Intellectuals Who Doubt Darwin

The American Prowler ^ | 11/24/2004 | Hunter Baker

[longshadow]

...."no true transitional fossil" has ever been found."

Truly inspirational; and tastefully done, I might add.

[Lurking2Long]

That's a comparison, son.

Sorry, "Dad", it's an analogy.

But you've been working overtime to shove *him* into many boxes due to your preconceptions (e.g. "humanist", etc.), I've noticed...

If the box fits, by all means, shove...

Say, what was that one about the mote and the beam again?

I've balanced the "beam" quite nicely, but I guess with you that's a "mote" point...

There's a point here, but I suspect you'll miss it.

I certainly did not miss the point, but you appear to be missing God.

Sometimes I feel closer to Galileo.

By all means, please keep channeling Galileo...at least HE knew he wasn't the center of the universe...

[Ichneumon]

Let's see...researchers who were debating whether or not two populations of mice were distinct subspecies conclude that they are not, contrary to an earlier conclusion because they have more up-to-date methods available. How is that redefinition of species again? Looks to me like they investigated an issue and came to a conclusion that a previous classification was inadequate. They didn't redefine species, they determined that a previous test of speciation was not adequate.

Even more to the point, how is that allegedly an example of "evolutionists" allegedly "redefining species"? Or is it G Larry's belief that anything anyone working remotely in biology does is somehow necessarily an example of "evolutionists" performing some nefarious thoughtcrime?

Does he even know for a fact that the researchers in question were "evolutionists" as such, or were doing the alleged redefining *as* evolutionists (as opposed to as ecologists, etc.)?

Methinks he incorrectly sees the biological sciences as just one big undifferentiated "blur" of conspiractorial "evolutionists"...

[Ichneumon]

It's not me whom you need to worry about being damned by...

Boy, will *you* be surprised when Odin makes final judgement on you in Valhalla...

(Occam as applied to Pascal's wager bump)

[Lurking2Long]

Yeah, like that underdog bald man who won out over the two kids teasing him about his baldness, when the Lord sent a bear to rip the kids to shreds and helped him "win out".

Zero points for context...100 points for originality...

[Ichneumon]

The wise man does not waste time trying to make sense of that which is senseless."

How true, how true... But not quite in the way that you meant it.

[general_re]

Hey, good taste is practically my middle name :^)

[Lurking2Long]

Boy, will *you* be surprised when Odin makes final judgement on you in Valhalla... The "razor" cuts both ways...

[Lurking2Long]

How true, how true... But not quite in the way that you meant it.

You, however, I did NOT give permission to quote me.

:')

[Ichneumon]

I listen to rock of all variations at my job for hours. You have no idea how wonderful it is to come home and listen to classical. Sometimes it seems like a highly spiritual experience.

I've had the opposite experience, sort of.

I enjoy most forms of music, but after seeing the film "Amadeus" for the first time (in the theater), I came out to my car, turned on the ignition, and the radio started playing the "pop rock" station I had been listening to earlier. My initial reaction was, "what is this crap they're playing, it just sounds like *noise*!" Then I realized they were playing a song I've always liked... After three hours of Mozart, the contrast was jarring.

I laughed and described my reaction to my movie companion, and she laughed and said that she had the same first impression of the music on the radio as well.

[Dimensio]

Zero points for context

What context? It's a pretty clear and unpleasant passage. They weren't threatening him with violence, they were mearly teasing him for his baldness, and for that "transgression", God sent she-bears to tear forty-two of them to shreds.

[Ichneumon]

I remember watching an educational program on television in which an Evolutionary Biologist discussed the possibility that, based upon application of the Law of Entropy to evolution, it could be argued that some mutations were not random at all and were instead directed to maximize energy resources within a given ecological system. He used examples of several types of grasses, and I forget which ones, that he claimed evolved from a common ancestor which he named, and that the distinct ways in which they evolved suggested that they were attempting to make better use of sunlight and that the various mutations of color, width of the leaves, height of the plant, etc. could all be explained as an attempt to maximize use of the sun's rays in their distinct geographical regions. He believed this suggested that the mutations were not random at all but were instead oriented towards the end of not leaving energy resources, i.e. sunlight, unused.

Since it sounds as if he was looking at the modern species, I don't see how in the world he could have determined whether the genetic differences between them were due to "directed mutation", as he hypothesizes, or "directed *selection*" (a redundancy -- selection is, by definition, directed) of undirected mutations.

It seems that there would be no way to differentiate between the two processes, looking only at the end results.

[longshadow]

super-script/sub-script error alert.

[RadioAstronomer]

Dang! :-(

[StJacques]

"Since it sounds as if he was looking at the modern species, I don't see how in the world he could have determined whether the genetic differences between them were due to "directed mutation", as he hypothesizes, or "directed *selection*" (a redundancy -- selection is, by definition, directed) of undirected mutations.

It seems that there would be no way to differentiate between the two processes, looking only at the end results."

That seems to be a valid observation to me. And I am trying to restate the explanation the evolutionary biologist gave as best I can, being some distance in time removed from watching that episode, which makes it difficult and makes me worry that I may get it wrong. But one thing I do remember is that he pointed out that, after the evolution of the various new species of grasses in distinct ecological regions, one of the common observations that could be made across these distinct ecological systems is that all of them possessed plant life, and his focus was on grasses, which left less of the energy available to them unused than before. He also went on to discuss the "megaflora" that was prevalent at the beginning of this process, when the principal ancestor of the new species of grasses was present, and then stated some hypotheses about why the "megaflora" did not survive, which essentially -- at least as best as I can restate this -- came down to the fact that they left too much energy within their ecological systems unused and were replaced by flora that made far more efficient use of that energy. And the disappearance of the "megaflora" he believed was the primary reason for the disappearance of the "megafauna" that has only been completed quite recently in the spanse of geologic time.

I have to confess that I am getting a little nervous discussing all of this in some detail because it has been quite a while since I saw this program, which I found fascinating, but the key point the evolutionary biologist made, and of this I am sure, is that his research suggested that natural selection may only explain the evolution of certain living organisms whose populations are under stress, while there may be an overall thrust to evolutionary development that is quite different.

[RadioAstronomer]

F=Gm¹m²/r²

[Ichneumon]

Ich, if you'd followed my posts at all, you'd know that I most firmly object to evolution on scientific grounds,

I know you object to evolution on what you *think* are scientific grounds. Unfortunately, all too many anti-evolutionists greatly overestimate their scientific ability and knowledge.

and frankly, could not possibly care less what you think about my intellect or knowledge or whatever.

I didn't expect you to.

Evolution is foolish on its face and the deeper you go, the more ridiculous it gets.

Okay, tell you what -- feel free to present what you think is your *best* scientific objection to evolution, the one that shows how "foolish" and "ridiculous" it is.

If it holds water, I'll apologize profusely.

If it doesn't, you get to apologize to me for attacking a scientific theory without really knowing what you're talking about.

Go for it.

[searchandrecovery]

I think there could be life on other planets. I think there could be life on other planets pre-earth, now, and post-earth. I don't think life is limited to earth. But, you know, who knows for sure - not me.

[Ichneumon]

You, however, I did NOT give permission to quote me. :')

Eek! (*runs for cover*)

[Ichneumon]

[Boy, will *you* be surprised when Odin makes final judgement on you in Valhalla...]

The "razor" cuts both ways...

Yes, my point exactly... That's the flaw in "Pascal's Wager".