On Jun 26, 4:50 am, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 25, 1:39 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jun 25, 2:23 pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>> On Jun 25, 1:18 pm, Conspiracy of Doves
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Jun 25, 2:04 pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>>> On Jun 25, 12:57 pm, Conspiracy of Doves
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>>>> On Jun 25, 1:52 pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 12:41 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 1:31 pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>> I am not a Creationist. I don't believe in a personal God, and I
>>>>>>>>> don't think there was "intelligent design" in the way the Universe was
>>>>>>>>> "created", if it was created. To me, the Universe looks like one hell
>>>>>>>>> of a mess. I'm rather fond of Stendahl's line "God's only excuse is
>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't exist". Nevertheless, I do believe that the
>>>>>>>>> criticisms given by creationists of the Theory of Evolution, and of
>>>>>>>>> Darwinism in general, have their uses, and have some validity.
>
>>>>>>>>> Firstly, we CANNOT do an experiment which proves that men can evolve
>>>>>>>>> from apes. Sorry, just can't be done. Therefore, we DO NOT KNOW that
>>>>>>>>> men are indeed descended from apes. No matter how much circumstantial
>>>>>>>>> evidence consistent with this concept we may have, we do not KNOW it
>>>>>>>>> in the same sense that we know that Newton's Laws of Motion hold true
>>>>>>>>> under normal circumstances in daily life. And the tendancy of
>>>>>>>>> scientists to claim that we do KNOW it in the same sense that we know
>>>>>>>>> Newton's Laws to be true, suggests to me some problems in the way
>>>>>>>>> modern scientists develop and criticize their theories, in general.
>>>>>>>>> It suggests some tendancy for modern scientists to substitute rhetoric
>>>>>>>>> for logic.
>
>>>>>>>>> Secondly, Darwinism in a social sense, "Social Darwinism", has had,
>>>>>>>>> historically and currently, disasterous consequences: European
>>>>>>>>> Imperialism, Nazism, and the modern neoliberal/neoconservative notions
>>>>>>>>> of an economic "food chain" where the rich are justified in exploiting
>>>>>>>>> the poor. And scientists are largely responsible for these social
>>>>>>>>> evolutionary concepts, which they use rhetoric rather than logic to
>>>>>>>>> justify.
>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, Creationists are quite reasonably criticizing
>>>>>>>>> scientists for using rhetoric rather than logic to justify Evolution
>>>>>>>>> and Darwinism, and some of its implications. Good for them!
>
>>>>>>>> First of all, there's no such thing as Darwinism, and there is nothing
>>>>>>>> in the theory of evolution that is related to 'Social Darwinism'.
>>>>>>>> That is purely creationist propaganda.
>
>>>>>>>> As to scientific reasoning. there is no requirement that we duplicate
>>>>>>>> a *particular* case to validate a scientific theory. We have observed
>>>>>>>> evolution in the present, and there is plenty of evidence of the
>>>>>>>> relationship of living creatures through DNA for example. So it is no
>>>>>>>> stretch at all to claim that the processes we observe today happened
>>>>>>>> in the past.
>
>>>>>>>> -tg- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>> By your reasoning, we should also question whether 'Newton's Laws'
>>>>>>>> hold true on other planets, or whether they were correct in the past,
>>>>>>>> and so on. Science just doesn't work that way.
>
>>>>>>> We should question whether Newon's Laws hold true on other planets.
>>>>>>> We observe that they do, through astronomical observations and
>>>>>>> scientific probes to other planets. As to the past, they appear to
>>>>>>> have held true then, as well.
>
>>>>>>> There is no proof that large animals can evolve.
>
>>>>> - Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> Why should the size of the animal make a difference? All animals,
>>>>>> plants, fungi, protists and monerans are based on the same DNA
>>>>>> language. Genes that hinder the organism's survival don't survive.
>>>>>> Gene's that don't hinder the organism's survival do survive. Genes
>>>>>> that help the organism's survival flourish.
>
>>>>> The more sophisticated Creationists correctly point out that issues of
>>>>> mathematical complexity and probability come into play in the
>>>>> evolution of complex structures like the human eye which no adequate
>>>>> scientific models have been developed to explain, in terms of random
>>>>> evolutionary processes.
>
>>>> What are you talking about? Darwin himself came up with a model to
>>>> explain the evolution of the eye, and as far as we've been able to
>>>> tell, he was right. It's actually pretty easy for an eye to evolve.
>
>>>> Also, your use of the term "random evolutionary processes" lends
>>>> evidence to your not actually knowing anything about evolution. Have
>>>> you tried educating yourself on the subject?- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> -tg- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Do refer me to the mathematical model specifying the details of
>>> genetic mutations over time leading to the ultimate development of the
>>> human eye. At the level of molecular DNA. I realize you can't post
>>> it. It would be much too complex. A link or two, will do.
>
> I said at the level of molecular DNA. What you have posted is just
> vague speculation. Show me exactly how it was done, in detail.
If we're going to be using DNA molecular evidence as our determinant,
then you have to accept that we share a recent common ancestor with
chimps. Sorry. But that's very well established.
Al
