Kevin

I see you've been reading The Structure of Evolutionary Theory too.

RufusAtticus

Ain't that the truth. That's one heavy book.

Stephen T-B

So, Mr V, does every discovery made about the physical universe have to add to Man’s sense of well-being? And if it doesn’t, is it therefore to be castigated as dangerous?
How much happier, do you suppose, it made people to know that instead of living on a platform at the Centre of Everything they actually inhabited a rather small globe which orbited - in a very inferior fashion - around a star of very average dimensions in a universe of such inordinate vastness that the mind of man cannot comprehend it?
Does that make you happy? And has the discovery improved your life?
Galileo, I suppose, in your estimation is almost as “dangerous” as Charles Darwin.
In fact, judging by the condemnatory tone you use when referring to “scientists,” you think Mankind would be better off if the Church had kept a proper grip on men’s minds and stopped them asking awkward questions or delving into “natural causes.”.
That means we’d still be in a plague-riven, famine-prone, pestilential, Church-ruled world.
If that’s what you want, then trash your computer, your car, your fridge, your freezer, your air-conditioning plant, your phone, your TV, your radio, cancel your medical insurance, stop paying your water, electricity and gas bills, and don’t eat anything which has been produced by modern agriculture or which has been preserved - unless salted, dried or pickled.
Or why not go and live in Saudi Arabia where the clergy still exercise ultimate control in the name of God? I think you'd find Fundamental Islam remarkably similar to Fundamental Christianity. in terms of having preserved a Medieval society, which is apparently what you yearn for..

Vanderzyden

Skeptical,

You've got it right: I tend to be a generalist. Specifics can be fun, but I relish the "big picture."

Yes, I have yet another topic prepared to address this very issue. It will focus on the "leap" from DNA similarity to modified--let me be clear--MODIFIED common descent. The insufficiencies that I present will be examples of the type of positive, conclusive evidence that is necessary for an impressive, compelling theory that goes beyond mere hypothesis. Please look for it in the near future, having a title beginning with "Similarity in DNA...". I imagine you and I will have a fine discussion, and I will expect to learn something new in specific areas.

However, for now, I have some work to do. For example, I anticipate some assistance in a reply from scigirl. Following that, I will attempt to address the chromosome fusion challenge. The new post will appear soon after.

Oh, hah! Perhaps you will enjoy an offhand comment that comes to mind as I contemplate your user name:

I wonder, are you skeptical of your own skepticism?

G'day!

Vanderzyden

‘And where might you come from, my fine lad?’ said Mr. Enlightenment.

‘From Puritania, sir,’ said John...

‘Puritania! Why, I suppose you have been brought up to be afraid of the Landlord.’

‘Well, I must admit I sometimes do feel rather nervous.’

‘You may make your mind easy, my boy. There is no such person.’

‘There is no Landlord?’

‘There is absolutely no such thing - I might even say no such entity - in existence. There never has been and never will be'...

‘But how do you know there is no Landlord?’

‘Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder!’ exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.

‘I beg your pardon,’ said John.

‘Eh?’ said Mr. Enlightenment.

‘I didn’t quite understand,’ said John.

‘Why, it’s plain as a pikestaff,’ said the other. ‘Your people in Puritania believe in the Landlord because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training. For example, now, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that
the earth was round - round as an orange, my lad!’

‘Well, I don’t know that it would,’ said John, feeling a little disappointed. ‘My father always said it was round.’

‘No, no, my dear boy,’ said Mr. Enlightenment, ‘you must have misunderstood
him. It is well known that everyone in Puritania thinks the earth flat. It is not likely that I should be mistaken on such a point. Indeed, it is out of the question...’

-- C.S. Lewis, Pilgrim’s Regress

KnightWhoSaysNi

Vander,

I just wanted to clarify your position. Although you reject macroevolution, do you still accept a common ancestry view? I was just curious, since Michael Behe seems to hold this perspective. Or do you hold a more traditional creation ex nihilo view (i.e. a puff of smoke -- *poof!* a chimpanzee, *poof!* a human, *poof!* a moray eel, etc....)

By the way, it's interesting you quote C.S. Lewis. He more or less accepted a theistic evolution view.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

lpetrich

Vanderzyden, I am very disappointed in you. Why haven't you answered all those who have responded to your postings? You ask what the study of evolution is good for, others respond to you, and then you clam up. Why?

I'll repeat what I had posted earlier. Evolutionary biology is useful for selecting model systems for human physiology and disease research, and it is also useful for identifying genes in genome research.

Saying that you prefer to be Mr. Broadbrush is no excuse. Details count; otherwise, you may have a wrong picture.

Vanderzyden, imagine someone who claimed that Jesus Christ had been some New Age guru who had studied in India for a while. And who had the same taste for broadbrush theorizing that you do, including glossing over numerous troublesome details. Would you be happy with that, O Vanderzyden?

Vibr8gKiwi

Do you consider software a benefit to mankind? Some software uses the algorithm of evolution. Such algorithms use the simple elegance of evolution (which I'll define as the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators) to solve for solutions to very complex open-ended problems.

You might disbelieve the theory of common decent via evolution because of your religious bias, but you'd be rather silly to try to convince your computer evolution can't work when the computer can actually use evolution to solve real problems.

Dr Rick

Arguing a postion by demanding a simple answer to a complex question is the fallacy of plurium interrogationum, but even a fallacy can be addressed:

Evolution is a critical part of several fields of science from Palentology to Biology, but it is not the sole basis of any of these. Consequently, no technological advance in these or any related fields can be solely attributed to evolutionary theory any more than any advance is the "result" of just Special Relativity or Gravitational Theory.

Evolution has allowed us to understand the natural world just as all robust scientific theories do, and it is this understanding of the natural world that forms the foundation for all of our scientific advancement. Without the theory of evolution, we would not understand the natural world as well as we do, which in turn would hinder our exploration and manipulation of the world around us.

It is the alternatives to evolution, such as creation and ID, that contribute absolutely nothing to our understanding of the natural world and subsequently do nothing to advance our technological state.

Rick

Vanderzyden

Software! Now that's something that I can elaborate upon in great detail. For our purposes here, however, I will limit my comments.

Can you DEMONSTRATE that one single computer or software engineering endeavor relies in the slightest way upon the hypothesis of biological modified descent? You would make a stronger assertion if you were to explain the loose relations between adapation and something like, say, artificial intelligence.

As has been made clear to me by the absence of a an articulate, concise response, the hypothesis of evolution remains just that--a guess. It is not a theory having formulations which describe it (such as those of Relativity). As such, it isn't even remotely possible to develop specifications for software design that could perform the supposed simulations. Of course, gross over-simplifications and convenient oversights may lead to slightly interesting simplistic programs that purportedly "model" the facts that are being force-fit into the hypothesis. But this is putting the cart before the horse. See "The Blind Watchmaker" for an example of one such fascinating tale.

Notes:

1. Think about it for a minute: Software does not exist on the computer, but rather in the minds of software engineers.

2. My computer isn't alive, or self-aware, so I doubt that I'll be convincing it of anything.