On Jun 25, 12:45Â pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>> In article
>>>> Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> writes:>
>>>>> On Jun 25, 12:41=3DA0pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>>>>>> On Jun 25, 1:31=3DA0pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>> I am not a Creationist. =3DA0I don't believe in a personal God, and=
>>> Â I
>>>>>>> don't think there was "intelligent design" in the way the Universe =
>>> was
>>>>>>> "created", if it was created. =3DA0To me, the Universe looks like o=
>>> ne hel=3D
>>>>> l
>>>>>>> of a mess. =3DA0I'm rather fond of Stendahl's line "God's only excu=
>>> se is
>>>>>>> that he doesn't exist". =3DA0 Nevertheless, I do believe that the
>>>>>>> criticisms given by creationists of the Theory of Evolution, and of
>>>>>>> Darwinism in general, =3DA0have their uses, and have some validity.
>
>>>>>>> Firstly, we CANNOT do an experiment which proves that men can evolv=
>>> e
>>>>>>> from apes. =3DA0Sorry, just can't be done. =3DA0Therefore, we DO NO=
>>> T KNOW t=3D
>>>>> hat
>>>>>>> men are indeed descended from apes. =3DA0No matter how much circums=
>>> tantia=3D
>>>>> l
>>>>>>> evidence consistent with this concept we may have, we do not KNOW i=
>>> t
>>>>>>> in the same sense that we know that Newton's Laws of Motion hold tr=
>>> ue
>>>>>>> under normal circumstances in daily life. =3DA0And the tendancy of
>>>>>>> scientists to claim that we do KNOW it in the same sense that we kn=
>>> ow
>>>>>>> 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 rheto=
>>> ric
>>>>>>> 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 noti=
>>> ons
>>>>>>> of an economic "food chain" where the rich are justified in exploit=
>>> ing
>>>>>>> the poor. =3DA0And scientists are largely responsible for these soc=
>>> ial
>>>>>>> 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 Evolutio=
>>> n
>>>>>>> and Darwinism, and some of its implications. =3DA0Good for them!
>
>>>>>> First of all, there's no such thing as Darwinism, and there is nothin=
>>> g
>>>>>> 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. =A0As to the past, they appear to
>>>>> have held true then, as well.
>
>>>> -- cary
>
>>>> Your claim that "science doesn't
>
>>>>> work that way" is merely rhetoric. =A0Rather like the claims for
>>>>> catastrophic global warming scenarios, based on nothing but highly
>>>>> speculative mathematical projections.- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>>>> There is no proof  that large animals can evolve.  No closely related
>>>>> experiments have ever been done.
>
>>>> We see evidence of erosion all around us, from rivulets
>>>> carved in the mud after a rain to the debris carried by catastrophic
>>>> floods to the fact that my house sits on a bed of rocks
>>>> which match the rocks which make up the hills two hundred
>>>> yards behind my house -- just as large valleys sit on
>>>> soils derived from the mountains which surround those
>>>> valleys.
>
>>>> I would deem it entirely fair to conclude that major
>>>> mountain ranges are similarly eroded down over many
>>>> hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Â And
>>>> I would find it disengenous if anyone then demanded
>>>> that scientists show an example of a mountain
>>>> range beingreduced to hills in the space of a human
>>>> lifetime, or in the few centuries we have
>>>> been doing science -- or even to demand that
>>>> we show a mountain range being eroded to hills
>>>> over the entire written history of the human
>>>> species. Â The theory is sound, but the theory
>>>> also says that you're not going to see it happen
>>>> on a human timescale.
>
>>>> I trust you see where I'm going with this?
>
>>> Well now, Cary, there aren't really any particularly complex
>>> mathematical or probabilistic issues  involved in  mountains
>>> eventually eroding over time are they? Â Exactly how or when, yes, but
>>> not that they will, eventually? Â Or that it can occur within a few
>>> million years, say?
>
>> My point, of course, is that the demand "show me an animal turning
>> into another animal", frequently floated by creationists, is
>> not a valid one, given the timescales inherent in the theory.
>
>> -- cary- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>> There are extremely complex mathematical and probabilistic issues
>>> involved in random molecular mutations leading to a specific, complex
>>> evolutionary development such as the human eye, in a specific period
>>> of time on the evolutionary time scale. Â They have never been
>>> thoroughly analyzed or explicated.
>
>> And thus the claim that "it's mathematically impossible" is
>> not supported.
>
> Oh, I never said that. Â I'm merely saying that it is mathematically
> unproven. Â I would be quite pleased if someone does provide a
> mathematical proof, I really wouldn't be particularly surprised if men
> had descended from apes or chimps, I just wouldn't be particularly
> surprised if they hadn't. Â And, as yet, it is uproven.-
Then you missed the wonderful point about the explaination (theory)
that mountains erode, all based upon reasons based upon other reasons.
Did you claim that the math behind the theory of errosion is
acceptable but that the math behind mutation and mutation rates along
with selection is not acceptable.
Maybe it is time to challenge you to produce a more clearer definition
of something proven mathematically, this so as not to appear to be
shifting the burden of proof. Can you give an example of something
that is mathematically proven, and explain why it has proven in this
way. And for that matter it appears that you are assuming something
about certainty, which is also implied by your strict proof
requirements. Please explain what this complete certainty is and then
most all of the arguments in this topic will vanish.
