From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 11:49:10 EST
Thanks George that is roughly what I was going to say.
I will also add that evolution a la Darwin has nothingto do with mutation as
he knew nothing about it. Mutation was first put forward in the 1890s.
Further you can accept evolution without accepting neo-Darwinianism.
There's a lot of nonsense on evolution by pros and antis
Regards
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>;
<RFaussette@aol.com>; <hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Evolution & Identity of the ID designer
> A very simple & broad statement of evolutionary theory is not hard to
give:
> Biological species change over long periods of time, with some becoming
extenct and some
> new species arising from old. Various species are thus related to one
another. Such
> ideas are, of course, not uniquely Darwinian.
> Michael has correctly noted several ways in which such a simple theory
could be
> falsified. (I waive for now the right to raise questions about the
falsification
> criterion in view of the possibility of always defending a theory's "hard
core" with
> auxiliary hypotheses.) This simple theory has not been falsified. There
is, in fact,
> no serious question about its correctness or its character as a scientific
theory.
> The question of _how_ evolution takes place is of course more difficult.
But we
> would avoid a lot of wasted time & posturing if we would agree that it
_has_ taken
> place.
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> Walter Hicks wrote:
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > In my post I asked for a
> > definition of the THEORY of
> > evolution and you have not
> > provided one. Do you
> > understand what I asked for? I
> > did not ask for a list of
> > things having to do with YEC.
> > You seem to be actively
> > avoiding a response to the
> > question. (This is no
> > surprise, since I have yet to
> > meet someone who will stick
> > his/her neck out.) It is easy
> > to criticize others, not so
> > easy to defend your own
> > opinion.
> >
> > For example, Darwin suggested
> > that THEORY is that evolution
> > (right up through mankind) has
> > taken place by :
> >
> > 1.) Natural Selection
> > (survival of the fittest)
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2.) Constant mutation by
> > various random processes
> >
> > Would you subscribe to that?
> > If not, what is your version
> > of the theory? In either case,
> > what would you offer for
> > falsification criteria (I say
> > "falsify", not support)
> >
> > Walt
> >
> > Can't get rid of this yucky
> > green stuff.
> >
> > Michael Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > Of course it is a list of
> > > things which if demonstrable
> > > will conclusively refute
> > > evolution.Hence all the
> > > silly arguments about
> > > proving a young
> > > earth Michael
> > >
> > > ----- Original
> > > Message -----
> > > From:
> > > RFaussette@aol.com
> > > To:
> > > michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
> > > ;
> > > wallyshoes@mindspring.com
> > > ; gmurphy@raex.com
> > > Cc:
> > > hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com
> > > ; asa@calvin.edu
> > > Sent: Sunday,
> > > December 01, 2002
> > > 4:16 PM
> > > Subject: Re:
> > > Evolution &
> > > Identity of the ID
> > > designer
> > > In a message
> > > dated 12/1/02
> > > 9:39:10 AM Eastern
> > > Standard Time,
> > > michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
> > > writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Evolution is
> > > > easily
> > > > falsifiable.
> > > > 1.) Find human
> > > > fossils in the
> > > > mid-Tertiary or
> > > > earlier
> > > > 2.) Find
> > > > palaeozoic
> > > > mammals
> > > > 3) Precambrian
> > > > vertebrates.
> > > > 4) A young or a
> > > > youngish earth
> > > > i.e less than
> > > > 100 million -
> > > > consider what
> > > > Kelvin nearly
> > > > did to evolution
> > > > after 1860
> > > > 5)0 our DNA
> > > > more like
> > > > insects than
> > > > rats
> > > >
> > > > We could go on.
> > > >
> > > > Hasn't anyone
> > > > got the skill to
> > > > falsify
> > > > evolution on
> > > > these points
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > michael,
> > > You've posted a
> > > list - how does
> > > your list falsify
> > > evolution?
> > > rich
> > >
> > --
> > ===================================
> >
> > Walt Hicks
> > <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
> >
> > In any consistent theory,
> > there must
> > exist true but not provable
> > statements.
> > (Godel's Theorem)
> >
> > You can only find the truth
> > with logic
> > If you have already found the
> > truth
> > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> > ===================================
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Michael
> >
> > In my post I asked for a definition of the THEORY of evolution and you
> > have not provided one. Do you understand what I asked for? I did not
> > ask for a list of things having to do with YEC. You seem to be
> > actively avoiding a response to the question. (This is no surprise,
> > since I have yet to meet someone who will stick his/her neck out.) It
> > is easy to criticize others, not so easy to defend your own opinion.
> >
> > For example, Darwin suggested that THEORY is that evolution (right up
> > through mankind) has taken place by :
> >
> > 1.) Natural Selection (survival of the fittest)
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2.) Constant mutation by various random processes
> >
> > Would you subscribe to that? If not, what is your version of the
> > theory? In either case, what would you offer for falsification
> > criteria (I say "falsify", not support)
> >
> > Walt
> >
> > Can't get rid of this yucky green stuff.
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael Roberts wrote:
> >
> > Of course it is a list of things which if demonstrable will
> > conclusively refute evolution.Hence all the silly arguments
> > about proving a young earth Michael
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: RFaussette@aol.com
> > To: michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk ;
> > wallyshoes@mindspring.com ; gmurphy@raex.com
> > Cc: hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com ; asa@calvin.edu
> > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 4:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Evolution & Identity of the ID
> > designer
> > In a message dated 12/1/02 9:39:10 AM Eastern
> > Standard Time, michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
> > writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Evolution is easily falsifiable.
> > 1.) Find human fossils in the
> > mid-Tertiary or earlier
> > 2.) Find palaeozoic mammals
> > 3) Precambrian vertebrates.
> > 4) A young or a youngish earth i.e less
> > than 100 million - consider what
> > Kelvin nearly did to evolution after
> > 1860
> > 5)0 our DNA more like insects than rats
> >
> > We could go on.
> >
> > Hasn't anyone got the skill to falsify
> > evolution on these points
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > michael,
> > You've posted a list - how does your list falsify
> > evolution?
> > rich
> >
> > --
> > ===================================
> > Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
> >
> > In any consistent theory, there must
> > exist true but not provable statements.
> > (Godel's Theorem)
> >
> > You can only find the truth with logic
> > If you have already found the truth
> > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> > ===================================
> >
>
> --
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 02 2002 - 22:05:47 EST