evolution. I do not have a problem with the idea of the common decent of anything, but I do have a problem with the mechanisms that have been suggested as a driving force for such changes” http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/donkeyshorsesmules.html
The "big bang" is an interesting cosmological model that both arose from, and has been the impetus for, some remarkable discoveries. It seems to me that "throwing in the towel" on Georges Lemaître's hypothesis and declaring off limits any further modifications of it, as well as, presumably, any futher investigations of an expanding universe and its implications, would be a rather bizarre exercise in Medieval retrogression.
Empirical science will show that origins is not in the field of empirical science.
How?
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense, it is simply a logical description of empirical process, not empirical evidence of a phenomena.
I have no idea what this means.
There is a difference between investigation and conclusion.
Right. Look, but don't think.
And yet, you agree that the supernatural is not the business of science, and then you turn around and reprimand me for saying science should not explain the inexplicable.(i.e., supernatural)?
Wait a minute. Science "should not explain the inexplicable?" Why not? And are you suggesting that whatever is currently inexplicable must be supernatural? This is just weird.
All those aspects of science are fine, just as long as your axiom does not dogmatically disqualify empirically qualifiable evidence.
No scientist I am aware of "dogmatically disqualifies empirically qualifiable evidence." Maybe you have an example?
You said my method was too quick to 'throw in the towel' and in fact, the Naturalistic method never 'throws in the towel'. In my opinion, the latter is worse than the former.
I understand. It's "worse" because those doggone scientists keep poking around in those cherished gaps where the supernatural resides. But your demand that Science-Must-Stop-Right-Now is up against human curiosity. I'll put my money on the latter.
If you wish to discuss this further, I would ask that you refrain from continued bait-n-switch, strawman and elephant hurling tactics.
I didn't know I was guilty. Heck, I'm just trying to make heads or tails out of what you're saying.
Do you wish to discuss empirically scientific evidence or do you wish to discuss the philosophy of science.
I'll choose evidence. Philosophical mumbo-jumbo is your game. And frankly, if any scientist tried to adhere to your convoluted philosophical rule book, he'd end up in a strait jacket.
"If you wish to discuss this further, I would ask that you refrain from continued bait-n-switch, strawman and elephant hurling tactics.""I didn't know I was guilty. Heck, I'm just trying to make heads or tails out of what you're saying.""Do you wish to discuss empirically scientific evidence or do you wish to discuss the philosophy of science.""I'll choose evidence. Philosophical mumbo-jumbo is your game. And frankly, if any scientist tried to adhere to your convoluted philosophical rule book, he'd end up in a strait jacket."
That is correct. Repeating your claims won't make them any more useful.
I have already read Shapiro's review numerous times. I keep pointing out that he "praises" Behe for his criticism of "orthodox evolutionary theory". Which you continue to ignore. Yes he does criticise Behe, but not exactly in the way you try to present it. This is essentially Shapiro's criticism of Behe.
First he establishes that Behe has 3 goals.(I have included what they are)
He then analyzes whether Behe achieves those goals and I include the "final" assessment that Shapiro gives to Behe as a preface to the rest of my post.
As you can see Shapiro praises Behe on achieving his goals for the first two of his three goals. Only on the third goal is Shapiro negative on Behe. I will only mention that the most devastating comments Shapiro makes in those two achieved goals are those about Darwinism e.g. "only a variety of wishful speculations", " It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution --with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."
Now his "attack on Behe's third goal begins with, "Curiously, he treats intelligent design as a novel discovery." In his expansion on that point, Shapiro slaps Darwinism again while establishing his interpretation of the "real" third goal, Historically, then, the real issue is not the recent "discovery" of intelligent design in biology but rather why orthodox science currently denies what has seemed obvious for so long." What? Intelligent design in biology has seemed obvious for so long. Shapiro said that. Okay, he is not establishing the wellspring of that intelligence, but he nonetheless establishes that it still applies and must be explained.(ergo Dawkins fails to explain it)
Continuing his negative criticism of Behe, he expresses his dissatisfaction with Behe's lack of reporting the tremendous inroads biology has made in "revealing the inherent intelligence of complex molecular and cellular systems." Shapiro then describes something that Behe describes as "a Rube Goldberg", the blood-clotting cascade in glowing terms.
Shapiro then describes his biggest problem with Behe, "Professor Behe's most serious faux pas is suggesting that intelligent design may lie outside the domain of scientific investigation." He does this with an incomplete quote, "The dilemma is that while one side . . . is labeled intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God." Well, he left out some important information. The complete quote seems to be "The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God.". The incomplete statement is confusing in that one might conclude that God is on the opposing side against intelligent design. The complete quote makes it clearer that Behe was equating intelligent design with God. That along with Shapiro's reading of the subtitle of the book allows him to comclude "suggests that it attacks the idea of evolution, not just Darwinian theories of change. " Well, that is an attack on Shapiro so he further concludes "Even the scientific approach is questioned. In the third section of Darwin's Black Box, in a partially justified attack on groupthink in the scientific community, Professor Behe chides colleagues for asserting that scientists must strive for explanations exclusively in terms of natural phenomena. " At this point Shapiro makes the statement(s), "But his appeal to explanations beyond the realm of nature is premature. Darwinism and creationism are not the only conceivable intellectual frameworks for thinking about the evolution of biological adaptations and diversity. The pertinent scientific questions have not all been asked." Notice the word "premature". He does not enclose the word in quotes or otherwise indicate ironic understatement. He thus does not forever exclude explanations "beyond the realm of nature". So you are premature in speaking for Dr. Shapiro.
Shapiro continues his dismissal of his reading of Behe's intent by asking, "Yet where does intelligence come from? . He follows with a series of questions relating to intelligence culminating in, "Could these examples of intelligent action in nature relate to the appearance of intelligent biochemical systems in evolution?" That is the question. He continues on to say, "Its fundamental driving forces have not been resolved either in detail or in principle." Fundamental driving forces have not been resolved!? Well, that certainly leaves Darwinism out.
He sums up his critique with this statement, "Where Darwin's Black Box undermines itself is in abandoning the effort to treat the question of intelligent design within science's own ongoing evolution." and this one which you've posted, "The second new factor, strangely ignored by Professor Behe, is the existence of computers and information networks. Having exemplars of physical objects endowed with computational and decision-making capabilities shows that there is nothing mystical, religious, or supernatural about discussing the potential for similarly intelligent action by living organisms." Having physical exemplars is absolutely correct. But those exemplars do not arise except from higher intelligence, namely us. So if we discuss the potential for similarly intelligent action by living organisms using the exemplars we must conclude a higher intelligence is at work or conclusively show how this innate intelligence is produced de novo. And that does not involve Darwinian handwaving.
Shapiro's final words are fairly temperate in critcism of Behe, "Sadly, despite its valuable critique of an all-too-often unchallenged orthodoxy, Darwin's Black Box fails to capture the true excitement of contemporary biology because it is fighting the battles of the past rather than seeing the vision of the future." You'll note the title of the book is "Darwin's Black Box" and not "Science cannot explain Life". Shapiro agrees with the black box concept.
Now your citation of Johnson as the source of Discovery Institute being "pretty unhappy" is a little confusing. I find it difficult to be even a little bit unhappy with, That sounds like a ringing endorsement of Behe’s scientific claims". The only overt criticism of Shapiro by Johnson is that his mind is locked into the materialist philosophy. And concludes with a reasonable question. The "criticism" you cited is pretty weak. In any case, for what it is worth, I disagree with Johnson's assessment of Shapiro being locked into the materialist philosophy.
You may try to speak for Shapiro and the Discovery Institute, but you are Tiny Tim as Canio in "Pagliacci".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.