rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/11/85)
> This is just not so! The central hypothesis has been attacked over and > over. When it is, however, netters change their tune and claim that > evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creation. [BOSKOVICH] 1) It's not, to put it bluntly. Any "evidence against evolution" is merely evidence against a particular proposed methodology for evolution, and evidence against it does not cause creationism to follow logically, much as some might like. 2) Attacking something over and over shows persistence, not proof. Attacking substantively is another matter. > The variations within species are predicted by the creation model. > It has been stated that N.S. predicts everything, therefore it predicts > nothing. This notion of what these models "predict" is most intriguing. The creation model is used as 20/20 hindsight, not in any predictive way. It cannot be used in such a way. (Well, it can, when something unexplained happens, you just say god did it, and that was "predicted" by saying god can and does do everything.) What's more, the other models do not "predict" either, they merely describe what occurs. You couldn't go back 100 million years and look at the world and "predict" that humans or any other animals would evolve. The circumstances that caused those events are so elaborate and intertwining as to make that impossible. What natural selection and evolution "predict" is that, for that set of circumstances that occurs over a period of time, the organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited for those circumstances, and those of course will be the ones that produce the offspring that follow into the next period. > Evolution really has more problems than you are willing to believe. Oh, yes. For instance, one problem is that it describes human beings as being just another part of the physical spectrum, the "animal kingdom", rather than some special creation of a deity, with special powers and a "soul". Big problem, that is, if you find yourself unable to shirk yourself of that presumption and others like it. -- Like a bourbon? (HIC!) Drunk for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/15/85)
> [Rich Rosen] > What natural selection and evolution "predict" > is that, for that set of circumstances that occurs over a period of time, the > organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited for those > circumstances, and those of course will be the ones that produce the offspring > that follow into the next period. Rich, this is simply unworthy of you. They "predict" that fitter organisms will survive? ProFOUND. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/16/85)
In article <1282@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > [Rich Rosen] > > What natural selection and evolution "predict" > > is that, for that set of circumstances that occurs over a period of time, > > the organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited for > > those circumstances, and those of course will be the ones that produce the > > offspring that follow into the next period. > > Rich, this is simply unworthy of you. They "predict" that fitter organisms > will survive? > > ProFOUND. Paul, are you incapable of reading beyond the first clause? The key part is that the surviving organisms will be the ones to reproduce, passing on their characters to the next generation. Thus, the distribution of characters changes over the generations, producing a better adapted population. Of course you can respond "ho hum" to this too; I wouldn't be surprised, since it has more than one sentence. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (07/17/85)
>> [BOSKOVICH] >> Evolution really has more problems than you are willing to believe. > > rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) >Oh, yes. For instance, one problem is that it describes human beings as being >just another part of the physical spectrum, the "animal kingdom", rather than >some special creation of a deity, with special powers and a "soul". Big >problem, that is, if you find yourself unable to shirk yourself of that >presumption and others like it. This was one of the main points brought up and emphasized by Stephan Jay Gould in a NOVA program I just watched. I'm sure that Gould's ideas, and the way in which he presented them, and the VERY convincing examples he uses to argue for them, were highly distressing for many Creationists, fundamental Christians, racial bigots, and classical Darwinists. (The first three of the preceeding are separate groups, not synonyms:-).) They were excellently presented (in the rather uncritical way that most NOVA programs present things) and I found the show fascinating. If you missed it, I really encourage you to keep an eye out for repeats. It should be hard to miss; it's titled "Stephan Jay Gould." > Like a bourbon? (HIC!) Drunk for the very first time... > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr These parodies of that ridiculous song by what's-her-psuedonym are great, Rich. Have you got a collection of them? I'd love to have a copy.... -- Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!rosevax!hogan Quality used to be free, but now it merely has a fantastic ROI.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/19/85)
> > [Rich Rosen] > > What natural selection and evolution "predict" > > is that, for that set of circumstances that occurs over a period of time, the > > organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited for those > > circumstances, and those of course will be the ones that produce the offspring > > that follow into the next period. -------------------------------------------------------------- > [Paul DuBois] > Rich, this is simply unworthy of you. They "predict" that fitter organisms > will survive? > > ProFOUND. -------------------------------------------------------------- Does ANYBODY on the net understand Paul's comment. Profound indeed! -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/20/85)
>>[Rich Rosen] >>What natural selection and evolution "predict" >>is that, for that set of circumstances that occurs over a period of time, the >>organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited for those >>circumstances, and those of course will be the ones that produce the offspring >>that follow into the next period. > Rich, this is simply unworthy of you. They "predict" that fitter organisms > will survive? > > ProFOUND. [DUBOIS] What's REALLY amazing is that this statement Paul refers to so sarcastically as "profound": he doesn't even believe it. Such a perfectly simple explanation for what goes on, borne out by evidence, and he avoids it because he'd RATHER another explanation (one of his faves) was used. This is known in the creationist world as "science". Yes, what is "predicted" is so simple, even a child could understand it. But... (here we go again) -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/20/85)
Paul neglected to include an important preceding part of my paragraph. It seems that Paul is upset with the lack of longterm predictivity that scientific models have; he sarcastically calls the position that "the fittest organisms will survive" profound because it doesn't "say anything". --------- [excerpt reproduced here] This notion of what these models "predict" is most intriguing. The creation model is used as 20/20 hindsight, not in any predictive way. It cannot be used in such a way. (Well, it can, when something unexplained happens, you just say god did it, and that was "predicted" by saying god can and does do everything.) What's more, the other models do not "predict" either, they merely describe what occurs. You couldn't go back 100 million years and look at the world and "predict" that humans or any other animals would evolve. The circumstances that caused those events are so elaborate and intertwining as to make that impossible. What natural selection and evolution "predict" is that, for that set of circumstances that occurs over a period of time, the organisms that survive that period will be the ones best suited for those circumstances, and those of course will be the ones that produce the offspring that follow into the next period. -------- As I mentioned in a previous article this level of predictivity does not satisfy some people. They mock the validity of real science, but in reality they're upset that it doesn't make wildass predictions just because the process has too many factors and is too complex to do so. They prefer an explanation that just says "God did it" because that's what they want. Not because there's any basis to it. Just because that's what they want. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr