Skip to comments.
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll (69% of Americans Want alternate theories allowed in class)
WorldnetDaily.Com ^
| 03/07/2006
Posted on 03/07/2006 2:34:37 PM PST by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720, 721-740, 741-760 ... 941-953 next last
To: darbymcgill
I'm sure you would agree that just because we haven't found any evidence, doesn't mean there is none. Great. So when you've found some evidence from ID, let me know. In the mean time, it has no place in the classroom.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
That guy looks an awful lot like D*rwin.
722
posted on
03/08/2006 6:04:20 PM PST
by
Ken H
To: darbymcgill
We are somewhat in agreement here... I'm sure you would agree that just because we haven't found any evidence, doesn't mean there is none.The shameful thing about ID is, in its two hundred year history, it has never looked, nor has it ever suggested what it might be looking for.
723
posted on
03/08/2006 6:12:41 PM PST
by
js1138
To: darbymcgill; bobdsmith; Right Wing Professor
I agree that one might easily "infer" from the statement that none has been found over none exists, but without further clarification, only the author knows what was implied.It's not implication. It's plain English. "Is" is present tense. "There is no" [noun] means there is (present tense = at present) no [noun]. It doesn't mean their was no [noun], or will be no [noun], or can be no [noun].
Or are you going to explain how it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is?
724
posted on
03/08/2006 6:21:17 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The origin of species is rooted in the idea of a singularity: the mechanics of the DNA molecule. All species of Terran life has it. Like the singularity of the Big Bang theory, these two are categorically inseparable as immaculate conceptions. It only takes a mere application of logic.
I suppose your comparison wouldn't have as much kick if you said that the universe originated from a point where spacetime curvature was infinite.
And of course the Big Bang in no way conceptually resembles God speaking the universe into existence.
725
posted on
03/08/2006 6:32:00 PM PST
by
ahayes
To: js1138
"Not to mention (as you already have) that any point mutation is most likely to occur in a non-coding region. For the lurkers: The majority of the genome is non-coding, a small portion of which comprises highly-conserved non-coding areas which appear to be control sequences. The rest is comprised of sequences which code for proteins. There is roughly a 1/3 chance in the coding and control regions that it will hit the third nucleotide in a codon leaving the amino acid pretty much unchanged.
What is more interesting for evolution outside the possibility of having one of the above point mutations becoming part of a coding sequence are those sequences where an active portion of a gene is affected but the resulting feature/function is invisible to the selection of the time. What is a neutral feature under current selection can become either beneficial or detrimental under differing selection.
726
posted on
03/08/2006 6:38:55 PM PST
by
b_sharp
(Come visit my new home page.)
To: darbymcgill
I agree that one might easily "infer" from the statement that none has been found over none exists Btw, this wasn't a correct statement of the issue.
"None has been found" does in fact mean that "none exists".
"Evidence" in science is like "evidence" in the law. Until it is discovered and recorded it doesn't exist. Indeed even the observation/discovery of the underlying factual material doesn't make it "evidence." It only becomes evidence when it's relevance to some scientific issue or problem has been elucidated.
727
posted on
03/08/2006 6:40:53 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Stultis
It's not implication. It's plain English.
Just because you say it's not an implication doesn't mean it's not.... shall we play dictionary cut and paste?
Would you then imply that everything yet to be discovered, "is" to be inferred as not existing? You may pick your own definition of "is". That six pound gold nugget buried in your back yard is calling your name. Does it exits? hmmmmmm......
Or are you going to explain how it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is?
Just for the record, I'm not the one redefining the terms here... I'm just wishing those of you who try to define them on your terms would please hammer them down our throats consistently... But then that would kill at least half your arguments wouldn't it....
728
posted on
03/08/2006 6:42:53 PM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: Hill of Tara
What part of public open forum don't you understand?
Would you rather I had notified your correspondent of your previous post and it's rebuttal by freepmail and hid that from you?
Do you understand the concept of open public review of submitted alleged 'evidence'? This is what scientists are required to go through whenever they present evidence. I guess you think you are exempt from that process.
You've got a lot to learn. If you don't like it here, you're free to not post here.
BTW, you're 'evidence' is crap that has been frequently repeated on this forum for years.
729
posted on
03/08/2006 6:43:08 PM PST
by
ml1954
(NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
To: Stultis
It only becomes evidence when it's relevance to some scientific issue or problem has been elucidated.
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
730
posted on
03/08/2006 6:43:33 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: darbymcgill
731
posted on
03/08/2006 6:46:01 PM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: microgood; metmom
"Statistics can be manipulated to *prove* anything, even in science.' "All the way from the setup of the analysis through the interpretation of the results."
Well its a good thing then that scientists publish the numbers and the setup to their work, that way any fudging of figures are obvious.
732
posted on
03/08/2006 6:47:42 PM PST
by
b_sharp
(Come visit my new home page.)
To: Coyoteman
I'm always amused by the twit who thinks I'm giving away the store when I say science is an inventive, creative process that involves imagination.
We seem plagued by folks who think everything can be derived from axioms by deduction or by mathematics.
733
posted on
03/08/2006 6:48:17 PM PST
by
js1138
To: js1138
"Someone should mention this to Dembski." Dembski's misuse of probabilities and information/complexity theory has been brought to his attention.
734
posted on
03/08/2006 6:50:38 PM PST
by
b_sharp
(Come visit my new home page.)
To: darbymcgill
Would you then imply that everything yet to be discovered, "is" to be inferred as not existing? Yes. I would certainly say that everything and anything "yet to be discovered" does not (and cannot) presently exist as "evidence".
The very word evidence means that it possesses implicatory relevance to some issue. Indeed the word is usually used only to describe something which has been generally recognized as relevant to some issue (even if there may be disagreement as to the conclusions to be drawn from it) by some group of persons, as for instance by a court of law, or by scientists investigating some problem.
How can anything "yet to be discovered" possibly qualify (in the present tense) as "evidence"???
735
posted on
03/08/2006 6:56:28 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: darbymcgill
IOW "evidence" is something that has
recognized relevance. That is before us. That we can point to in arguing some matter. That we can set in a potentially determinative fashion against the implications of some theory or hypothesis.
None of these things are true of anything "yet to be discovered." How can we recognize the relevance of something we don't know yet? How can we appeal to something undiscovered in advancing or overturning some argument?
736
posted on
03/08/2006 7:01:32 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Hill of Tara
Can you give an example? I can't think of any part of a human to have changed functions over the generations. If all humans descended from Adam & Eve, how and why did some end up tall, skinny & dark skinned, some end up very fair skinned, and some, like eskimos, stocky and somewhat chubby?
737
posted on
03/08/2006 7:05:55 PM PST
by
Amelia
(Education exists to overcome ignorance, not validate it.)
To: Coyoteman
Naturally I'm gratified to be in sync with the great Heinlein.
Here's a similar quote from another fellow...
About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service.
~ Charles Darwin, letter to Henry Fawcett, 18 September 1861
738
posted on
03/08/2006 7:09:47 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Stultis
Yes. I would certainly say that everything and anything "yet to be discovered" does not (and cannot) presently exist as "evidence".
Ah yes, as I suspected, a battle of definitions. That would make you the winner, since I choose not to partake. If you choose to do so that is your option. Redefine at your leisure....
739
posted on
03/08/2006 7:10:04 PM PST
by
darbymcgill
(FRevolution: The science of mutating concepts and definitions while tap dancing)
To: ahayes
Because we have this monstrous mound of evidence, if we get one little widget of evidence that's a bit confusing, it makes sense to think about a way in which it fits into the monstrous mound of evidence without disturbing it. You still miss the point. That is not science, that is diversion. Like putting a crossword puzzle together.
P.S. I don't do red herring. The discussion is ERV, and its lack of conclusiveness for determining absolute relationships. This result shows that it is not conclusive. Open your mind to the concept that no matter what the relationship of the ERV would have been with the three branches, the scenario presented would hold all possibilities. It is not falsifiable. They could all have had the virus, none, or any one of them different than the other two and the tree would have been the same.
740
posted on
03/08/2006 7:12:31 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720, 721-740, 741-760 ... 941-953 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson