Do you realize that I have never stated whether I thought evolution is rational or irrational? That the question is irrelevant to my position?
Mad Dawg
JoinedPosts by Mad Dawg
-
33
The Evidence For Evolution (From "why do we say 'I believe evolution'")
by Spook ini started this as a new thread because the orignal was getting rather long and distant from the op.
mad dog and i were circulating what, i maintain (or admit) are some fairly specific grounds for starting the discussion.. he was defending a version of (as i understand it): it is unfounded or irrational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because either the evidence is insufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory or the evidence observed, while corresponding to the theory, nevertheless is based on unfounded or irrational assumptions.. he is not saying, as i understand it, the following: there exists some evidence which either falsifies the necessary conditions or some other theory which better fits the data.. i was defending and will defend: it is rational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because the evidence closely corresponds to and is sufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory and (if we ever get there) it is irrational to reject or postpone judgement of the theory on these grounds.. i'll certainly leave the last half for now, and cut right to the chase in as terse a way possible to allow a likewise pointed rebuttal.. if the theory of evolution were true.... 1. the necessary condition of variation within a population of organisms should be observed.. 2. the necessary condition of a means of heredity should be observed.. 3. the necessary condition of mechanisms os selection should be observed to act on, within and between populations of organisms.. (these conditions, if proven, satisfy that the theory is at least possibly true, but does not constitute grounds to determine rational belief or disbelief in common descent.).
4. there should be evidence observable in the present and derivable through repeatable analytic means therefrom that life has existed on earth for a long time with respect to the life span of any known organism.. 5. any evidence for the existance of past life forms which is observable in the present should by comparative anatomy, geographical location, computational dating and other methods correspond to the prediction of the descent of species from common ancestors.. 6. the current biogeographical distribution of species alive today should be observed to correspond to the theory of common descent and also fit the evidence in (5).. 7. given genetics, the observable evidence in (6, some of 5, some of 1-3) should be verified to match any corresponding prediction derived from the theory.. (these observations, a posteriori, would constitute strong evidence for the conclusion that probably, evolution is true and may or may not constitute logical grounds for rational belief depending on exactly how an opposing position is developed.
-
-
-
33
The Evidence For Evolution (From "why do we say 'I believe evolution'")
by Spook ini started this as a new thread because the orignal was getting rather long and distant from the op.
mad dog and i were circulating what, i maintain (or admit) are some fairly specific grounds for starting the discussion.. he was defending a version of (as i understand it): it is unfounded or irrational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because either the evidence is insufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory or the evidence observed, while corresponding to the theory, nevertheless is based on unfounded or irrational assumptions.. he is not saying, as i understand it, the following: there exists some evidence which either falsifies the necessary conditions or some other theory which better fits the data.. i was defending and will defend: it is rational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because the evidence closely corresponds to and is sufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory and (if we ever get there) it is irrational to reject or postpone judgement of the theory on these grounds.. i'll certainly leave the last half for now, and cut right to the chase in as terse a way possible to allow a likewise pointed rebuttal.. if the theory of evolution were true.... 1. the necessary condition of variation within a population of organisms should be observed.. 2. the necessary condition of a means of heredity should be observed.. 3. the necessary condition of mechanisms os selection should be observed to act on, within and between populations of organisms.. (these conditions, if proven, satisfy that the theory is at least possibly true, but does not constitute grounds to determine rational belief or disbelief in common descent.).
4. there should be evidence observable in the present and derivable through repeatable analytic means therefrom that life has existed on earth for a long time with respect to the life span of any known organism.. 5. any evidence for the existance of past life forms which is observable in the present should by comparative anatomy, geographical location, computational dating and other methods correspond to the prediction of the descent of species from common ancestors.. 6. the current biogeographical distribution of species alive today should be observed to correspond to the theory of common descent and also fit the evidence in (5).. 7. given genetics, the observable evidence in (6, some of 5, some of 1-3) should be verified to match any corresponding prediction derived from the theory.. (these observations, a posteriori, would constitute strong evidence for the conclusion that probably, evolution is true and may or may not constitute logical grounds for rational belief depending on exactly how an opposing position is developed.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Mad Dawg... You selectively misquote me,…
Where?
tell me I said something that you know I didn't,…
Again, where?
…ignore things we've said that you don't like,…
There is nothing that I like or dislike. I ignore irrelevant arguments.
and continue to ask the same things over and over again when the information you request has been provided.
The only thing that I have asked for is proof for evolution that can be observed, tested, and repeated. What has been provided that fulfills my request? If I understand you correctly, you have said or agreed to:
Ø Evolution can not be observed.
Ø Small changes do not prove evolution
Then you continue to waste everyone’s time by trying to show small changes prove evolution. You would get a lot further if you picked ONE example and stick with it. I don’t have time to exhaustively examine everything you put up here.
If you're serious about your search, you know where to look.
Where?
-
33
The Evidence For Evolution (From "why do we say 'I believe evolution'")
by Spook ini started this as a new thread because the orignal was getting rather long and distant from the op.
mad dog and i were circulating what, i maintain (or admit) are some fairly specific grounds for starting the discussion.. he was defending a version of (as i understand it): it is unfounded or irrational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because either the evidence is insufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory or the evidence observed, while corresponding to the theory, nevertheless is based on unfounded or irrational assumptions.. he is not saying, as i understand it, the following: there exists some evidence which either falsifies the necessary conditions or some other theory which better fits the data.. i was defending and will defend: it is rational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because the evidence closely corresponds to and is sufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory and (if we ever get there) it is irrational to reject or postpone judgement of the theory on these grounds.. i'll certainly leave the last half for now, and cut right to the chase in as terse a way possible to allow a likewise pointed rebuttal.. if the theory of evolution were true.... 1. the necessary condition of variation within a population of organisms should be observed.. 2. the necessary condition of a means of heredity should be observed.. 3. the necessary condition of mechanisms os selection should be observed to act on, within and between populations of organisms.. (these conditions, if proven, satisfy that the theory is at least possibly true, but does not constitute grounds to determine rational belief or disbelief in common descent.).
4. there should be evidence observable in the present and derivable through repeatable analytic means therefrom that life has existed on earth for a long time with respect to the life span of any known organism.. 5. any evidence for the existance of past life forms which is observable in the present should by comparative anatomy, geographical location, computational dating and other methods correspond to the prediction of the descent of species from common ancestors.. 6. the current biogeographical distribution of species alive today should be observed to correspond to the theory of common descent and also fit the evidence in (5).. 7. given genetics, the observable evidence in (6, some of 5, some of 1-3) should be verified to match any corresponding prediction derived from the theory.. (these observations, a posteriori, would constitute strong evidence for the conclusion that probably, evolution is true and may or may not constitute logical grounds for rational belief depending on exactly how an opposing position is developed.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Spook said:
Again, no such spec limit exists. If evolution is true, it's a soft boundary and species classifications are inherently arbitrary
Hmmm, using something that has not been proven, “ If evolution is true ” to make an assumption, “ it’s a soft boundary ” then taking it to a definitive statement, “ no such spec limit exists. ” Not very scientific.
I use the definition that I learned in grade school. It is basically an issue of interbreeding. This is based on observations. “ If evolution is true ” is speculation on facts not in evidence. Any conclusions you come to that support evolution based on speciation is dependant on the statement “ If evolution is true ”. You are using evolution to prove evolution – unless these statement are not intended in any way to support evolution.
The interbreeding definition for a species is much more defined, but it can still be fuzzy because of the existence of mules and hinnies – which can’t reproduce.
Listen, I know what you mean by these example, but it is erroneous to extrapolate this to other questions.
I am not extrapolating anything. I never said that Ug evolved 240 miles because he walked from point A to B and Mike proved that from A to B is 240 miles.
The point is: rate=units/time. We can solve for units: units=rate*time. We can solve for time: time=units/rate. There are a number of ways to determine the units or time:
Ø Direct measurement
o Stop watch
o Odometer
Ø |A-B|
Ø Units/rate
This is not to say that the means for determining the rate, time, or units is limited to the above. If someone is going to state that there is a rate of decay or change or something, they must show the units and the time it is based on, and how these values were determined.
Why don't you come right out and say we can have no meaningful knowledge about the past?
I don’t believe the above statement. What we actually know is less than we claim to know is my position.
If light is observed at point X and travels at a known velocity, even in a vacuum, regardless of the observers location and velocity, from a known source,
We know this because we have observed, tested, and repeated it many times.
And hell, even if you don't think we can have knowledge about the past I can still prove it is rational to accept evolution in the present - just please say so.
I have not said that it is irrational. What I have said is that the assumptions are unfounded. So far, you have not put forth anything that supports evolution without making unfounded assumptions.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/rough-draft-of.html This is the link to the source you requested.
Drwtsn32 said:
As was mentioned before, if you are asking to see one species "clearly" change into another species in front of your eyes, you're asking for something that is not possible…
I am glad that you agree that evolution has not been observed.
…and not predicted by evolution.
So? Go find some example that support evolution with empirical evidence. Something that can be observed, tested, and repeated.
The changes that we can see in front of our eyes (ie, that only take a few decades to manifest) are going to be small changes.
Is this an agreement that small changes do not prove evolution?
… is certainly not evidence against evolution.
I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. I am simply starting at zero and surveying what we do or don’t know. I will leave the conclusion to be drawn from the facts for later.
And about speciation: I have read of examples where speciation has been observed, but I don't think it would qualify to Mad Dawg as "clearly another species".
You are correct.
As spook has mentioned, it can be difficult to even define what a species is and where the line is drawn.
Unless there is a clear definition of “species” any discussion of it will be as useful as a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Usually when I hear a challeng like Mad Dawg's, people want to see drastic change quickly.
I have no desire to see any particular thing. I am only interested in what we do see.
-
33
The Evidence For Evolution (From "why do we say 'I believe evolution'")
by Spook ini started this as a new thread because the orignal was getting rather long and distant from the op.
mad dog and i were circulating what, i maintain (or admit) are some fairly specific grounds for starting the discussion.. he was defending a version of (as i understand it): it is unfounded or irrational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because either the evidence is insufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory or the evidence observed, while corresponding to the theory, nevertheless is based on unfounded or irrational assumptions.. he is not saying, as i understand it, the following: there exists some evidence which either falsifies the necessary conditions or some other theory which better fits the data.. i was defending and will defend: it is rational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because the evidence closely corresponds to and is sufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory and (if we ever get there) it is irrational to reject or postpone judgement of the theory on these grounds.. i'll certainly leave the last half for now, and cut right to the chase in as terse a way possible to allow a likewise pointed rebuttal.. if the theory of evolution were true.... 1. the necessary condition of variation within a population of organisms should be observed.. 2. the necessary condition of a means of heredity should be observed.. 3. the necessary condition of mechanisms os selection should be observed to act on, within and between populations of organisms.. (these conditions, if proven, satisfy that the theory is at least possibly true, but does not constitute grounds to determine rational belief or disbelief in common descent.).
4. there should be evidence observable in the present and derivable through repeatable analytic means therefrom that life has existed on earth for a long time with respect to the life span of any known organism.. 5. any evidence for the existance of past life forms which is observable in the present should by comparative anatomy, geographical location, computational dating and other methods correspond to the prediction of the descent of species from common ancestors.. 6. the current biogeographical distribution of species alive today should be observed to correspond to the theory of common descent and also fit the evidence in (5).. 7. given genetics, the observable evidence in (6, some of 5, some of 1-3) should be verified to match any corresponding prediction derived from the theory.. (these observations, a posteriori, would constitute strong evidence for the conclusion that probably, evolution is true and may or may not constitute logical grounds for rational belief depending on exactly how an opposing position is developed.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Spook said:
He asserts no speciation has been observed and assumes - without merit - that the observation of discreet prima facie speciation is both predicted by and necessary for confirming the evolutionary hypothesis.
My, my, you do love those straw men, don't you? Where have I said that speciation doesn't occur? It occurs within 'natural selection.'
Speciation (from Encarta):
formation of new species: the evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by one species that divides into two or more species that are genetically unique.
The words species and speciation are not clearly defined. You should know as well as I do (I hope) that there is as much debate over what a species is as there is what a planet is. To clarify my intention, replace "clearly" with "unarguably."
Where have I said: "...that the observation of discreet prima facie speciation is both predicted by and necessary for confirming the evolutionary hypothesis."?
You would do well to read what I ACTUALLY wrote, rather than what you WISH I had wrote.
-
33
The Evidence For Evolution (From "why do we say 'I believe evolution'")
by Spook ini started this as a new thread because the orignal was getting rather long and distant from the op.
mad dog and i were circulating what, i maintain (or admit) are some fairly specific grounds for starting the discussion.. he was defending a version of (as i understand it): it is unfounded or irrational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because either the evidence is insufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory or the evidence observed, while corresponding to the theory, nevertheless is based on unfounded or irrational assumptions.. he is not saying, as i understand it, the following: there exists some evidence which either falsifies the necessary conditions or some other theory which better fits the data.. i was defending and will defend: it is rational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because the evidence closely corresponds to and is sufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory and (if we ever get there) it is irrational to reject or postpone judgement of the theory on these grounds.. i'll certainly leave the last half for now, and cut right to the chase in as terse a way possible to allow a likewise pointed rebuttal.. if the theory of evolution were true.... 1. the necessary condition of variation within a population of organisms should be observed.. 2. the necessary condition of a means of heredity should be observed.. 3. the necessary condition of mechanisms os selection should be observed to act on, within and between populations of organisms.. (these conditions, if proven, satisfy that the theory is at least possibly true, but does not constitute grounds to determine rational belief or disbelief in common descent.).
4. there should be evidence observable in the present and derivable through repeatable analytic means therefrom that life has existed on earth for a long time with respect to the life span of any known organism.. 5. any evidence for the existance of past life forms which is observable in the present should by comparative anatomy, geographical location, computational dating and other methods correspond to the prediction of the descent of species from common ancestors.. 6. the current biogeographical distribution of species alive today should be observed to correspond to the theory of common descent and also fit the evidence in (5).. 7. given genetics, the observable evidence in (6, some of 5, some of 1-3) should be verified to match any corresponding prediction derived from the theory.. (these observations, a posteriori, would constitute strong evidence for the conclusion that probably, evolution is true and may or may not constitute logical grounds for rational belief depending on exactly how an opposing position is developed.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Spook said:
1. The answer to the first one is 60 miles, the product of average velocity and time.
2. The answer to the second one is 240 miles, the difference between the reading at B and A.
3. The answer to the third one is not less than the product of 1.5 hours and the minimum average rate capable for the vehicle, and also not more than 12009 miles. Given many defensible assumptions about the nature of driving you could infer more knowledge out of these details. If you disagree with the not less than assumption, your question is clearly non-sensical if the driver had no net distance the query is linguistically false and has no meaning.
Thank you for your response. The answers to the first two questions are correct. Simply put, the answer for the third is "We don't know." We can deduce a range, perhaps. But the bottom line is we don't know. In 1 and 2 we have complete information. In question 3 we have a rather large range of possibilities. If you don't think so, try walking that range.
In the case of the Neanderthal, let's look at what we have versus what we need. Just as all of the information need not be present in a single case, per 1 and 2 above, it is instructive to recognize what we do or don't know.
We Need
Do we have it?
The current state of the human genome
Yes
The rate of change of the human genome
No, the sample size is too small for the populations
The original state of the human genome
No, we have no way of knowing
The spec limits for what is human
No, although we have mapped the genome, we still don't know what it means
The end state or the state at one point in time of the Neanderthal genome
No,we have mapped 63% of their genome from 3 skulls that had 95% foreign DNA
The rate of change of the Neanderthal genome
No
The original state of the Neanderthal genome
No
The spec limits for what is a Neanderthal
No
Frankly, we know too little too make any conclusions.
-
33
The Evidence For Evolution (From "why do we say 'I believe evolution'")
by Spook ini started this as a new thread because the orignal was getting rather long and distant from the op.
mad dog and i were circulating what, i maintain (or admit) are some fairly specific grounds for starting the discussion.. he was defending a version of (as i understand it): it is unfounded or irrational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because either the evidence is insufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory or the evidence observed, while corresponding to the theory, nevertheless is based on unfounded or irrational assumptions.. he is not saying, as i understand it, the following: there exists some evidence which either falsifies the necessary conditions or some other theory which better fits the data.. i was defending and will defend: it is rational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because the evidence closely corresponds to and is sufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory and (if we ever get there) it is irrational to reject or postpone judgement of the theory on these grounds.. i'll certainly leave the last half for now, and cut right to the chase in as terse a way possible to allow a likewise pointed rebuttal.. if the theory of evolution were true.... 1. the necessary condition of variation within a population of organisms should be observed.. 2. the necessary condition of a means of heredity should be observed.. 3. the necessary condition of mechanisms os selection should be observed to act on, within and between populations of organisms.. (these conditions, if proven, satisfy that the theory is at least possibly true, but does not constitute grounds to determine rational belief or disbelief in common descent.).
4. there should be evidence observable in the present and derivable through repeatable analytic means therefrom that life has existed on earth for a long time with respect to the life span of any known organism.. 5. any evidence for the existance of past life forms which is observable in the present should by comparative anatomy, geographical location, computational dating and other methods correspond to the prediction of the descent of species from common ancestors.. 6. the current biogeographical distribution of species alive today should be observed to correspond to the theory of common descent and also fit the evidence in (5).. 7. given genetics, the observable evidence in (6, some of 5, some of 1-3) should be verified to match any corresponding prediction derived from the theory.. (these observations, a posteriori, would constitute strong evidence for the conclusion that probably, evolution is true and may or may not constitute logical grounds for rational belief depending on exactly how an opposing position is developed.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Evolution has been directly observed in bacteria. Bacteria have gained abilities they previously did not have. This is a fact.
It is acknowledged on both sides of the issue that natural selection happens frequently and before our eyes. What has not been observed is the change of one species into what is clearly another species.
Bacteria have a number of mechanisms to bring substances into its cell. If it loses a mechanism, it is no longer able to bring the corresponding substances in. Therefore that substance cannot harm it. Keep in mind that this is the result of loss of genetic information, not a gain. Just like albinoism is a loss of genetic information.
Natural selection does not prove goo-to-you evolution any more than my jumping a mud puddle proves that I can jump the Grand Canyon in a single leap.
Atavisms occasionally manifest themselves. This is a fact. This goes against special creation but is actually predicted and supported by evolutionary theory.
Atavism per http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/Dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx
1. reappearance of genetic feature: the recurrence of a genetically controlled feature in an organism after it has been absent for several generations, usually because of an accidental recombination of genes.
In other words, it is the expression of genes that are already present. There is no new information or genes.
DNA contains genes (junk, retroviral, etc). This is a fact. It proves common descent, which again goes against creation but is supported by evolutionary theory.
To declare a gene ‘junk’, one must have absolute knowledge of all genes. We don’t have such knowledge. It would be much more accurate to state “We don’t know what this gene is for.” Basically the ‘vestigial argument’ on the DNA level.
So far nothing is proven. The items that you have cited can point to either evolution or creation.
-
33
The Evidence For Evolution (From "why do we say 'I believe evolution'")
by Spook ini started this as a new thread because the orignal was getting rather long and distant from the op.
mad dog and i were circulating what, i maintain (or admit) are some fairly specific grounds for starting the discussion.. he was defending a version of (as i understand it): it is unfounded or irrational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because either the evidence is insufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory or the evidence observed, while corresponding to the theory, nevertheless is based on unfounded or irrational assumptions.. he is not saying, as i understand it, the following: there exists some evidence which either falsifies the necessary conditions or some other theory which better fits the data.. i was defending and will defend: it is rational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because the evidence closely corresponds to and is sufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory and (if we ever get there) it is irrational to reject or postpone judgement of the theory on these grounds.. i'll certainly leave the last half for now, and cut right to the chase in as terse a way possible to allow a likewise pointed rebuttal.. if the theory of evolution were true.... 1. the necessary condition of variation within a population of organisms should be observed.. 2. the necessary condition of a means of heredity should be observed.. 3. the necessary condition of mechanisms os selection should be observed to act on, within and between populations of organisms.. (these conditions, if proven, satisfy that the theory is at least possibly true, but does not constitute grounds to determine rational belief or disbelief in common descent.).
4. there should be evidence observable in the present and derivable through repeatable analytic means therefrom that life has existed on earth for a long time with respect to the life span of any known organism.. 5. any evidence for the existance of past life forms which is observable in the present should by comparative anatomy, geographical location, computational dating and other methods correspond to the prediction of the descent of species from common ancestors.. 6. the current biogeographical distribution of species alive today should be observed to correspond to the theory of common descent and also fit the evidence in (5).. 7. given genetics, the observable evidence in (6, some of 5, some of 1-3) should be verified to match any corresponding prediction derived from the theory.. (these observations, a posteriori, would constitute strong evidence for the conclusion that probably, evolution is true and may or may not constitute logical grounds for rational belief depending on exactly how an opposing position is developed.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Why are some people so afraid of evolution? It's a natural process.
Why are some people so afraid of creation? If evo is a natural process, then prove it.
Why do so many people think that if they study evolution they have to give up God?
Evolution has theological implications whithin the sphere of Christianity. Why do so many people think that if evolution is false, they have to worship God?
If you believe in God, wouldn't God be able to exist in a world/universe/reality that evolves/grows/changes/creates?
The question is not “Is He able to….” The question is “does He….”
If Bill Gates was trying to sell the internet to the middle east 2,000 years ago, what sort of language could he use so that they would understand?
He would probably use Greek. Bill would have to invent new terms to describe certain things, but they would have gotten it. When white guys ventured into the jungles 30 or 40 years ago, they found that the locals were very intelligent. Just because a society is not technologically advanced does not mean that the people are simple minded. They built stuff that we cannot duplicate today.
If you are trying to say that they would not have understood evolution, that dog don’t hunt. There are evolutionary stories going back to Babylon.
I wish people would stop trying to force the literal bible (which is can be quite successul if used in a spiritual way) into a scientific and material culture.
I wish people would quit overstating the support for evolution and admit what they don’t know. Why must ‘people’ capitulate to your position?
They both speak of the same things BUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS, using different language.
Both what speak the same what things?
Black = Will Power’s post
Blue = Mad Dawg’s response
-
33
The Evidence For Evolution (From "why do we say 'I believe evolution'")
by Spook ini started this as a new thread because the orignal was getting rather long and distant from the op.
mad dog and i were circulating what, i maintain (or admit) are some fairly specific grounds for starting the discussion.. he was defending a version of (as i understand it): it is unfounded or irrational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because either the evidence is insufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory or the evidence observed, while corresponding to the theory, nevertheless is based on unfounded or irrational assumptions.. he is not saying, as i understand it, the following: there exists some evidence which either falsifies the necessary conditions or some other theory which better fits the data.. i was defending and will defend: it is rational to accept the theory of evolution as probably true because the evidence closely corresponds to and is sufficient compared to what should be observed according to the theory and (if we ever get there) it is irrational to reject or postpone judgement of the theory on these grounds.. i'll certainly leave the last half for now, and cut right to the chase in as terse a way possible to allow a likewise pointed rebuttal.. if the theory of evolution were true.... 1. the necessary condition of variation within a population of organisms should be observed.. 2. the necessary condition of a means of heredity should be observed.. 3. the necessary condition of mechanisms os selection should be observed to act on, within and between populations of organisms.. (these conditions, if proven, satisfy that the theory is at least possibly true, but does not constitute grounds to determine rational belief or disbelief in common descent.).
4. there should be evidence observable in the present and derivable through repeatable analytic means therefrom that life has existed on earth for a long time with respect to the life span of any known organism.. 5. any evidence for the existance of past life forms which is observable in the present should by comparative anatomy, geographical location, computational dating and other methods correspond to the prediction of the descent of species from common ancestors.. 6. the current biogeographical distribution of species alive today should be observed to correspond to the theory of common descent and also fit the evidence in (5).. 7. given genetics, the observable evidence in (6, some of 5, some of 1-3) should be verified to match any corresponding prediction derived from the theory.. (these observations, a posteriori, would constitute strong evidence for the conclusion that probably, evolution is true and may or may not constitute logical grounds for rational belief depending on exactly how an opposing position is developed.
-
-
Mad Dawg
1. John drives for one hour at 60 MPH, how far did he drive?
It depends on what you mean. Do you mean how far in straight line adjusted absolute coordinates he is from his original destination? What's the curvature of the surface he's on? Net distance from the starting point?
1. Mike leaves point A with 32,254 miles on the odometer, he arrives at B with 32,494 miles on the odometer. How far did he drive?
Assuming the odometer is accurately calibrated for the tire diameter, air pressure, slippage...?
1. Bob drives for 1½ hours and arrives at point X with 12,009 on his odometer. How far did he drive?
Same answer.
We're both getting pretty obtuse.
Please re-read the above and tell me who is obtuse. These are simple questions. Do you fear answering them as they are, plainly written? If not, then please do.
I have never needed philosophical gobble-dy-gook to engage in science before. Why should I start now? Galileo, Capernacus, Newton, Pastuer, Einstein, et al did not encumber themselves with asking those questions. Why should I?
I am not going to get caught up in a protracted semantic/philisohpical battle when the issue is much simpler than that. It takes you a multitude of paragraphs to state your position. Mine is very simple: “The individual ‘facts’ of evolution are without support.” You want me to prove it, but complain when I do. You want to assert certain assumptions are true, but I am not allowed to show that they are false.
Black = Mad Dawg's questions from a previous post.
Red = Spook's (non) response to those questions.
Blue = Mad Dawg's observations about Spook's (non) response and his post above.
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
Mad Dawg
They have spent hundreds of millions on SETI. The only thing they have found is the microwave oven in the break room.
-
89
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ ini hear this and read this a lot, "i don't believe in evolution" or " this person does not believe in evolution".
when we say this we a perpetuating the myth that evolution is a belief, when in reality it is a fact.
we should say " this person does not accept evolution as a fact".
-
-
Mad Dawg
Thank you, that is all that I have been saying.