dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/07/85)
> Since when did evolution stop?! Are you kidding me or what?! > No wonder you are griping about evolution! You don't even know > what it is! Do *you*? Does *anyone*? I'm beginning to wonder. Evolution says that things will change. That is, they will get more complex. Unless they don't. They might get simpler, too, that's all right. On the other hand, maybe they'll just stay the same. Wouldn't want to rule that one out, either. If they do change, they'll do it gradually. Unless they don't. They might change quickly, after all. How quickly? Well, quickly enough not to leave any evidence. Quickly enough that it appears to happen all of a sudden. Not that it really happens all at once, though. Goldschmidt tried that one, but we all know better. Things don't really "jump", though it might appear that way. But he was on the right track. After all, his views form the foundation of many of the more modern theories of speciation (that is, even though they don't have anything to do with them...) Anyway, we need variation for natural selection to do its work (not that it's really "working", though. It's a creative force, much like an artist, but it's not really. We don't want to be anthropomorphic, you know. Except when we are.) So: variation, yes, how do we get that? Well, you need a large population, because obviously the more individuals there are, the more chance you have of getting a favorable variation for natural selection to select. On the other hand, those small populations out at the edge of the ecological range are a possibility, too. Can't forget them! Since they live at the edge, the selective pressures on them are higher, and, living in harsh conditions, they're more likely to have something change than those comfortable bourgoise living in the herd. Life's tough, you have to adapt in the ghetto. But yet, you never know. Maybe those old chromosomes'll play a trick on us and do something wierd, so that we have reproductive isolation and speciation as a result, not a cause, of evolutionary change. Those wily species, they're tricky, you know. They might not come about *through* natural selection. They're just contrary and ornery enough to be the *raw material of* selection. We'll keep both ways of looking at it. They might come in handy some day. ---- Well...I suppose I've angered some of you by my satiric tone. I offer my apologies. But the above, stripped of its derisory manner, is certainly a better definition of what current evolutionary theory is about than anything most of YOU have come up with... I have been criticized for failing to defend anything. This seems to me a wiser course than defending something when I don't even know what it is. Which is what some of you are doing. Not all of you, certainly, but enough to make me write the above. Flames to net.sources.mac! -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "The presence of weeds in the garden is not explained by | saying that the gardener has not pulled them yet."
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/08/85)
Can it be possible? Do creationists believe what they do just because it's easier to understand? "...nothing up my sleeve" - Bullwinkle
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/08/85)
In article <1042@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > Well...I suppose I've angered some of you by my satiric tone. I offer > my apologies. But the above, stripped of its derisory manner, is > certainly a better definition of what current evolutionary theory is > about than anything most of YOU have come up with... Apologies not needed: just better understanding. I can just imagine you criticizing probability theory the same way because it won't predict whether your next bridge hand (which hasn't been dealt yet) should be played in no-trump, and whether you should bluff. Evolutionary theory is complicated. The simple base hypothesis is that there is descent with progressive modification, producing variety. The ways this comes about are many and varied. You could make a good comparison to game theory, where the hypothesis is that there is a goal of maximizing payoff. The strategies for maximizing payoff are many and varied, depending on the game, the other players, and the initial state. > I have been criticized for failing to defend anything. This seems to > me a wiser course than defending something when I don't even know what > it is. Which is what some of you are doing. Not all of you, > certainly, but enough to make me write the above. You're welcome to continue to question evolution all you'd like, without defending creationism. In the multiple answers to such questions I've frequently seen answers that improved my understanding, both of evolution and the art of rational argument. Taking a position is an excellent way to focus attention on a subject and learn (as you seem to be doing.) Please allow us to do the same. > Flames to net.sources.mac! May you burn in net.flame for suggesting such net.sacrilege! :-) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (05/08/85)
I find your posting thought provoking and feel that there is some justification for your satire. Basically I think that you have allowed yourself not to see the wood for the trees. You are saying to yourself here's a dead branch, and yet another, and another etc. therefore there is no forest. This is in effect what you are doing when you push evolution to limits that are not completely figured out yet and find that the answers are not as convincing as hoped for, while at the same time rejecting the results of many different areas of science that support the existence of the "forest". The forest is there, based on observation of the fossil record. Whether or not Darwinism, punctualism, or gradualism satisfactorily explain how the forest grew is beside the point in this case. > >[satire] > > Well...I suppose I've angered some of you by my satiric tone. I offer > my apologies. But the above, stripped of its derisory manner, is > certainly a better definition of what current evolutionary theory is > about than anything most of YOU have come up with... That there are unsettled questions concerning evolutionary theory goes without saying. This is typical of all scientific research. It in no way negates the basic "fact" of evolution, i.e. the "forest". > I have been criticized for failing to defend anything. This seems to > me a wiser course than defending something when I don't even know what > it is. Which is what some of you are doing. Not all of you, > certainly, but enough to make me write the above. > The criticism is still valid if you claim that "creation science" is a science. No proper scientist makes claims based upon evidence that he refuses to allow other scientists examine, when his claims are challanged. Padraig Houlahan. > > -- > | > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > | > "The presence of weeds in the garden is not explained by | > saying that the gardener has not pulled them yet." *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/09/85)
In article <1526@hao.UUCP> ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) writes: > Can it be possible? Do creationists believe what they do just > because it's easier to understand? Of course it's possible. But there are other explanations also. For example, I might explain some cases as a simple cost/benefit rationale. Someone who has invested alot of capital (emotional or other) in belief that includes creationism has very little to gain by rejecting creationism for evolution (unless he/she/it is a scientist) but will lose consistency of doctrines or agreement with other believers (which can cost much anguish and even money.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/10/85)
[.....] >Can it be possible? Do creationists believe what they do just >because it's easier to understand? Or because they're victims of years of indoctrination.
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/11/85)
>Evolution says that things will change. That is, they will get more >complex. Unless they don't. They might get simpler, too, that's all >right. On the other hand, maybe they'll just stay the same. Wouldn't >want to rule that one out, either. > >If they do change, they'll do it gradually. Unless they don't. They >might change quickly, after all. How quickly? Well, quickly enough >not to leave any evidence. Quickly enough that it appears to happen >all of a sudden. Not that it really happens all at once, though. >...... >...But yet, you never know. Maybe those old chromosomes'll play a trick >on us and do something wierd, so that we have reproductive isolation >and speciation as a result, not a cause, of evolutionary change. >Those wily species, they're tricky, you know. They might not come >about *through* natural selection. They're just contrary and ornery >enough to be the *raw material of* selection. We'll keep both ways of >looking at it. They might come in handy some day. > >Well...I suppose I've angered some of you by my satiric tone. I offer >my apologies. But the above, stripped of its derisory manner, is >certainly a better definition of what current evolutionary theory is >about than anything most of YOU have come up with... > >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- Actually, I was rather amused by this one. I have no problems with any of this. These are all signs of HEALTHY scientific thought (though somewhat caricatured). Note that these are examples of areas where scientists may disagree on the methods of evolution. Creationists are not allowed to disagree, as they are connected to authoritarian religious organizations that tell them what they think. In fact, Paul is the only non-evolutionist on this net that seems to think at all for himself. In fact, I am inclined to think that if he thinks a little more he will cease to be anti-evolutionist. Actually, I have learned a lot of things I didn't know about evolution and the nature of science while researching in response to some of Pauls comments. But, I am beginning to wonder where it all goes from here: for (;;) { C: creation is science! E: no it's not! C: well then, evolution isn't science either! E: yes it is, there's all kinds of evidence! C: well, there's evidence for creation too! E: ok, what? C: well, evolution has this and that problem, and besides, things look like they were created! E: that's not evidence! C: yes it is! } Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
spw2562@ritcv.UUCP (spw2562 ( Steve Wall @ Rochester Institute of Mentality ..er.. Technology )) (05/16/85)
> Creationists > are not allowed to disagree, as they are connected to authoritarian > religious organizations that tell them what they think. I don't know what religion you are talking about, but I do all my thinking for myself, as do all the Cristians I know. > In fact, > Paul is the only non-evolutionist on this net that seems to think > at all for himself. See above comment. > for (;;) { > C: creation is science! > > E: no it's not! > > C: well then, evolution isn't science either! > > E: yes it is, there's all kinds of evidence! > > C: well, there's evidence for creation too! > > E: ok, what? > > C: well, evolution has this and that problem, and besides, things > look like they were created! > > E: that's not evidence! > > C: yes it is! > } > Creation doesn't have to be science to be true. There are some things which science can't explain. Personally, I find evolution harder to believe than creation, just because of the problems accociated with it. Steve Wall ...!ritcv!ritvp!spw2562 flames to /dev/null, please.
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (05/16/85)
> Creation doesn't have to be science to be true. There are some things which > science can't explain. Personally, I find evolution harder to believe than > creation, just because of the problems accociated with it. > > Steve Wall That fine with me. As long as you don't claim it's science and try to have it taught in school science classes there's no problem. Padraig Houlahan.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/16/85)
> [Steve Wall] > Creation doesn't have to be science to be true. There are some things which > science can't explain. Personally, I find evolution harder to believe than > creation, just because of the problems accociated with it. The burning question in this newsgroup is whether it *is* science, not whether it is religion. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Some absolutes are more absolute than others" -- George Will |
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (05/16/85)
> > > [Steve Wall] > > Creation doesn't have to be science to be true. There are some things which > > science can't explain. Personally, I find evolution harder to believe than > > creation, just because of the problems accociated with it. > > The burning question in this newsgroup is whether it *is* science, not > whether it is religion. > > -- > | > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- If this is the case Paul, why do you spend so much time splitting evolutionary hairs instead of offering us proof of the scientific nature that creationism is supposed to have? Padraig Houlahan.