More scientists express doubts on Darwin

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 22, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

[Coyoteman]

re: your link

Walter ReMine is a creationist, one of the leading proponents of "Baraminology" (under the term "discontinuity systematics"). Much like creation "science" is now ID.

I don't know why anyone would trust anything he has to say about science? I think your link just reinforces this.

[Seamoth]

Heh. Turned up that link on a Google search, wondering if it was nonsense or if it was a known term in YEC circles. Definitely the latter, and I could only make it past two paragraphs.

Baraminology | discontinuity systematics

You piqued my curiosity, so I went & wiki'd baraminology. Reads like it's written in a foreign langauge... at least it's good that there are at least some attempts at defining creation science rather than "disproving" evolution.

[GourmetDan]

No, in order for a new gene or set of genes to move to fixation, all members of the population that do *not* carry it and their offspring must be lost and replaced by new population members that carry it. No small feat. And the more differences, the higher the cost. Eventually, you just can't get here from there.

The only reason it is 'fascinating' is because you get to use your imagination to 'imagine' what may have happened.

But ultimately that's all it really is, 'imagining' unobserved 'events' that never really happened.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

The basis for your argument that ToE is based on credulity seems to be that it is supported not by evidence, but by interpretation of evidence. However, ALL of science is like that. Can you give me one example of evidence sans interpretation? Can you give me one example of a science (that you believe in) that is NOT based on the interpretation of evidence? What makes evidence evidence is the interpretation.

If you think you have some contrary evidence, present it and I will demonstrate where the evidence leaves off and the interpretation starts.

Again, I see this as nothing more than a game. It is a simple matter to manufacture ANY alternative interpretation as a "refutation" to the interpretation presented. My offer to demonstrate this stands. I could walk into any science class on any campus and disagree with everything the professor presents, offering up a variety of "alternative explanations". Does that invalidate any of those classes? Of course not. For some strange reason, universities keep churning out scientists who seem to be able to get real results from all those arbitrary interpretations.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

And that nice drawing is about as strong as it all gets as for evo.

At the risk of igniting your volatile temperament, you asked in your post 853 on this thread, for a link to transitional organisms. The site I linked to contains thousands of transitional species by their scientific names.

If you don't want to know, then don't ask. I realize that many creationists have committed themselves to the anti-science cause, and then call their approach "scientific".

I'll merely paraphrase what Ann Coulter wrote in "Godless", "even if evolution is true, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist".

[js1138]

Actually, all the offspring of any population are eventually lost.

How about the cost of replacing the human race after all but five are lost? Natural isn't he only kind of selection.

[GourmetDan]

Nope. The laws of gravity are evidence. They can be observed over and over and over again. They are totally scientific.

The 'theory of gravity' is not evidence. It is metaphysical because it attempts to explain evidence.

What makes evidence is the *observation*, NOT the 'interpretation'. That's why you guys incorrectly believe evolution is 'evidence-based', you are operating from a false definition of evidence.

It's not a game. It's deadly serious. You just can't see it.

[GourmetDan]

Sorry, you misunderstood the concept.

[js1138]

If you actually have a concept, explain it.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

The 'theory of gravity' is not evidence. It is metaphysical because it attempts to explain evidence.

So do you oppose the teaching of the Theory of Gravity, or consider it non-scientific? In fact, are you willing to throw out all science that is not based on direct observation?

you are operating from a false definition of evidence.

Maybe you can clear all this up for us then. What is your deinition of evidence? References, please.

It's not a game. It's deadly serious. You just can't see it.

I'm not sure what the "it" is to which you refer, but the game I mentioned is the one where you make any evidence-based assertion and I refute it with a fantastic baseless equally-valid explanation.

[RunningWolf]

No you gave a link to the the Tree of Life web project, and it is full of text such as this

"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain,"

This is like the talk-orgins links brought here 'as evidence' in that when you read those links there is no substance there either. Usually just refining a few terms, some dancing around and alluding to the uncertainty of the claims & concluding with a few nice drawings or flowcharts before going off into a rant about the creationist.

BTW there is no need for 'a competing theory'. In fact its better to take a hard look at evo without it. As an analogy if I was sailing an ancient ocean and the maps were as as to toe, I would toss the map and understand I was in uncharted waters.

W.

[GourmetDan]

I'm not sure what the "it" is to which you refer, but the game I mentioned is the one where you make any evidence-based assertion and I refute it with a fantastic baseless equally-valid explanation.

Now you've got it! The two theories (evolution/creation) are merely two different metaphysical interpretations of the same evidence.

That's the point. Evolution is just as metaphysical as creation.

Good job Spanky!

[Coyoteman]

The two theories (evolution/creation) are merely two different metaphysical interpretations of the same evidence.

From a google search, "Define:Metaphysical":

• pertaining to or of the nature of metaphysics; "metaphysical philosophy"
• without material form or substance; "metaphysical forces"
• highly abstract and overly theoretical; "metaphysical reasoning"
• Literally, beyond the physical realm, beyond that which we can realize or discover with our five senses. Also, a branch of philosophy which studies the “beingness” or inherent nature of reality.
• Pertaining to realities which are outside those of science, such as cosmology and ontology.
• It means that which is beyond what can be grasped by the senses. The term comes from Aristotle, who meant by it some form of theological philosophy, but it means something else in today's world. The modern media often use the word to mean the same thing as 'spiritual'. There is lots of overlap, but the two words refer to different things. 'Spiritual' refers to the realm of spirits. 'Metaphysical' refers to that which underlies everything, of which spirits are a part. ...

Looks like your Ark is taking on water...

[js1138]

Your questions are too metaphysical.

[js1138]

googlewait.

[ml1954]

He has his own definition of metaphysical. For example, forensics is metaphysical and criminal trials are metaphysical exercises.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"He has his own definition of metaphysical. For example, forensics is metaphysical and criminal trials are metaphysical exercises."

And whatever you do, do not, I repeat, DO NOT! engage in abstract thought, because that too, alas, is metaphysical. Abstract thought is the enemy. Stick with pure observations, which as every epistemologist knows involves no interpretation or abstractions for the mind to understand.

That is the road to knowledge. Or was that ignorance? Who knows! That's an abstract concern.

:)

[GourmetDan]

You post a definition that applies directly to the metaphysical nature of evolution and then merely pretend that it doesn't. Course, none of the little evos will 'get it' cause you told them what to think with your glib remark.

So what part of that definition did you not understand?

Do we need to go over the difference between *evidence* and 'interpretations of evidence' again?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

But there are also lists of extinct lineages and species, like this:

Mammals and extinct relatives

Biarmosuchia

Eotitanosuchia

Dinocephalia

Anomodontia

Theriodontia

Gorgonopsia

Therocephalia

Cynodontia

Diviniidae

Mammalia

Procynosuchidae

Galesauridae

Thrinaxodontidae

Cynognathidae

gomphodonts

Chiniquodontidae

Probainognathidae

Tritheledontidae (Ictidosauria)

Personally, I'd like to see more pictures.

References like this are hard to find.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Okay, Buckwheat...and when I extended this belief of yours, that < liberal flower-child voice>"ALL interpretations are of EQUAL value!!", into satire, you screamed "Ridicule!!". If you believe that ALL interpretations are equally valid, regardless of their source, there's no point in continuing the debate. It would be like trying to argue with someone who believes the world was created 5 minutes ago.