Posted on 10/11/2005 7:27:16 AM PDT by Valin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,68706,00.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
A few articles on just *one* of a vast multitude of evidences bolstering evolution. Creationism/ID has no such evidence, and no alternative explanations for this evidence.
No, not at all. There is evidence for it- like you said, fossils that are dug out of the earth.
But test Macro Evolution for me, and prove that it works like you say it does. I can test gravity, or momentum- why not Evolution?
I have evidence that my garden gnome used to steal my socks- my socks disappear all the time, and I found a bunch around the gnome a year ago. In fact, I continue to find socks buried around the gnome to this day. My hypothesis therefore is that my garden gnome used to steal my socks. Can I test my hypothesis? I don't think so.
I shouldn't have used the word "prove". How about "demonstrate"? "Demonstrate to me that Macro Evolution is a valid theory by testing it."
There, that's better.
> My hypothesis therefore is that my garden gnome used to steal my socks. Can I test my hypothesis? I don't think so.
Yes, you can. The fact that your hypothesis is intentionally silly does not mean that your hypothesis cannot be tested. That you think that way demonstrates that you've a substantial lack of understanding of scientific methodology. Patterson would flunk you in a heartbeat.
Spradling was denied a recommendation based entirely on the fact that he did not accepted Darwinism as a fact.
A note: a teacher is within his rights to recommend, or not, whever he likes. Someone whom he feels has failed to learn the subject or the methodology... well, too bad.
There is a huge difference between learning a subject and accepting it as truth. I can show proficiency in the subject matter without agreeing with it. This is a perfect example of our institutions of learning teaching 'what to think' instead of 'how to think'. Welcome to '1984'.
> Spradling was denied a recommendation based entirely on the fact that he did not accepted Darwinism as a fact.
The course was pre-med. Which is based on biology. A teacher is within his rights to expect a student of biology to understand and accept the basic precepts of biology. If the students doesn't... why is he studying biology? Maybe he'd be happier peddling magic elixers made from alcohol and Radium.
How interesting that you would use "gravity" as an example.
Scientists had to wait until 1919 to test one of the aspects of Einstein's General Relativity. The observed position of a star near the eclipsed sun indicated that the light passing near the sun was deflected by gravity. Have you tested this aspect yourself?
It's also interesting that you continue to ask why there is no evidence for "macro evolution". It was not that long ago when doubters would ask for evidence of "evolution". What changed? It would appear that "micro evolution" is no longer in question. Since that development took approximately 150 years, why is it reasonable to expect "macro evolution" to be proven any sooner than another 150 years?
I find it particularly interesting that the complete mapping of many organisms' genomes will permit analysis of aspects of genetic evolution which were not previously possible. There may well be evidence of "macro evolution" discovered in the tangled mass of DNA now under examination. There may be enough information to "roll back the clock" by cloning organisms whose genomes are recoverable from present genomes.
Mighty fine strawman you've got there.
You mistake a perfect apt analogy for a strawman. Professional educations have certain requirements, including belief systems. A doctor who does not believe in biology might have a place in the world, but no school worth a nickel would want to have him hang up his shingle with their diploma.
"ut many *more* radical ideas, like Velikovsky, the Dean Drive, Larmarck, Marx, the IDers, etc. are just dead wrong. Just because you're novel doesn't mean you're right."
A few notes on your list:
1) Vellikovsky's main point was not that his explanation was correct, but that the evidence of worldwide testimony of cataclysm demanded _some_ form of explanation. The academic community relentlessly harped on the specific details while missing the big picture of massive historical documentation of cataclysm.
2) Lamarck is actually regaining prominence in biology. Lamarckism was actually never disproved, only a caricature of it was, and a few specific examples were shown to be false. But for more biochemical change, it has actually shown to be somewhat accurate.
3) The ID'ers are right, just give them time :)
> the evidence of worldwide testimony of cataclysm demanded _some_ form of explanation.
Yeah, "stuff happens." Wait logn enough and your city will be trashed by *something*. Not exactly a world-shattering realization.
> Lamarck is actually regaining prominence in biology.
Source, please.
> The ID'ers are right, just give them time :)
They've had 4 billion years...
> the evidence of worldwide testimony of cataclysm demanded _some_ form of explanation.
Yeah, "stuff happens." Wait logn enough and your city will be trashed by *something*. Not exactly a world-shattering realization.
> Lamarck is actually regaining prominence in biology.
Source, please.
> The ID'ers are right, just give them time :)
They've had 4 billion years...
That would be a SOFTWARE engineer, obviously! ;-P
So you are equating the belief in and teching of evolution for a scientist with the requirement that a priest/clergy believe and adhere to the faith that they are to teach to the members of that church? This analogy doesn't work.
It would have advanced to the status of a "Law", as have the laws of motion, thermodynamics, and others.
The THEORY of Evolution is not proven fact, by its very name, which does have scientific significance.
To elevate theories to the status of laws implies a willingness to atribute far more weight to the lowly hypothesis than is warranted.
That, in my opinion makes for a far looser cannon on the deck of scientific inquiry than one who refuses to call a theory fact.
Make of that what you will, but as a scientist, the refusal to state that any theory is fact is entirely scientifically correct.
> That would be a SOFTWARE engineer
Point conceded.
Joe Manzari is a dishonest research assistant. I knew that quote wasn't real. White's condition was that things be scientific! Here's his letter.
October 4, 2005
Letter to the University of Idaho Faculty, Staff and Students:
Because of recent national media attention to the issue, I write to articulate the University of Idaho’s position with respect to evolution: This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific community and a research extensive land-grant institution, we affirm scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence.
At the University of Idaho, teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.
The University respects the rights of individuals to their personal religious and philosophical beliefs, including those persons who may hold and advocate a faith-based view that differs from evolution.
The University of Idaho’s position is consistent with views articulated by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and more than 60 other scientific and educational societies.
Timothy P. White, Ph.D.
President, University of Idaho
To a software engineer, no less! ;-P
Dishonesty from those pushing ID??? I'm stunned! Shocked! Amazed!
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.