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 ...
I stopped by my local library today -- but they didn't have American Journal of Physical Anthropology. (I live between two towns that could tie in the smalltown competition, out on the Olympic Peninsula, in Washington State.)
We do have one college -- a community college -- and they are likely to have it. They would probably let me walk in and read but I doubt they'd let me check anything out since I'm not a student there.
Just on a whim I checked their website -- and it let me search their library, I think. Here was the only result for my title query:
Title: American journal of physical anthropology [microform]. Publisher: New York [etc.] A. R. Liss [etc.] Subject(s): Physical anthropology --Periodicals. Anthropology --Periodicals. Location: Microfilm cabinet Call Number: No call number available Status: No information available Local Holdings: 1918 - 1970
Is that what you have in mind? Looks like they have it on microfilm, clear through 1970.
Thanks,
-Jesse
it is estimated that only 1 to 10% of all living species has even been catalogued, let alone studied in detail. New species discoveries pour in daily, and each one is a test of the theory of common descent (Wilson 1992, Ch. 8).
Hmm. Only 1% to 10%? Pour in daily? Is that still true today?
Thanks, -Jesse
That's not a recent phenomenon. Darwin himself was self-confliced about 'species', and his "successor" George Romanes put forth a new improved darwinism with the added twist that there are no such things as species. Which makes you wonder why "Origin of Species" was necessary in the first place. But this point of view really got rolling with the modern synthesis, which defined species out of existence. Nowadays a darwinian is apt to ask you what he means by species whenever he asserts that 'species x transmogrified into species y' and you have the nerve - nay, the gall to challenge it.
I see you are getting the '93,000 links and citations' treatment. I had to laugh at your misfortune, and I apologize. I've been on the receiving end of the '93,000 links and citations' treatment many times. Of course it would be sufficient to cite just one good article, but alas that is not how the darwinian mind works.
Anyway, I recommend this short 1882 booklet by an obscure writer called Frances Morris: All the Articles of the Darwin Faith. If you have already read Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man (highly recommended), you will no doubt immediately see that this is by no means a parody of Darwin, but rather a completely accurate nutshell summary of the Darwinian scientific process, it's methods of reasoning, and it's mind-games. It's even funnier if, after you read Morris's essay, you try reading Darwin again.
Well, I'd have to agree with you that that'd be mighty strong evidence indeed--that'd be about a million nearly complete skeletons. If that's the kind of evidence you're waiting for, I think you might as well resign yourself to never being convinced.
I'm not sure what a half-dog or half-fish is. Help me out here -- what's a half-dog and a half-fish?
I was referring to what you said back in #912: "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." A half-fish, half-dog would be the hypthetical creature intermediate between fish and dog.
Well, in science, if I don't find the evidence convincing then it's okay to be unconvinced. It's not like someone's religion or anything :-)
As a matter of fact, when a scientist buys into an idea without actually finding convincing supporting evidence, it's a bad thing, right?
Besides, I don't see why we won't eventually find more fossils, filling in the gaps, for example if every 10 generations would be a million fossils, then that means that there was about 10M generations -- and there must have been several hundred members to any given population each most of each stage, so that's just a lot of bones -- it makes sense that we'll keep finding more.
But how is the current state of things? so I guess you're saying that a fossil every 10 generations hasn't yet been found, but what are the state of things? every 100 generations? thousands? ten-thousand generations between fossils? Shaky?
I think you've abandoned the idea (if you ever held it) that there was ever such a thing as a half-dog, half-fish.
Now that I know that you meant "intermediate species between the dog and the fish", I can answer your question.
I have not yet found any evidence that any dog is related to any fish.
I did finish reading section 1 (of about 6) of the "29+ evidences" on T.O. and still haven't found any evidence -- except that lots of people say it's true -- but as a scientist (hobby or otherwise) another's assurance of a proof isn't the same as the proof itself, so it is valid for me to seek the actual proof.
Do you think I ought to keep reading "29+" on T.O., or is what I'll find still not going to do much for me?
Thanks,
-Jesse
Great area, one I am familiar with, but I would not expect to find a lot of professional journals in the local libraries.
But, most of the college libraries are beginning to use subscription services, which may have hundreds to thousands of journals available.
While they may only have the old microform copies on hand, they may have a subscription that will get you the new issues via an on-line service. You might check that out.
Sorry not to answer sooner--been out to some professional meetings.
(Frugals' burgers -- Yum!)
It doesn't. There's a search engine in that archive. There are links to supplemental materials in that archive. There's your library, other electronic archives, numerous other links and electronically available publications, books and texts at your local bookstore, books and texts available through Amazon and other web-based booksellers, and subscription and non-subscription periodicals. Exercise your research skills, which appear to have atrophied. Go forth. Learn. And stop whining.
OK, by slime you meant something else that wasn’t slime and probably wasn’t slimy.
I am not qualified in abiogenesis, my chemistry is not strong enough. I don’t do cosmology.
And, as stated repeatedly, I don’t do obfuscatory arguments.
How come it has to be 93,000 or nothing?
It doesn't. There's a search engine in that archive. There are links to supplemental materials in that archive. There's your library, other electronic archives, numerous other links and electronically available publications, books and texts at your local bookstore, books and texts available through Amazon and other web-based booksellers, and subscription and non-subscription periodicals. Exercise your research skills, which appear to have atrophied. Go forth. Learn. And stop whining.
Ahh, just as I thought. There's mountains of solid evidence, and yet no-one can give me one good evidence.
But I do see one evidence -- when the inquirer finds himself the recipient of ad hominem arguments he has a reasonable chance of being correct in his argument!
About the only time I see sober grown men insulting eachother is when the instultee's argument is correct so the only thing then left to attack is the messenger.
After long enough of a person hearing "There's mountains of solid evidence" and after long enough of being insulted for asking "what is the best evidence," a thinking person is quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that there isn't mountains of solid evidence.
-Jesse
Ahh, so those two areas are just matters of faith or unknown for ya, then.
-Jesse
Great area, one I am familiar with, but I would not expect to find a lot of professional journals in the local libraries.
You know, I once heard that some prehistoric animal, maybe a mammoth of some sort, was found around this area with an arrowhead stuck in its rib. Never saw it myself, I'll have to find out more about that.
If you're ever in the area, you'll have to look me up and maybe we can go exploring or something. There are some old mines around the area from the late 1800s and early 1900s.
-Jesse
I searched a bit on the nice government website you gave me a link for. Found some interesting things. It almost looks like evolution is a religion -- a government approved religion!
The search word you provided me gave 93000 articles allegedly supporting evolution. But I searched for "Intelligent Design" and found a few interesting ones. Titles that one wouldn't expect on a scientific government site. Like, for example the title Don’t be stupid about intelligent design Amazing! or perhaps this one: Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Wow! A call to action? That doesn't sound very scientific.
So does all the research and evidence point to evolution being true, or does all the government research money point to evolution being true? Thousands of pro-evolution research articles are government funded, including intelligent design bashing articles.
How much government money needs to be thrown behind a theory before it's hard to tell whether the theory lives on the evidence or lives on the government funding?
I can see that such a website as I've linked to above is much more a propaganda mill rather then a scientific research resource.
-Jesse
That is the Manis Mastodon site, in Sequim (actually Happy Valley). And it was a bone spear point in the rib.
The rib and point are in the museum downtown.
Oh brother. Still whining that no one will take you by the hand and lead you to the library. Get off your sofa. You can also look around on this very site for information and links, such as that available at this post. There are many more by the same author.
But I do see one evidence -- when the inquirer finds himself the recipient of ad hominem arguments he has a reasonable chance of being correct in his argument!
There's nothing "ad hominem" about suggesting that you actually assist yourself and do a little leg work. And your self-imposed ignorance is no indication of your correctness.
I searched a bit on the nice government website you gave me a link for.
Good for you. It's refreshing to exercise your brain, isn't it?
Found some interesting things. It almost looks like evolution is a religion -- a government approved religion!
And your basis for this conclusion is the following?
I searched for "Intelligent Design" and found a few interesting ones. Titles that one wouldn't expect on a scientific government site. Like, for example the title Don’t be stupid about intelligent design Amazing! or perhaps this one: Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Wow! A call to action? That doesn't sound very scientific.
My goodness. You mean to tell me that in an archive of journal articles (otherwise known as a library), you found something you disagree with? Why, that archive should be shut down. Or at the very least the government should censor its content in accordance with your personal religious beliefs. It's only just.
I can see that such a website as I've linked to above is much more a propaganda mill rather then a scientific research resource.
A description of that "propaganda mill":
PubMed is a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine that includes over 17 million citations from MEDLINE and other life science journals for biomedical articles back to the 1950s. PubMed includes links to full text articles and other related resources.
I suppose it's obvious now why you won't get off your duff and go to the library. Libraries are nothing but "propaganda mills." After all, there's subversive stuff in there that you don't like, and we can't have that in our brave new world.
I'll also add that this persistent refrain of yours is not only disingenuous, it is juvenily disingenuous.
In my profession, I deal with the cumulative effect of evidence on a regular basis. Standing alone, a single fact or evidentiary data point is rarely if ever dispositive or even persuasive. With the addition of evidence, however, inferences become more compelling, and it is precisely the cumulative effect of multiple evidentiary data points that permits courts and juries to draw dispositive conclusions.
This is such a self-evident process that no court or juror I have ever encountered has proposed your absurd iteration -- that the beach must be ignored because no single grain of sand demonstrates its existence.
You really should not be surprised that your obvious, if tedious, game is greeted with disparagement. When any singular evidence is dismissed as "not enough," and multiple evidences are dismissed as "too much," there's not much point in continuing the discussion.
Just out of curiosity, may I ask what your profession is?
With the addition of evidence, however, inferences become more compelling, and it is precisely the cumulative effect of multiple evidentiary data points that permits courts and juries to draw dispositive conclusions.
The problem is that the courts and juries are people that most likely didn't have time to devote their life to studying these thousands of tiny evidences, and who can't see the evidence themselves -- and as a result they probably just believed in the existence of all the evidence at the advise of the lawyers who asserted that it was true, and who are probably not above name-calling and insulting.
that the beach must be ignored because no single grain of sand demonstrates its existence.
A grain of sand doesn't prove the existence of a beach, unless it's found with a lot of other grains of sand along the waters edge. There's sand in the desert and there's sand mixed in with topsoil and deep "soil" everywhere I've ever dug up.
Standing alone, a single fact or evidentiary data point is rarely if ever dispositive or even persuasive. With the addition of evidence, however, inferences become more compelling,
Ahh, so we're getting someplace! There is no best evidence. There's not even any great evidence. The only evidence is a thousand little evidences each which by themselves can't stand alone, but stand only on the presumption that others can stand. It's like the farmer who knew that ostriches simply cannot fly because they have too little wing feather surface area, too little wing strength and too much weight, but he figures that if he harnesses a hundred of them together, each of their small lifting power will add up and then they will be able to fly!
But if the answer is "There is no persuasive single fact, and thou must studieth them all for years in order to see the evidence" -- then why didn't someone just tell me that in the first place?
When any singular evidence is dismissed as "not enough," and multiple evidences are dismissed as "too much,"
That's not exactly correct. It is true that I was given too little evidence -- as in not one good one. But it's not true that I was given too much evidence -- I was given too much to read in a lifetime, with no direction as to where I should start to find the alleged evidence. This looks like a common tactic of pointing the opponent to an impossibly large pool of documents and saying "If you want the evidence, you'll have to find it yourself in there. You're on your own." But I suspect that when you call on me to find the evidence for your argument that it must mean you couldn't find it :-)
Thanks,
-Jesse
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.