dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
Ernest Hua's last posting to me was quite well-spoken and I do not have very much to say about it except that I am glad we seem to be starting to get through to each other. I will comment on this article here , and also several of his older articles in other postings. That should get me about caught up. > Unfortunately, too many people took the remark seriously. I still > feel that they should have seen it in the context of the original > message by the supposed Duane Gish (whoever it really was). Since > it was an alleged April Fools joke (or so I take it), the nonseri- > ousness should have been used on any followup. I guess these peo- > ple simple didn't see it that way. I have already apologized for > causing confusion. I have also promised never to post anything > nonserious for the sake of those easily confused. I don't think you should do that. Just use ":-)" - it usually suffices. > You are right about the antagonistic quality of most of my posts, though > not all. (And I obviously see them that way.) One of my basic impres- > sions of creationists is that they are generally overly righteous and > overly self-assured. But, you see, that's just how many creationists (myself included) see a lot of evolutionists. There is a problem in both directions here, I think. > I expect you to be thinking to yourself, "Gee, Ernest is such a hypo- > crite." Nope. > I have also noticed that their target > is the public schools system, which reminds me of a quote of Hitler's; > something to the effect of "... I don't need your obedience; I now have > your children ...", and said when he took control of the public schools. Here again, many creationists see proponents of evolution is exactly this same light. > Sorry ... most likely missed the question. As implied above, and in > most of my posts, my name is Ernest Hua. Keebler is one of my nick- > names which I find rather amusing. (Ernie is the name of a Keebler > elf; I am 6' 1".) I guess, then, my question becomes (as a courtesy matter) how would you like to be addressed? Ernest? Mr. Hua? Keebler? >> Science is Dead. | > Whatever you say ... Glad you agree! :-) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
>> [Mike Johnston] >> But all theories have their assumptions. Evolution bases quite a bit on >> fossil records and the age there of. Those ages, for the most part are >> based on radioactive dating techniques which assume that radioactive >> elements decayed in the same mannner that they do now. > [Ernest Hua / Keebler] > Of course! But ALL of science assume that the same processes and laws > the apply today have always applied and always will! How else could > science work?! If F=ma changes to F=2ma every once in a while, could > you imagine the havoc that would cause in physics?! The consistency > of nature is a foundation in science! It is perfectly OK to assume > that in any SCIENTIFIC context! > However, we come to the question of God. God is NOT scientific. How > could entities that can supposedly override natural laws be scientific?! > SO HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU JUSTIFY ASSUMING GOD?! I think you ought to ask the question, not about God-assumptions in particular, but about assumptions in general: How in the world do you justify assuming your OWN assumptions (in the last paragraph)? As an assumption is a premise accepted without proof, no attempt is made to justify assumptions. One just makes them. (Otherwise they're not assumptions, they're propositions to be proved.) Of course, it is best to demonstrate that the evidence may be construed to be consistent with the assumptions. That's where your real argument with Mike lies. Several times you've indicated that you think creationists (myself in particular) are avoiding the real questions and sidetracking. That's true to some extent, but is in the main a misperception. As shown by your two paragraphs above, it is clear that there is a faulty conception of what the real questions are, or what it is you think you're arguing about. So who can answer you? >> Proof doesn't even pertain to the origins question. No proof is possible >> that something that happened in the past, before records, happened a >> certain way. All we can do is develop theories and see how the evidence >> matches those theories. > Excuse me, but I think proof is rather essential to any scientific > research. Isn't it, Mike?! Or did you just change science for your > benefit?! One may not be able to prove absolutely. But scientific > proof is NOT absolute. You cannot prove historical events. Even if the processes can be shown that seem to mimic what we find as the historical evidence, all that is shown is that things COULD have happened that way, not that they in fact did. > Understand science before you criticize it! Especially if you > pretend to be scientific! Good advice. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
>>> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] >>> In fact, when are you going to provide a clear description of the theory >>> of special creation?! It seems that creationists have avoided that to >>> give themselves the ability to be vague and self-contradicting. >> >> [Larry Bickford] >> To the latter - hardly. Anything a creationist says is immediately >> twisted by the evolutionists. > Try the contrary ... Here is a quick example: > Steven Jay Gould once published an essay entitled "Evolution as a > Fact and a Theory". I have seen several articles by creationist > deliberately twisting the direction of the essay. This is especially interesting/ironic because one of the topics of the article is precisely such twisting of other of his essays. > One does this > blatantly by stating that title and then saying something to the > effect of "... well, when are they going to make up their minds? > Is it a fact or a theory? ..." This is an obvious example of > deliberate misquotation and gross misinterpretation. The comment > was in a set of three pamphlets written by an Austrailian (or New > Zealand, I forget which) minister who supposedly gave up a "pro- > mising career in organic chemistry to spread the word about the > ONE who called to him." Hardly a reliable scientist. This is certainly an unfortunate incident. In your own phrasing, however, one bad apple doesn't account for the whole population. But, just so we have something to talk about, I'll go you one better...I will demonstrate that Gould twists his *own* words. First, we have: Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, 6(1), 1980, 119-130. "Richard Goldschmidt was castigated for his defense of punctuational speciation ... We do not now accept all his arguments about the nature of variation, but his explicit anti-extrapolationist statement is the epitome and foundation of emerging views on speciation discussed in this section." Among which, as you might guess, is Gould's own view of punctuated equilibrium. This is what Gould says when he wants to argue against other evolutionists. But when he wants to argue against creationists, he says, discussing how creationists have distorted his (and Goldschmidt's) views: Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory". In, _Science and Creationism_, ed. Ashley Montagu, Oxford University Press, 1984, 117-125. "I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium" [p124]. I'm not sure that we would have guessed that from the previous quote. It is difficult to see how something can be the epitome and foundation of one's views while at the same time it has nothing to do with them. --- Note that Gould's inconsistencies necessitate a certain amount of hoop-jumping when loyalists like Godfrey attempt to defend him against the wiles of those crafty creationists. (E.g., Laurie R Godfrey, "Creationism and Gaps in the Fossil Record". In, Laurie R Godfrey, _Scientists Confront Creationism_, W W Norton and Co., New York, 1983, 193-218.) I once remarked that I have little sympathy for Gould's complaints about the distortions of his work. I certainly have no wish to defend willful ignorance on the part of creationists, but, as I have already observed elsewhere, part of the blame must be laid upon Gould himself. He is sometimes inconsistent, and on points fundamental to his position. Because of this it sometimes becomes difficult to know or understand just what he is saying. As a consequence, accurate representation of his views becomes difficult or impossible, as does meaningful response to them. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] >> { From: Larry Bickford, {amd,sun,decwrl,idi,ittvax,cbosgd}!qubix!lab } >> >> You didn't do a very good job of keeping your a priori biases hidden. > You did not mention any biases/assumptions to support this statement and > yet you bring it up twice. Please substantiate. Naturalism. >> Further, since time is unstoppable, either >> the universe has not existed from eternity, or the rules of the game >> have changed. > I would like to see you prove this statement and its stated assumption. > And what are these rules of the game? The rules are those which you gave later on in your article: "I do have one assumption which ALL scientists must make. All scientific laws have always applied, do apply, and will always apply to everything. That is to say, nature is consistent." Do you not read your own articles? >> The remainder of your remarks show an incredible lack of knowledge about >> the evidence available, particularly the huge and systematic gaps >> between small, cohesive groups. The evidence to indicate any major >> change (contrary to the creation model) simply doesn't exist. Further, >> attempts at change via selective breeding continually run into limits. > Since you have brought it up, I will ask you to show me how systematic > are these gaps that creationists complain about. By systematic, I mean > "show me the rule that tells you the gaps that you expect". > By the way, who said selective breeding had anything to do with evolution? Charles Darwin, Stephen Gould, Sewell Wright,...etc. >> You say "kind" is not well-defined. Well, surprise! Neither is "species." > First, read my remarks and understand them. The main thrust of my remarks > concerning "kind" discredits its scientific use, and not its vagueness ... > I will repeat: "kind" is not a scientific term, no matter how you slice it. That's not a very good argument. One looks in vain in the rest of the paragraph (below) for some supportive clarification. > "species" is. "species" is part of a hierarchy of words that help scientists > analyze the different living organisms through some systematic classification. > The reason for which "species" (and all of the other terms) is not well-de- > fined is because the similiarities between different organisms are too great. > It's amazing how you creationists prefer to ignore such blatant similarities > as coincidence rather than admitting that they are evidences of common an- > cestry and/or adaptation under similiar environments, and yet you will re- > peatedly bring up the silly "watch-watchmaker" argument, which is both much > less likely and altogether illogical. So you invalidate "kind" by supporting "species". That's sort of like supporting creationism by refuting evolution, isn't it? :-) >> Gobs of geologic data (such as fossils extending through several layers >> of strata) indicate catastophic origin, not uniformitarian. > Gee, I guess it will not take too much of your time to bring up one or more > of the huge quantity of evidences that suggest catastrophism, so I will > look forward to reading many of them in the near future. Nor much of yours to figure out that you're still waving your hands yourself. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
>>> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] >>> { From my article CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS, PART II } >>> >>> In this segment, we shall look at the incessant complaint about the >>> mathematical probability of evolution by the creationists. >>> >>> The complaint has be raised in several forms. The simplest form of >>> the argument is like this: "... the probability of an organism, so >>> perfect, so organized, like the human-being, forming from elemental >>> particles in random fashion is so ridiculously small, that it could >>> never have happened, no matter how much time is allowed ..." Well, >>> it sounds good. But, wait! Who is to say that the human being is >>> even remotely near perfect? On what basis shall we rate the organ- >>> ization of the human body? We might say that the shark is far more >>> perfect since it has managed to survive so long and so simply. >> [DuBois] >> Perhaps you should check your statements before you make them. >> [I then quoted Romer, to the effect that sharks are >> "...the last of the major fish groups to appear in the >> fossil record..."] >> >> Sharks were the *last* major group of fishes to arrive on the >> evolutionary scene; they haven't been around "so long" as all that. >> Also, since you have indicated elsewhere your dislike for like my lack >> of proposed mechanism, I am sure you would abhor the same failing in >> yourself and will take this opportunity to propose to elucidate for >> us why the simple sharks should degenerate from more complex >> ancestors. This is particularly interesting as it apparently occurred >> whie the teleostean fishes were increasing in complexity, and while my >> lovely coelacanth ("be still, my heart") was refusing to budge in >> complexity. > Perhaps you would like to tell me how long I meant? (It would be in- > teresting, if you can tell me.) Perhaps I neglected to mention that > sharks are survived so long, unchanged. Time is not as important as > the fact that it remained virtually unaltered from its earliest fossils. Ah. Perhaps I was wrong. Wouldn't be the first time! But I'll attempt a response. First, if time is, as you (that is, as you NOW) say, irrelevant, the phrase "so long" in "managed to survive so long and so simply" doesn't make much sense, does it? Second, it doesn't really matter how long "so long" means (though I assumed (apparently incorrectly) you meant by it that they were ancient), since the more complex fish arrived first. If you want unchanging fish, the coelacanth would be a much better example. Been around longer. Poor logic, poor example. > You have certainly dragged out a point beyond usefulness. As indicated > in my last letter to you, you go too far in taking everything literally. > You have missed the point, obviously. My argument was that you had no point in the first place. > The length of your response to a > single example is quite contrary to your reputed intelligence. Why don't > you try understanding the main thrust of the text, rather than sidetrack- > ing on some less-than-relevant point. I have done nothing to encourage others to make complementary comments regarding the nature of my intellectual capabilities. To some degree I have discouraged it (because they are after all irrelevant). This being so, your remarks that those comments are obviously inaccurate are not worth responding to. Remember, I never asserted that I have a brain; I'm not about to deny allegations that I don't! But I still miss the point. What is it? >> Or shall we simply say that "there is nothing to prevent this in >> evolutionary theory?" Only at the price of the inability to rule out >> any possible occurrence. And if we do that, we shall only add to the >> frustrations of those who wish to prevent evolution (as a theory) from >> being reduced to pure description, and who wish it instead to rise to >> the stature of a "nomothetic discipline". (Gould's phrase.) > You are making conjectures, which I don't see justification for. Read the first few pages of Stephen Jay Gould, "The promise of paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline." Paleobiology, 6(1), 1980, 96-118. My comments will become crystal clear. Nomothetic means "law-giving"; hence Gould's lament is that there should be some predictive or generative principles, and that there aren't. Only description. >>> And >>> the virus must be the most organized since it is simplistic in con- >>> struction and can remain dormant until food comes along. I doubt a >>> creationist would admit to any of these comments. >> >> Uh ... why do you doubt it? > How many creationists would accept a virus being more organized than > he/she is? Better yet, would you? If you understand the main thrust > of my point in this article, you would not have wasted your time on > these inane sidetracks. Nope, I wouldn't, but WHY do YOU doubt it!? Talk about sidetracks! :-) >>> The GROSS ERROR >>> here is the assumption that human beings are perfect, organized and >>> a host of other adjectives that associate subjective, rather than >>> objective, characterizations. >> >> I think we might say that "organization" is a concept susceptible to >> quantification. Perhaps even perfection is, as well. Since you assert >> that this is not the case, the burden of proof is certainly on you to >> show it, however. > It is precisely the fact that words like "organization" and "perfection" > are subjective that make objective arguments based upon these words in- > valid. In case you missed it, the first section of this text, which you > littered with your sidetracks, is devoted to showing the subjectiveness > of these words. Regarding organization: I disagree. There is a certain amount of literature devoted to the attempt to quantify organization. If you were familiar with any of it you wouldn't make such specious remarks. It's evolutionist literature, by the way. Stuff you ought to know about. You might start with Saunders and Ho, f'rinstance ("On the Increase in Complexity in Evolution". J Theoretical Biology, 63, 1976, 375-384. It's marked by some fundamental internal contradictions, but it's short and very readable.) Now, I do not like to say this, but I'm going to anyway. I find it depressing and scandalous that the creationist should find it necessary to inform the evolutionist of the content of the evolutionary literature in order to disabuse the evolutionist of notions about which he should know better. I don't know about quantifying perfection, however. I agree that would be more difficult. >> But the REAL gross error is the assumption that all creationists must >> argue on the basis of perfection. > It certainly would be ... if I did make that assumption. Why don't you > show me where I made it ... Right here: >>> The complaint has be raised in several forms. The simplest form of >>> the argument is like this: "... the probability of an organism, so >>> perfect, so organized, like the human-being, forming from elemental >>> particles in random fashion is so ridiculously small, that it could >>> never have happened, no matter how much time is allowed ..." Well, >>> it sounds good. But, wait! Who is to say that the human being is >>> even remotely near perfect? On what basis shall we rate the organ- >>> ization of the human body? We might say that the shark is far more >>> perfect since it has managed to survive so long and so simply. As I read this again, however, I think that perhaps my conclusion was not a *necessary* one. I retract it. --- >> It is also erroneous to assert that >> such arguments are always tied to human perfection. They aren't. > I am refering to commonly raised arguments such as the old "watch- > watchmaker" gripe. Although the perfection is generally directed > at humans, I have encountered many instances of it being used to > refer to life in general. I really doubt that I said it was ALWAYS > tied to humans. If I did, I present my apologies. Ok. It's not worth arguing about. >> One >> instance of the canonical doctrine of perfection in a non-human context >> is the bombardier beetle. There are others. > I am not sure, but are you saying that the bombardier beetle is perfect? No, it's just a non-human example that has been used by some creationists. > If you are, tell me what it could possibly do to prevent me from stepping > on it. Do you really propose to measure perfection by means of the metric "resistance to being stepped on"? >> I may as well raise a related point. You seem to imply that perfection >> is a concept over which creationists exert a monopoly. > Really?! Where did I do that? I did not claim any such thing. You seemed to strongly imply it. >> This is not >> true, although the use of the concept by evolutionists perhaps more >> often focusses on its antithesis, i.e., imperfection. > Here we go again with the "you do it too" argument. Telling me that I say "you do it, too" is no response. The response would be better if you simply dispelled the vagueness which I (continue to) allege inheres in your position, rather than complain that I say it too often. If your position is so explicit and so clear that shouldn't be difficult to do. Since all you seem to do is reply "don't say 'you do it, too'", I conclude that you have no more to say than I do beyond WHAT you believe. Which isn't much. >> You say "who is >> to say that the human being is even remotely near perfect?" Who is to >> say? Well, it's pretty obvious that you are. For clearly you wish to >> assert the absence of perfection, which cannot be done without some >> idea of what would constitute such perfection. So you have proceeded >> to do what you mock, namely, make an estimate of the perfection of the >> human body. > Perhaps you would like to tell me what I had in mind, since you seem to > be certain that I do. My main point was to say that "perfection", along > with several other words, is highly subjective, and thus does not have a > set of standard definitions and qualifications to everyone. I raised > examples of different qualifications that would place human beings below > other life forms. Creationists generally insist that human beings are > far better than all other life forms (do you? I don't know ...), sort > of like "the chosen". I am simply saying that there is nothing to jus- > tify that claim. I am certainly not saying that there is any absolute > concept of perfection as I am proving the opposite. Well, NOW you say "DOES NOT have a set of standard definitions and qualifications". But your argument proceeds along the lines of "CANNOT be given a set of standard definitions and qualifications" (otherwise you have no argument). Which is it? >> You also say "On what basis shall we rate the organization of the human >> body?", and then go on to offer a couple of examples of statements you >> think creationists ought to disagree with, apparently because the >> rating of is made on the basis of criteria which, it is assumed, >> creationists will or must deny. So, not only do you do that which you >> argue against, you miss the point of your OWN argument, which is that >> you CAN and DO offer criteria for assessment of the character of >> perfection. Perhaps the criteria are poor - you seem to think so >> yourself. But they are offered, and therein lies the crux of the >> matter. If one wishes to say *anything* about perfection, either in >> favor of its presence OR its absence, one must specify criteria. This >> is no less true of the evolutionist who wishes to argue that >> imperfections are evidence of evolution (Gould, for example) than it is >> true of creationists who argue that perfections are evidence of >> creation. So obviously, many people (creationists as well as >> non-creationists) are willing to at least attempt to answer your >> questions, "Who is to say that the human being is even remotely near >> perfect? On what basis shall we rate the organization of the human >> body?" > Your paragraph fumbles around too much, though I think I have already > answered the main point. No, because you have not resolved the contradiction of trying to do what you imply cannot be done. >> I think that you are sticking your head in the sand and saying "this >> can never be solved, it's too subjective." Maybe, but how do you >> know? You are arguing based not on what is known, but on what is >> unknown. Dangerous ground. > Excuse me?! Are you about to suggest that perfection CAN be defined? > If not, what do you mean by "solve"? Solve WHAT? What is this gib- > berish thrown in here? What is the "unknown"? Solve the question of the quantification of perfection. The unknown is that we don't know how to quantify it - yet. I'm not saying that it would be easy, or even that I know how. But is it impossible? Are you, in fact, prepared to say that this is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE? If so, how do you know? And what makes you so sure? >>> Another form of the mathematical argument is like a proposition by >>> Henry Morris of ICR (it might be Gish, or some other author): "The >>> probability of 100 body parts forming any configuration is X (some >>> large number). Even if one configuration were formed every second, >> >> You mean some small number. > I mean some short period of time, for which an example was given. Probability isn't time. What are you talking about, anyway? >>> For the >>> programmers out there, one can look at the set of statements in any >>> language and see that a program can consist of countless variations >>> containing different configurations of these statements. Is there >>> a limit to the number of programs that will work? [I am sure that >>> many creationists are going to say, "Well, there you have it! You >>> need a PROGRAMMER to write a program! So there!" Don't waste my >>> precious reading time because that is completely off the subject. >>> Programs usually don't have billions/trillions (am I coming close to >>> the right order of magnitude? I am refering to the number of mole- >>> cules.) of statements put together, and I don't want to hear about >>> your omniscient God until you prove His existence.] >> >> I suggest that it would be difficult to prove the existence of *anything* >> without talking about it. It would also be difficult to transmit the >> proof without discussing the entity whose existence was in question. >> So it would seem you have set up a condition impossible to satisfy. >> Don't want to hear about X? (Substitute any X.) Fine, I won't talk about >> X. Nor will I be surprised to hear you say you haven't heard of any >> proof of X. Of course not. You carefully excluded that possibility at >> the beginning. > Paul, do you ever try to understand the point? Why do you insist on > reading everything literally, except when it is convenient for you to > interpret and comprehend? > It is not too difficult to see that I will listen to any attempted > proofs of God. Otherwise, how the heck am I supposed to get the > proof? Apparently I have to be literal sometimes to get you to say what you really mean. It worked this time. Thank you for the clarification. >>> As for biological evolution, one should look at the transitions >>> that a grassland goes through as it evolve into a forest. I can >>> just hear it now: "... the forest was there in the first place! >>> The probability of all those trees growing together in one place >>> is so small that ..." (Just kidding! I know none of you crea- >>> tionists would even touch that statement ... would you?) >> >> No, what I would say is that you have pulled a fast one with your use >> of the term evolution here. The evolution of a grassland into a >> forest involves the replacement of pre-existing species by other >> pre-existing species. Grass does not "evolve" into trees when >> grassland becomes a forest, any more than the sun evolves into the >> moon during the night. Surely you're aware of that, but what >> then is the point of such a statement? > I did not state that the grass will transform. I said that the grassland > will transform. (No, not magically.) There are several stages that it > goes through, some of which are rapid, some of which are slow, all highly > dependent upon the life forms available to populate it. Evolution is a > view of nature undergoing changes at all levels. It is not restricted to > organisms. Not good enough. Your example is still a different kind of evolution, one which does not require transformation of one species into another. --- > You fail miserably at understanding the extremely simple idea conveyed > in my article. This should come as no surprise to anyone. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
>>> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] >> { from: Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois } >>> { from: Jeff Sonntag } >>> Paul Dubois, writing on the (mistaken) idea that when a new specie >>> evolves, all members of the parent specie must die out: > Indeed, quite a GROSS ERROR. Yep. It comes from the Principle of Competitive Exclusion. Your side thought it up. Sorry. >>>> Evolutionists developed the idea. Some evolutionists realize this, some >>>> (as, apparantly, Bill) do not. Some creationists realize this, some do >>>> not. Some creationists realize that it is not necessary to evolutionary >>>> theory, some do not. >>>> But whether the idea is true or not, it *is* the case that a number of >>>> proposed intermediates have been rejected as such (by evolutionists) on >>>> the basis of EXACTLY the above reasoning: a form is not transitional to >>>> another form if it exists contemporaneously with it. Lungfish, for >>>> example. My beloved coelecanth, for another. Archaeopteryx is under >>>> the same pressure since the discovery of other fossils which are clearly >>>> birds contemporary to it. > Since you make the original claim, why don't you give us the actual inter- > mediates that were rejected. And for some comparison (just so we are not > misled by possibly rhetorical statements), why don't you give us the num- > ber of proposed intermediates that WERE accepted. Examples that were rejected? Uh, "Lungfish, for example. My beloved coelecanth, for another." (i.e., see last paragraph) Let's see, examples that were ACCEPTED on the basis of the above reasoning? I don't know of any. The reasoning functions to reject them... >>> It really doesn't matter *who* has accepted the idea that a form >>> is not transitional to another form if they exist contemporaneously. >>> The idea simply doesn't stand up to examination. >> Fine. >> I was not concerned to demonstrate the validity or invalidity of the >> idea that when species evolve the parent species must die. I was >> concerned to demonstrate that the idea did not originate with >> creationists, so it is an evolutionist FALLACY to imply that it did. > So what does this do for creationism? Exactly as much as I said it did: nothing. However, it doesn't do much for an evolutionary position (or any position, for that matter) to argue fallacies. > (Gee, this question seem so > familiar; it's because creationists seem to try to do anything to > make evolution look bad, no matter how ridiculously illegitimate > the examples they dig up.) Wrong. My example was directed (as they often are) at a fallacy of argument, not at evolution itself. There's a difference. >> Really, for all the times that we hear in this newsgroup that >> creationists attack a mistaken notion of what evolutionists believe, >> I sometimes wonder if even evolutionists know what evolutionists >> believe. > This is not substantiated, since you are suggesting that we follow > exactly same ideas and concepts as those who made the errors. Since > we know better, our conceptions must differ. I'm not suggesting that YOU follow that same ideas and concepts. Indeed, I have no idea if YOU follow them or not, since you've never indicated what you believe (beyond that you believe in evolution, that is; you've never aligned yourself with any view of mechanism - say, what DO you believe? You're almost as hard to pin down as me!!) What I'm suggesting (correctly) is that it's very strange for evolutionists to toss at creationists an argument against a concept that evolutionists made up! It really doesn't make sense. The concept was formulated, vaguely, by Darwin himself, in _The Origin_. It is given more explicit formulation as the Competitive Exclusion Principle by, e.g., Garrett Hardin (in _Nature and Man's Fate_, Rinehart, New York, 1959, pp viii, 83-85, 262, 308, 339). >>> Archaeopteryx may or may not have been >>> the link between reptiles and birds, but the fact that Archaeopteryx >>> hadn't died out before birds developed HELPS TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT >>> ARCHAEOPTERYX was the parent specie. >> >> That fact alone has nothing to do with support for your contention. >> It must be bolstered by additional assumptions. > Is that what you use to support your assertions? ASSUMPTIONS? There > are not too many assumptions that you can legitimately use in science. > I think the words "facts" and "evidences" are more appropriate here. I was referring to assumptions on Jeff's part, not mine. Your argument is with him. >> Other possibilities, >> equally plausible from the sequence in the rocks, are that both >> descended from common ancestors, or that Archaeopteryx descended from >> more well-developed birds (e.g., McGowan thinks the Ostrich degenerated >> from more well-developed birds) or that Archaeopteryx and other birds >> have no common ancestor. Which of these are inconsistent with the >> fossils, or less consistent with the idea you claim they support? > Well ... gee ... we could always guess that (this is equally possible > given the fossil record only) that there was some creator who made a > few primitive things, allow them to proliferate, destroy them or let > them die out, create some more stuff, let them proliferate, destroy > them or let them die out, and repeat again and again with increasingly > higher-level constructions. This creator decided to overlap some of > the time-spans of the creatures out of his own whim. He also made > the fossils look like they were old when they were really very young; > and to top things off, he made the configuration of the heavens like > it was billions and billions of years old. Gee ... equally plausible > ... wouldn't you say? After all, such an omnipotent creator could do > anything he pleases, couldn't he? If you really believe a history > similiar to the one I just describe, let me remind you that we are in > the scientific realm (sorry, no hocus-pocus here!). If you see the > scenario as ridiculous, go back to your last comment, and read them > again. The degeneration suggestion still makes the Archaeopteryx an > intermediate, perhaps making some of its seeming ancestors its descen- > dents. Fine. This still invalidates Jeff's argument. Which was my point: other alternatives are equally as plausible as the one he suggested, unless additional assumptions are made. Thanks for the help. >>> Birds could hardly have developed from Archaeopteryx if Archaeopteryx >>> had died out before birds developed. It's almost a tautology. Yet >>> Paul tries to get us to deny the possibility of Archaeopteryx's inter- >>> mediate status (not solely) on the basis of it's contemporaneousness >>> with birds, a fact which actually *lends support to* its intermedi- >>> ate status! >> >> I did no such thing. I stated that the line of reasoning has been >> used by *evolutionists* as evidence against certain forms being >> transitional. > Like I said, your reasoning is bunk since it does not apply to us. Whether the reasoning applies to you or not is irrelevant. My statements are true without regard to whether any PARTICULAR evolutionist (such as yourself) accepts them because evolutionists HAVE used the line of reasoning against certain forms being transitional. I'm perfectly aware that not all of them agree. You're one of them. But since that statement doesn't apply to you, what does? Say, what DO you believe? You're almost as hard to pin down as me! > Remember, scientists do not claim to be absolutely correct. Scientists > have assumed for a long time that the earth was flat. I suppose you > want to criticize us for THAT too?! No. Scientists criticize creationists for it already. I'd rather stay out of that one for the time being. >>> Just what would you require of an intermediate specie between >>> birds and reptiles, Paul? You criticized Archaeopteryx's feathers >>> as being almost identical with modern bird feathers. >> >> I didn't "criticize" the feathers. It's simply a fact. What do you >> want me to say about them? That they're NOT identical with modern >> bird feathers? > The existence of feathers on the Archaeopteryxdoes not make it a bird. > It gives it bird-like characteristics. Since monkeys have hair, aren't > dogs really monkeys because they have hair, too?! (Not exactly sound > reasoning, is it?!) No, it isn't. That's why I didn't argue that way. Look: all I did was make a statement of fact about the feathers. If you want to disagree, cut out this line about monkeys and dogs and show that the feathers aren't identical with modern bird feathers. That was the point. You toss around this stuff about 'sidetracking' pretty freely. Would you care to recognize that that is exactly what you're doing here? >>> You want maybe some sort of useless >>> half-feather? Why would something like that be selected for? Why would >>> you expect a specie with useless features to survive long enough to leave >>> any kind of fossil record? > I would not agree with this question by Jeff. Seemingly useless features > does not necessarily mean that the features will evolve away or evolve into > something useful. Ooh! Disagreement between evolutionists! I'd better call a press conference and trump this up into some story about the demise of confidence in the theory of evolution! (just kidding, just kidding...) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
Well, I messed up again. Arg! I had only (!!) 6 responses to Ernest Hua. Oh, well. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/23/85)
[.................] >>>> { from: Jeff Sonntag } >>>> Paul Dubois, writing on the (mistaken) idea that when a new specie >>>> evolves, all members of the parent specie must die out: > >> Indeed, quite a GROSS ERROR. > >Yep. It comes from the Principle of Competitive Exclusion. Your side >thought it up. Sorry. > >>> I was not concerned to demonstrate the validity or invalidity of the >>> idea that when species evolve the parent species must die. I was >>> concerned to demonstrate that the idea did not originate with >>> creationists, so it is an evolutionist FALLACY to imply that it did. > >What I'm suggesting (correctly) is that it's very strange for >evolutionists to toss at creationists an argument against a concept >that evolutionists made up! It really doesn't make sense. The concept >was formulated, vaguely, by Darwin himself, in _The Origin_. It is >given more explicit formulation as the Competitive Exclusion Principle >by, e.g., Garrett Hardin (in _Nature and Man's Fate_, Rinehart, New >York, 1959, pp viii, 83-85, 262, 308, 339). > You must remember, that evolution is itself an evolving science. There are scores of evolutionary theories that have ALREADY been falsified, or are no longer considered valid or 'up to date'. This is what science is all about. Darwin is BY NO MEANS the last word on current evolutionary thought. It does seem however, that creationists in general LOVE to dig up these ideas that the scientific community has abandoned in favor of better ones. Certainly these ideas provide plenty of grist for the creationist mill. However, this may be the single most significant reason the evolutionists see the creationists as little more than hecklers or rabble rousers. If one is to argue effectively against evolution, one must spend some time to determine what evolutionist claims are accepted by the mainstream scientific community, and not digging up old rejected ideas and presenting them as current. Remember, you may be trying to sell your ideas to the scientific community (maybe you're not, and just trying to propagandize the public?). Once you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of present thought, or present your case in an inconsistent manner, you strike the impression of being ill-informed, fanatical, or eccentric. Again remember that the creationists are trying to re-sell the idea that evolution replaced! Generally new theories better explain the evidence than the old ones, and in fact that is usually why the are favored over the old ones. >Ooh! Disagreement between evolutionists! I'd better call a press >conference and trump this up into some story about the demise of >confidence in the theory of evolution! (just kidding, just >kidding...) > >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > Well, you may be just kidding, but this sort of thing has certainly been used as a creationist tactic designed to debunk evolution. For the general public not well educated in evolution, such tactics misrepresent current evolutionary thought. THIS is why scientists talk about creationist 'propaganda', as much of the creationist position is founded on misinterpreted or rejected ideas. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/25/85)
In article <554@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >seem however, that creationists in general LOVE to dig up these ideas that >the scientific community has abandoned in favor of better ones. Certainly >these ideas provide plenty of grist for the creationist mill. However, this >may be the single most significant reason the evolutionists see the >creationists as little more than hecklers or rabble rousers. If one is to >argue effectively against evolution, one must spend some time to determine >what evolutionist claims are accepted by the mainstream scientific community, >and not digging up old rejected ideas and presenting them as current. >Remember, you may be trying to sell your ideas to the scientific community >(maybe you're not, and just trying to propagandize the public?). Actually, since the entire basis of "scientific" creationism (or any of the other brands of creationism that have been presented here on this network) seems to be pulling these old, outdated, and debunked theories (which debunking was generally done by scientists), and using these as their arguments for creationism. It doesn't follow, even if these theories were current, that debunking one theory justifies some other theory anyway, -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/26/85)
In article <940@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >>>> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] >>> { from: Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois } >>>> { from: Jeff Sonntag } >>>> Paul Dubois, writing on the (mistaken) idea that when a new specie >>>> evolves, all members of the parent specie must die out: > >> Indeed, quite a GROSS ERROR. > >Yep. It comes from the Principle of Competitive Exclusion. Your side >thought it up. Sorry. > This is a complete misunderstanding of the principle of Competetive Exclusion. All it says is that ecologically similar species will exclude one-another from any given locality. That is only one of a pair of ecologically similar spp will be found at any one site. This says *nothing* abount adjacent localities, thus nearby places may have a different one of the pair. Thus, a daughter sp and a parent species could easily co-exist *temporally* at different places. There is also an alternative response, called Competetive Displacement, whereby features relating to environmental utilization shift in the area of co-occurance to minimize competition, allowing closely related spp to co-occur by means of differing ecological specialization - bypassing Exclusion. This phenomenon is *observed*, there are a number of examples of species pairs whith a narrow range of geographical overlap which show divergent character displacement in the area of overlap, and *only* in the area of overlap. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen