beausoleil

"SP: The various species that have existed on Earth have been generated by acts of special creation by non-human intelligence."

"E: The various species that have existed on Earth have been generated by non-intelligent forces-- mutation, natural selection, etc."

We see mutation and natural selection happening today. Together they can explain the diversity of species. There is thus no need to invoke any other process - if some evidence of that other process occurring were brought forward it should be taken into consideration. Can you give an example of the process involved in SP? - one example of special creation by non-human intelligence?

In the same way, we observe on Earth that two masses attract one another with a force proportional to the product of their masses and the inverse square of their separation. Such a force can explain the motion of the various objects in the solar system. There is thus no need to invoke spirits that push them around their appointed paths.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]</p>

liquid

emphasis mine.

Now of course that is generally the case, but you know as well as I do it is how you say it, rather than what you said. If I have completely misunderstood your tone, then it's best to reflect on the ambiguities of this form of communication.

copernicus

Originally posted by John Galt, Jr.:
<strong>...The fossil record offers data which you/certain evolutionists interpret in a certain way. Other ways of interpreting this data are available. This general issue, the under-determination of theory by data, is a core issue in basic Philosophy of Science course in universities.
</strong>

Have you ever taken a philosophy of science course or read a book on the subject? What books have you read? I don't really understand where your ideas about the nature of science come from. So far you have been very vague about what "philosophy of science" has to say about theories and hypotheses.

It is not necessary for scientists to disprove every explanation that somebody dreams up. Science only works with theories and hypotheses that try to account for verifiable observations. SP appears to make no verifiable claims. If you think it does, then please tell us how you think that we might verify the truth of SP. If there is no way to verify SP, then science is not required to disprove it. Indeed, it would be impossible to disprove an unverifiable claim.

beausoleil

"This general issue, the under-determination of theory by data, is a core issue in basic Philosophy of Science course in universities. "

Yes indeed. Scientists continue to act in ways philosophers of science can't justify, and continue to make progress. This suggests to me that philosophers of science are missing the point somehow.

Phscs

No mr Galt, my prejudice is not showing.

You are the one who claimed "special creation" by "non-human intelligence".

Whether this is small green men or God jr. makes precious little difference - it is all from someones imagination and not observed.

So the "logic" is that since we can change DNA and modify existing species, then that's how it always happens?

I'm afraid your completely wrong here as well.

Again, the mechanism of RM and NS do change species in nature, this has been observed. No "intelligence" is required to explain this.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html</a>

In addition, the changes we as humans are able to "create" are in fact done by several mechanisms, one of them being a kind of accelerated (RM+NS) - we call it breeding. In genetics they are also able to use other mechanisms, like connecting different parts of DNA directly. But of course, that actually happens in nature as well, isn't it called sex?

regards

-phscs

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Phscs ]

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Phscs ]</p>

Phscs

The fossil record shows evolution.

You seem to think of it as just a collection of fossils.

Its not.

Its a collection of fossils in a sequence.

This sequence is a fact, and it shows closely related species change over time. At the beginning of this sequence, life is primitive, like single celled organisms. As time passes the sequence changes into larger and more complex life - always building on previous life forms in the sequence.

Another word for "change over time" is evolution.

regards

-phscs

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Phscs ]

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Phscs ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

What part of evolution should not be called a "fact"?

The ongoing process of evolution (random mutation and natural selection) is an observed fact.

The common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors is so well supported by the fossil record, DNA evidence, cladistics etc that any sane person would also call this a fact.

There are only two theoretical aspects: that life began by naturalistic processes (though this is technically a separate topic, abiogenesis), and that evolution is the only influence at work (it appears to be sufficient).

To use your "trees in the yard" analogy: it is possible to determine if the trees were saplings from a pre-existing woodland, if digging reveals old branches and similar debris from the now-vanished parent trees.

John Galt, Jr.

I replied to copernicus's request regarding what I have read, but after I posted the reply, I thought it was really inane so I have deleted it.

John Galt, Jr.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

But the two together are, because evolution, Mr Expert, is defined as a change gene frequency in a population over time. This has been observed, and even has a solid mathematical basis (the Hardy-Weinberg equation).

Straw Man argument! Hell, that’s not a straw man, it’s a Blair Witch stick figure of an argument! Since when were scientists obliged to use your definitions? If you want to argue about whether evolution is right, it would pay you to know what is actually claimed about it.

Some sorts of organisms do indeed change into radically different organisms. Go look up Lepidoptera. But that is not what is meant by evolution (it’s development -- I mention that since you seem rather unclear).

Evolution is not what individuals do, it is what happens to lineages.

A mate of mine at university once exclaimed that “no dog ever gave birth to a cat!”, and that is what you (and he) are suggesting evolution says does happen. Wow, ex-cuuuse me, but don’t you think scientists (or anyone with two IQ points to rub together) might have noticed that that’s not a plausible mechanism?

If we are to see whether one organism can “change to a completely different organism”, it would be useful if you could state clearly what constitues ‘different’. Would you say that reptiles are a different kind of thing from mammals, that theropod dinosaurs are a different ‘kind’ from birds, fish from amphibians and whales from land mammals, for instance?

Is this:



a different sort of thing from this?



Like obviously begets like. The point, OF COURSE, is that offspring differ from parents. If a difference happens to be an enhancement, as the generations pass, that enhancement will spread through the population, automatically and inevitably, till it becomes the norm. That is an observed fact. (Want me to list examples? Nah sod it, look it up yourself, ignoramus.) Repeat. And repeat. And repeat... By making small stepwise changes, eventually the great great great... grandchildren can be substantially different. Dogs cannot produce cats, but a creature that gives itself over to meat-eating could produce both, down separated lineages.

(Anyone know why the blue fuck we should have to explain something so fundafrigginmental?? )

Sez you. But since you clearly don’t understand the first thing about it, please explain why we should trust you even to tell us the time?

TTFN, Oolon

Peez

You are incorrect. I am a scientist, with a PhD in biology who is a professor in a university. I have, of course, published articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Now:

Evolution, in the sense of the evolution by descent with modification of living things from common ancestors, is a fact.

I am not alone, of course. Dr. Douglas J. Futuyma, State University of New York: Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition. Sinauer. 1998. p. 11.

Peez