Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Phscs · 06-27-2002, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt, Jr.:
<strong>

I am not sure I understand the complaint here.
The Special Creation hypothesis (as it was presented above) is different from the evolutionary explanation with respect to the 'competitive environment-natural selection-random mutation,...' aspect of evolutionary explanations. The 'local' physiology of various species is not addressed. The difference is in what 'tweaks' the relevant physiological points in the living organisms.

Having said that, if you think your complaint still stands, I don't understand it.

John Galt, Jr.</strong>

Strange, the complaint seems crystal clear.

We 'observe' mutations - its a fact.

We 'observe' natural selection - its a fact.

No one has ever observed SP.

Therefore the evolutionary mechanism is an observable fact, and your proposed mechanism of SP a fiction based on religious grounds.

regards

-phscs

xBobTheAlienx · 06-27-2002, 03:17 PM

Mutation is not evolution. Natural selection is not evolution. You have not observed evolution until you see one organism change to a completely different organism. Natural selection and mutation are parts of the theory of evolution, not evolution itself.

Mageth · 06-27-2002, 03:27 PM

Mutation is not evolution. Natural selection is not evolution. ... Natural selection and mutation are parts of the theory of evolution, not evolution itself.

That's what Phscs said, dude.

You have not observed evolution until you see one organism change to a completely different organism.

No one will ever observe this. Organisms don't change into different organisms. No one even claims this happens (except people who believe in lycanthropy).

What evolution describes is species (or more correctly groups of organisms belonging to a species) evolving into new species. The fossil record, which someone mentioned above, is replete with examples of this. Genetics further corroborates this.

Evolution happens. It's a fact. Get over it.

John Galt, Jr. · 06-27-2002, 03:29 PM

Phscs ,

First, a question- Where do you see 'religious grounds' in any of my posts? Your prejudices are showing!

Second, a point-- The only 'mechanism' that is required for my hypothesis is the very mechanism that evolution depends upon-- the 'genetic physiology' so to speak that makes mutation a possibility. The only thing that needs to be different is the way in which the genetic changes come about. We can now bring about such changes and we are on our way to making well-planned changes of a greater magnitude. Species changes at will are supported by existing knowledge of physiology to exactly the same extent that the evolutionary story is supported by our existing knowledge.

John Galt, Jr.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

John Galt, Jr. · 06-27-2002, 03:37 PM

Mageth

Quote:

The fossil record, which someone mentioned above, is replete with examples of this.

In fact, the fossil record, in itself, is not replete with anything of the kind. 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.

Quote:

It's a fact.

This really is a silly thing to say! Get over it!

John Galt, Jr.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

xBobTheAlienx · 06-27-2002, 03:41 PM

reading half of a post doesnt work well.

liquid · 06-27-2002, 03:43 PM

LOL!

JG Jr., forgive me for my childish behaviour, but I have to bow down to you as the most amazingly patronising person I have ever met on the internet. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Especially when you consider the credentials of the people on this board.

Mageth · 06-27-2002, 03:46 PM

In fact, the fossil record, in itself, is not replete with anything of the kind. The fossil record offers data which you/certain evolutionists interpret in a certain way.

The fossil record illustrates that evolution (descent with modification) happens. What other conclusion could be drawn from the data?

Other ways of interpreting this data are available.

Perhaps available, but none fits the data, or holds up to the intense scrutiny of science, as well as evolutionary theory.

When (and if) someone comes up with a scientific theory that explains what we observe in the fossil record (and in the world around us today) better than evololutionary theory, then science will switch. Over the last 150 years, evolutionary theory has evolved to adapt to new evidence, but guess what? It still stands.

John Galt, Jr. · 06-27-2002, 03:52 PM

liquid,

I am not sure I undertand your comment. Could you elaborate a bit!

If you are, by chance referring to my remark about the silliness of the claim that evolution is a fact, this claim-- evolution is a fact-- is a claim that no scientist with an elementary knowledge/appreciation of the epistemology of (aspects of) received science would ever make.

John Galt, Jr.

Mageth · 06-27-2002, 03:59 PM

Lots, if not most, scientists claim evolution is a fact. The mechanisms of evolution are considered theories.

See <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" target="_blank">Evolution is a fact and a theory</a> on talkorigins.

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

06-27-2002, 03:17 PM	#12
xBobTheAlienx Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Texas A&M, but CA is home. Posts: 31	Mutation is not evolution. Natural selection is not evolution. You have not observed evolution until you see one organism change to a completely different organism. Natural selection and mutation are parts of the theory of evolution, not evolution itself.

06-27-2002, 03:27 PM	#13
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Mutation is not evolution. Natural selection is not evolution. ... Natural selection and mutation are parts of the theory of evolution, not evolution itself. That's what Phscs said, dude. You have not observed evolution until you see one organism change to a completely different organism. No one will ever observe this. Organisms don't change into different organisms. No one even claims this happens (except people who believe in lycanthropy). What evolution describes is species (or more correctly groups of organisms belonging to a species) evolving into new species. The fossil record, which someone mentioned above, is replete with examples of this. Genetics further corroborates this. Evolution happens. It's a fact. Get over it.

06-27-2002, 03:29 PM	#14
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	Phscs , First, a question- Where do you see 'religious grounds' in any of my posts? Your prejudices are showing! Second, a point-- The only 'mechanism' that is required for my hypothesis is the very mechanism that evolution depends upon-- the 'genetic physiology' so to speak that makes mutation a possibility. The only thing that needs to be different is the way in which the genetic changes come about. We can now bring about such changes and we are on our way to making well-planned changes of a greater magnitude. Species changes at will are supported by existing knowledge of physiology to exactly the same extent that the evolutionary story is supported by our existing knowledge. John Galt, Jr. [ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

06-27-2002, 03:41 PM	#16
xBobTheAlienx Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Texas A&M, but CA is home. Posts: 31	reading half of a post doesnt work well.

06-27-2002, 03:43 PM	#17
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	LOL! JG Jr., forgive me for my childish behaviour, but I have to bow down to you as the most amazingly patronising person I have ever met on the internet. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Especially when you consider the credentials of the people on this board.

06-27-2002, 03:46 PM	#18
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	In fact, the fossil record, in itself, is not replete with anything of the kind. The fossil record offers data which you/certain evolutionists interpret in a certain way. The fossil record illustrates that evolution (descent with modification) happens. What other conclusion could be drawn from the data? Other ways of interpreting this data are available. Perhaps available, but none fits the data, or holds up to the intense scrutiny of science, as well as evolutionary theory. When (and if) someone comes up with a scientific theory that explains what we observe in the fossil record (and in the world around us today) better than evololutionary theory, then science will switch. Over the last 150 years, evolutionary theory has evolved to adapt to new evidence, but guess what? It still stands.

06-27-2002, 03:52 PM	#19
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	liquid, I am not sure I undertand your comment. Could you elaborate a bit! If you are, by chance referring to my remark about the silliness of the claim that evolution is a fact, this claim-- evolution is a fact-- is a claim that no scientist with an elementary knowledge/appreciation of the epistemology of (aspects of) received science would ever make. John Galt, Jr.

06-27-2002, 03:59 PM	#20
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Lots, if not most, scientists claim evolution is a fact. The mechanisms of evolution are considered theories. See <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" target="_blank">Evolution is a fact and a theory</a> on talkorigins.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.