Posted on 05/30/2005 7:54:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Thanks for making my point for me; therefore the "theory of evolution" supplied is not a theory.
So the rest of your analysis is kind of meaninless.
Actually, as the rest of the analysis supports your very statement "that's not a hypothesis", it has the same meaning. Thanks for your support of my thesis. ;^)
W.K.
Additionally, I will only add this; the more times you use the following words in relationship to a theory or hypothesis, the farther you are away from a correct/scientifically accurate hypothesis or theory. These are the words this author used, I just copied and pasted them; many, majority, can be, partly, may affect x 2, is largely based, slightly, usually, can range, preferentially, would be, relative, may gradually, may eventually, may occur, can occur, random, some, can operate, can bring, can confer, can account, can alter, may be, most, often x 4, several, provides, most, frequently, not necessarily, one version, ...etc... I stopped at point 14 as it became obvious that there is a lot of guess work in this post, based largely on supposition and assumption. Of course you are free to disagree. If there is a hypothesis or theory anywhere in there, I missed it, but I know you will point it out for me; when you do, please keep in mind the Scientific Method definition of a good hypothesis.
Cheers, WhiteKnight
So your mundane point is that the phrase "common ancestry" alone does not comprise the theory of evolution?
Alot of verbiage to state the obvious, don't you think?
I was unaware that scientific theories were subject to rhetorical requirements. Perhaps you could point me to some reputable source that mandates disqualification of theories that fail your "pithiness test."
Or you could just admit that you're making all this up as you go.
Normally I wouldn't bother with a reply to such a supercilious posting, but for the purposes of others who may be following along and for perspective's sake, I will interject the following: 1) This was not my definition but the authors, so if you didn't like it, you should have given me a better one (still waiting). 2) I still have not seen a sound "theory of evolution", based on the Scientific Method, as seen by your post. This means the argument I put forward is sound, sufficient, obviously to the point and wasn't refuted; which was my point all along. 3) Your opinion on the profundity of my post is irrelevant (it worked). 4) I also conclude anything less would have invited an even less amicable response.
Alot of verbiage to state the obvious, don't you think?
As you disagreed with the shorter version I posted earlier (but apparently agree with now) and considering whom I am dealing with (and to keep those who are confused to a minimum), probably not. Additionally, your opinion on the length of my post is irrelevant (once again, it worked).
It is usually at this point, where nothing more substantive is forthcoming from the gallery, that I stop spending my time responding to the vacuous.
If however, you have found a "theory of evolution" that meets the requirements of the Scientific Method, I would still like to see it.
Continually at your service, the WhiteKnight
Okay, I promise this will be the last response to the vacuous, but I couldn't help myself.
As usual, you missed; there is nothing rhetorical about common sense. But to satisfy those who may be following along, I submit the following quote: "Everything should be made as simple as possible..." Albert Einstein
The rest of your post was unintelligible, W.K.
(1) Taking component parts of the theory of evolution provided to you by others, and by gaseous analysis declaring that these component parts do not in and of themselves constitute a complete or adequate theory of evolution;
(2) Then taking a fairly good synopsis of the facets that comprise the theory (provided to you in post 216) and declaring that this synopsis is inadequate because it is, by your self-imposed compositional criteria, too "convoluted", too "complex", and in violation of a "short and sweet" rule that you have grafted on to the "Scientific Method" (why do you keep capitalizing that phrase?).
Your argument 1 is pointless.
Your argument 2 is pure fabrication (or an admirable confession that you are incapable of digesting any theory that exceeds in complexity a television news headline).
I will close by noting that the mendacity of your argument 2 is only highlighted by your misrepresentation of Einstein's comment concerning simplicity.
Once again incorrect, I didn't use "gaseous analysis" (you declaring it thus does not make it so, as a matter of fact, your attempt to disparage by innuendo, leads me to believe it was an even better argument than originally thought, thanks) on the "theories" provided; only analyzed them using the Scientific Method, the fact you don't/won't/can't comprehend this is not my problem. Your self-admission that the component parts do not constitute a complete or adequate theory is compelling.
Also, I didn't declare anything, just applied the Scientific Method to the "theories" others sent me; the fact you don't get it is not surprising.
(2) Then taking a fairly good synopsis of the facets that comprise the theory (provided to you in post 216) and declaring that this synopsis is inadequate because it is, by your self-imposed compositional criteria,
Your analysis is again in error. You obviously didn't read my entire response to that post. In any case, my response was, I believe, direct and to the point, whether you get it or not, is your problem not mine. Also, I didn't ask for a "good synopsis of the facets of the theory"; I simply asked for the theory and am still waiting after multiple attempts on the authors part.
too "convoluted", too "complex", and in violation of a "short and sweet" rule that you have grafted on to the "Scientific Method".
Wrong again; I never declared the post in violation of anything, so you are being intellectually dishonest. The following is the part of the post in question, word for word: A hypothesis should be simple (not complex), elegant (not convoluted), short and sweet. The post is none of the above. The operative words are should be, and your attempt to spin it some other way, says a lot about you. Additionally, I stand by what I wrote, the previous post was not simple, elegant, short or sweet. Common sense would dictate, that a good hypothesis should have these elements, you disagree, which is okay, but I believe this opinion would leave you in the minority on this issue. Two additional points; 1)This was an attempt to help the author to cut down on the extraneous verbiage and to encourage the author to come up with a usable "theory of evolution" we could discuss. 2)Okay, as your way makes so much more sense, let's do it your way; your theory should be be complicated, convoluted, vague and bulky, the sheer logic of this is overwhelming! With that in mind, I will defer to your vastly superior reasoning on this topic and just for you, go with convoluted, complicated, vague and bulky. So, now that you have your way, I patiently await your, convoluted, complicated, vague, and bulky "theory of evolution". Any chance of seeing it soon?
W.K.
p.s. If you don't prefer Einstein, how about Occam's Razor. No, disregard that, for you the KISS principle would be more apropos.
"I patiently await your, convoluted, complicated, vague, and bulky 'theory of evolution'. Any chance of seeing it soon?"
Your desire to have the theory of evolution reduced to a sound bite wouldn't have anything to do with your desire to demonstrate that such reductive terminology renders the theory inadequate, would it?
Post 216 states the theory and its component parts fairly well, your refusal to read it in its entirety (and specious objections to what you did read) notwithstanding. You may also go to the following, convenient sites for further discussion:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
1. The earth revolves around the sun.
2. The earth rotates on its axis.
3. There are little green men living on the moon and these men were observed by the Apollo astronauts.
By your logic, either all of my post is true, or it is compromised and therefore none of it is. Therefore, since statement 3 above is false, statements 1 and 2 are also false. The earth therefore doesn't revolve around the sun nor does it rotate on its axis.
So a falsification of ID would then entail showing that a system that would not function without one of its parts could form via a process of stepwise evolution. How about this:
A group of organisms has subsystems A,B,C,D, and E present in its population. A given function can be performed only by systems with the following compositions of subsystems: A, AB, ABC, ABCD, ABCDE, BCDE, and CDE, to varying degrees of efficiency.
It's certainly possible for an organism with only A to evolve system AB. Similarly, by stepwise evolutionary processes, it's possible to build system ABC from AB, system ABCD from ABC and system ABCDE from ABCD. However, stepwise evolutionary processes can also cause component parts to be eliminated when they are redundant. Therefore, system BCDE can originate from ABCDE via a stepwise evolutionary process, and similarly CDE can originate from BCDE.
System CDE is an irreducibly complex system, based on the definition given by ID supporters. Removing any of the three components of CDE gives a nonfunctional system. I have therefore shown that irreducibly complex systems can indeed form via stepwise evolutionary process, in contradiction to the main claim you give for ID.
I started this discussion with one goal in mind; the "theory of evolution" does not pass the rigors of the Scientific Method. Any diversion from that topic does not interest me and more to the point is irrelevant to the subject at hand. I have asked for something I thought would be simple for the gallery at large to produce the "theory of evolution", after multiple attempts by the gallery, I admit I was wrong. 0 for 6 isn't pretty.
I know you will dispute this, that's fine, flame away, I have wasted enough time.
Best wishes, W.K.
That could be because evolution doesn't and hasn't ever dealt with the origin of life.
So you apparently believe that had Adam and Eve not sinned that there would be no death, right? God also told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" before the fall, correct? My question then is where were we all supposed to live? Using a conservative 2.2% annual birth rate (population doubling every 30 years), and of course a 0% death rate, and a creation date of 10000 years ago, the current population of the earth would have been approximately 2 x 10^100!!!
That may not mean much, so let's try to make it more meaningful. Assume that the average human weighs about 50 kilograms. The weight of all these humans would then be approximately 10^101 kilograms. The weight of the earth is approximately 6 x 10^27 kilograms, so the weight of all these people would be roughly 10^73 times greater than the weight of the earth. Even if God intended us to inhabit planets circling other stars, this doesn't work out well. Assuming a planetary capacity of 10^12 (one trillion) humans, it would require 10^88 planets to accomodate all the humans. It is estimated that there are at the upper bound of the estimates 10^24 stars in the universe. Therefore, each star must have 10^64 planets all of which must be habitable by humans to accomodate all the people that would be alive. Obviously, God either meant for us to stop reproducing at some point, in which case, why would we be commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" or the death that was brought on by the fall meant something other than death of the physical body, maybe the spiritual death of separation from God and damnation to hell, for example.
Right. And to accomplish your goal, you need to attack something other than the actual theory of evolution. Hence my question.
"The fact you can't/won't/unable to present a working theory (convoluted or otherwise) is interesting and telling."
Read post 216. Substantively. Then read the sites that I directed you to.
The fact that you refuse to address the actual theory of evolution, and demand a restatement of it that will permit you to accomplish your "goal", is equally telling.
"As to reviewing multiple sites, for something you should be easily able to provide to this discussion, would be an extreme waste of my time (it is also apparently beyond your ability to accomplish, so I will stop asking)."
Oh. I see. No candles for you. Personally, I blame the public school system.
You've got a wrong definition, then. Evolution refers to the theory that the diversity of life can best be explained by a process in which the variation over time in the genetic makeup of organism populations can lead to new species of organisms. It doesn't specifically state that this must be an unguided process. Certain methodological and philosophical assumptions of science lead scientists to formulate the theory in terms of unguided processes since a guiding hand isn't needed to explain the observed data, but the theory would fall apart if it were to be conclusively demonstrated that the process occurred, but it did so as a result of a guiding intelligence.
According to Darwin you are correct. However, it has been taught for years as the origin of life, and Creationists, no matter what their position on micro-evolution, have been ridiculed by teachers from high school to university levels. Admit that it is a theory which seems to be somewhat supported by the teleological evidence, but as yet unproven, and that it has been improperly used to ridicule believers in God and we have no argument at all.
John 1:3
Case closed.
Amen!
"Additionally, I will only add this; the more times you use the following words in relationship to a theory or hypothesis, the farther you are away from a correct/scientifically accurate hypothesis or theory. These are the words this author used, I just copied and pasted them; many, majority, can be, partly, may affect x 2, is largely based, slightly, usually, can range, preferentially, would be, relative, may gradually, may eventually, may occur, can occur, random, some, can operate, can bring, can confer, can account, can alter, may be, most, often x 4, several, provides, most, frequently, not necessarily, one version, ...etc... I stopped at point 14 as it became obvious that there is a lot of guess work in this post, based largely on supposition and assumption. Of course you are free to disagree. If there is a hypothesis or theory anywhere in there, I missed it, but I know you will point it out for me; when you do, please keep in mind the Scientific Method definition of a good hypothesis.
"Cheers, WhiteKnight
What is this, your version of the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy?
Its apparent you are more interested in trying to prove the ToE is not a theory than you are in discussing any of its tenets. So be it.
Partially correct, as I have stated; I believe evolution to be bad science. [As this is your theory (and as there seems to be some confusion on just what it is), I have logically asked for it to be submitted for discussion. I had assumed, for those on this thread who are evolution experts, this would have been something relatively easy to produce. It is becoming apparent, my assumption in this particular matter, was incorrect.] In any case, to prove this, the most logical approach would be to determine if the "theory of evolution" passes the rigors of the Scientific Method. Seems reasonable, yes?? For if the "theory of evolution" fails the Scientific Method, then the tenets of the theory would then be on very shaky ground. Wouldn't you agree?
Now I freely admit, I could be wrong on my assumption of the "theory of evolution" being bad science. Which is why, I am willing to discuss this topic. All other topics on this thread hold no interest for me.
Also, why discuss the tenets of a theory, if the theory itself is void? If the theory holds up, then I would be more than willing to discuss the beliefs of said theory. I find this to be the most logical approach.
What is this, your version of the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy?
Still didn't see a theory anywhere. I am a humble individual and know you will indulge me in this matter by pointing it out, thanks. As to the "your version" comment, I don't interpret the Scientific Method, just apply it. I understand this bothers some people, but it seems the most reasonable methodology to approach this subject with. As you apparently were unable to disprove, logically discount or generate a useful systematic argument against what I posted, I most assume it is valid.
WhiteKnight
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.