Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pz · 09-04-2002, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

Indeed you are. It would appear that you are also grossly presumptive. You make flippant declarations regarding the intelligence of those who oppose your views. And yet, you have little, if anything, of substance to contribute. From you, I see no attempt at respectful persuasion, only ridicule and insults. So, if you have been wondering why I don't often respond to you, this is why.

Which makes it particularly surprising that so many have tried at such length to respond to you. You have been remarkably close-minded and unresponsive to quite a few extraordinarily detailed, in-depth, substantive comments. Your reply: "So far, I am concluding that chromosome fusions DO NOT occur."

That's simply wrong. These fusions do occur, they've been photographed and their frequencies measured. You've decided a priori that they can't happen, so no matter what the actual evidence, you won't open your eyes to see.

It's very sad.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 09-04-2002, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Please notice that here is yet another good reason for me to use the term Darwinist: Darwin is your savior.

Uh, no he isn't. He is, to be quite honest, NO ONE's saviour. In fact, there really is no such thing as a saviour, at least in the spiritual sense!

Quote:

P.S. In a quick read of scigirl's response, I find nothing which supports fusion. I will review it in detail soon.

So far, I am concluding that chromosome fusions DO NOT occur.

Gosh, in a quick read, I found well, pretty much a laundry list of evidence that fusion DOES occur, in fact, the whole part where they go through, and well, disprove the other possibility for that appearance.

Reading skills are good to have, vander. Pick some up.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 09-04-2002, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
If you affirm that undirected, materialistic, macroevolution is the process by which all life has come into existence,

No one believes that. Please, read the basic definitions of abiogenesis and evolution.
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

RufusAtticus · 09-04-2002, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Now when a non-scientist tries to read a research paper, they tend to make one of two mistakes:
A. Become confused by all the "putative" words in the introduction, because they don't understand the basic set-up of a paper

Yeap that happened to me when I was discussing a paper with a yec on PMs. It was <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=102000 79&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Bryne & Nichols 1999</a>. In the introduction they set up that there is disagreement in the literature whether London subway mosquitoes are a different species from the surface ones. They then set out in the paper to resolve this, which they clearly do by demonstrating reproductive isolation and genetic differentiation. Of course the YEC, latched on the fact that in the 1980s they were classified by some as the same species and saw that as scientists disagreeing with the 1999 findings. I don't the he ever understood that a 1980 paper can't disagree with the interpretation of data that didn't exist until 1999. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

~~RvFvS~~

lpetrich · 09-04-2002, 11:48 AM

I also note that about Vanderzyden. He has failed to respond to my comments -- and he has not even accused me of making fun of him.

He had earlier asked what evolutionary biology is good for; I responded by saying it's good for:

Understanding the emergence of pesticide and antibiotic resistance

Selection of model systems for research

Genomics

And he never responded.

Vibr8gKiwi · 09-04-2002, 11:50 AM

I was under the impression he had essentially conceded the point that evolutionary biology has been useful for things.

Kosh · 09-04-2002, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Christ:
Uh, no he isn't. He is, to be quite honest, NO ONE's saviour. In fact, there really is no such thing as a saviour, at least in the spiritual sense!

Of course, only the REAL savior would deny there is a savior!

Vibr8gKiwi · 09-04-2002, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Please notice that here is yet another good reason for me to use the term Darwinist: Darwin is your savior.

Um. Yeah. Just what the heck is Darwin supposed to be "saving" anyone from? Is this some strange technique to remove all meaning from the word "savior"?

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]

Blinn · 09-04-2002, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


Indeed you are. It would appear that you are also grossly presumptive. You make flippant declarations regarding the intelligence of those who oppose your views. And yet, you have little, if anything, of substance to contribute. From you, I see no attempt at respectful persuasion, only ridicule and insults. So, if you have been wondering why I don't often respond to you, this is why.

If you affirm that undirected, materialistic, macroevolution is the process by which all life has come into existence, then you are a Darwinist. That is because it is he who solidified and expounded the most influential naturalistic theory of biological origins. I only have to look at the words of a prominent modern Darwinists for confirmation:

...although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism--of much of science, in short--that has since been the stage of most Western thought.

-- Douglas Futuyma, in the college textbook Evolutionary Biology

As I have asked Oolon, what should compel me to engage you further?

Vanderzyden

I try not to get distracted by Vanderzyden�s diversions and incessant hand waving, but thought I would provide the full quotes in context.

Keeping in mind that the title Blind Watchmaker is derived from the passages of 18th century theologian William Paley�s Natural Theology, Dawkins writes:

Quote:

I shall explain all this, and much else besides. But one thing I shall not do is belittle the wonder of the living �watches� that so inspired Paley. On the contrary, I shall try to illustrate my feeling that here Paley could have gone even further. When it comes to feeling awe over living �watches� I yield to nobody. I feel more in common with the Reverend William Paley than I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well-known atheist, with whom I once discussed the matter at dinner. I said that I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin�s Origin of Species was published. �What about Hume?�, replied the philosopher. �How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?�, I asked. �He didn�t�, said the philosopher. �Why does it need any special explanation?�

Paley knew that it needed a special explanation. Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too. In any case it will be my business to show it here. As for David Hume himself, it is sometimes said that that great Scottish philosopher disposed of the Argument from Design a century before Darwin. But what Hume did was criticize the logic of using apparent design in nature as positive evidence for the existence of a God. He did not offer any alternative explanation for apparent design, but left the question open. An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: �I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn�t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.� I can�t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I like to think that Hume would agree, but some of his writings suggest that he underestimated the complexity and beauty of biological design. The boy naturalist Charles Darwin could have shown him a thing or two about that, but Hume had been dead 40 years when Darwin enrolled in Hume�s university of Edinburgh.

The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 5-6

And from Evolutionary Biology, 3rd. edition, p. 5 - Douglas J. Futuyma, describing the manner in which Darwin�s theory of biological evolution profoundly challenged the prevailing world view:

Quote:

Second, people had long sought the causes of phenomena in purposes: the will of God, or the FINAL CAUSES (the purposes for which events occur) that Aristotle contrasted with EFFICIENT CAUSES (the mechanisms that cause events to occur). Newton revolutionized Western thought by providing purely MECHANISTIC explanations for physical phenomena. Thereafter, physicists would exclude from their theories any reliance on purpose (final causes), divine design, or the operation of any supernatural forces in the day-to-day workings of the physical world. Darwin�s immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. In the decades that followed, physiology, embryology, biochemistry, and finally molecular biology would complete this revolution by providing entirely mechanistic explanations, relying on chemistry and physics, for biological phenomena. But it was Darwin�s theory of evolution, followed by Marx�s materialistic (even if inadequate or wrong) theory of history and society and Freud�s attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism � in short � much of science, that has since been the stage of most Western thought.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]

Vanderzyden · 09-04-2002, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vibr8gKiwi:


Um. Yeah. Just what the heck is Darwin supposed to be "saving" anyone from? Is this some strange technique to remove all meaning from the word "savior"?

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]

Answer:

Redemption from the horrors of tendencies toward any sort of "god-of-the-gaps" thinking.

Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Why? Because no longer did the atheist (materialist/naturalist) have to wonder if God's direct intention could possibly explain a particular natural phenonmena. Darwin provided an explanation that would serve as a philosophical view, although that explanation remains to this day one that is poor and unaccountable to the facts. As with many other religious folk, there are plenty of Darwinists which blindly accept the hypothesis of macroevolution and the philosophy of methodological naturalism (the systematic exclusion of God from all scientific inquiry).

Yes, following his rejection of God, Darwin established a new religion of his own. Darwin is therefore a synthetic savior.

Vanderzyden

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-04-2002, 11:48 AM	#175
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I also note that about Vanderzyden. He has failed to respond to my comments -- and he has not even accused me of making fun of him. He had earlier asked what evolutionary biology is good for; I responded by saying it's good for: Understanding the emergence of pesticide and antibiotic resistance Selection of model systems for research Genomics And he never responded.

09-04-2002, 11:50 AM	#176
Vibr8gKiwi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: CA, USA Posts: 543	I was under the impression he had essentially conceded the point that evolutionary biology has been useful for things.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.