Hi Richard,
I may not be all that clear on content and specifics, but I really admire
your debating style. I especially like that "opinion noted" response. Think
of the words we can save!!
Bertvan
(Snipping all but Richard's responses)
Like you, I only have a limited amount of time to devote to this debate.
While I will occasionally make the time to do a search of the archives in
order to substantiate a point, I prefer to reserve that for the important
points. If you want to make an issue of this, then I'll do it. Otherwise, I
invite you to just treat my claim as hearsay.
The difference between making up one's mind and making an absolute claim
seems reasonably clear to me. I suppose it could be made clearer, but this
is not an issue of sufficient interest to me to justify the time.
By "common descent", I of course meant "common ancestry". And I was
referring to common ancestry of all extant organisms. Sorry for any
confusion.
Creationists do not agree with common ancestry. (Perhaps a few evolutionists
might not go so far as to assert a common ancestry for *all* organisms, but
they would at least agree on the common ancestry, say, of all vertebrates.)
While Gould places more emphasis on genetic drift than do some others, he
doesn't deny the importance of natural selection:
"And, yes again, I know of no scientific mechanism other than natural
selection with the proven power to build structures of such eminently
workable design."
(http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970612034F@p3)
I've already said that I'm more inclined to the views of Dawkins than of
Gould, and I briefly explained why (see below).
Opinion noted.
Opinion noted.
I don't know. Maybe it's because he thinks his version fits the facts
better. Or maybe not. But I'm pleased to see that, unlike Bertvan, you don't
object to questioning people's motives.
So you agree now that these are details, not fundamentals?
See below.
You think it's "virtually meaningless" to say that mutation, genetic drift
and natural selection all play a part in evolution (even if I don't specify
their relative importance)? That's a strange usage of "virtually
meaningless". And I certainly don't think that any creationist would agree
that common ancestry of all organisms is virtually meaningless.
I doubt anyway if the differences are as great as your hypothetical figures
imply. See the quote above from Gould about natural selection.
By the way, it doesn't make much sense to talk about the relative importance
of mutation, because all the evolutionists you mentioned would agree that
mutation is essential to both the other mechanisms (natural selection and
drift), and not an independent mechanism of evolution.
I was referring to evidence from "junk DNA". But I was using the word
"experiments" rather loosely. Strictly, you can't carry out experiments on
past processes (unless you have a time travel machine!). So I concede I made
an error here, and retract the point.
The theory of evolution concerns both past processes and current processes.
Only the latter are amenable to experiment. In this respect, the theory
differs from the theory of relativity, which is only concerned with current
processes.
I don't claim that my analogy with relativity is perfect -- there's no such
thing as a perfect analogy. I have read claims that the theory of evolution
has been verified to a greater level of confidence than the theory of
relativity. I don't know if that claim is justified. I'm somewhat sceptical
about it, and have never made it myself.
The point I was making was that we all accept theories for which we haven't
personally checked all the evidence.
By the way, when you say that you provisionally accept common ancestry, do
you mean common ancestry of all extant organisms, or something more limited?
Thank you for drawing my attention to these interesting articles, which I
was previously unaware of.
These scientists are proposing speculative theories which, if confirmed,
would appear to solve some known problems with the existing paradigm. That's
the way science works.
The YECs, on the other hand, are making their claim on no basis other than
that the existing paradigm conflicts with their religious dogma.
I don't claim that there's a precise line between pseudoscience and
speculative science -- I think there's a gray area in between. But it's
clear to me that the YECs are well to one side of that grey area, and the
scientists you quote are probably on the other.
I was being somewhat rhetorical there. My point was that Jaki's claim is so
vague as to amount to nothing more than another opinion.
Should I be concerned about what a "group of students" thought in 1959, even
if there number was "not inconsiderable"? Especially as only some undefined
proportion of them were "strongly in disagreement", while the others were
either "not particularly interested" or didn't consider the matter to be of
"any particular importance"? And we're only told that they disagreed with
"much of current thought". Does that mean they were anti-evolutionists?
Jaki makes it clear that the "respectable minority" he's referring to are
those who are "against the majority position represented by Darwinists." But
Gould and Lewontin *are* Darwinists, so he was not including them.
You seem to be assuming that atheists are more interested in remaining
atheists than in knowing the truth. That may be true of some (but probably
not many). It isn't true of me. If there is a God out there, I'd really like
to know about it! My being an atheist is a result of failing to find
evidence of God; it isn't my goal. Most atheists started off as theists (to
a greater or lesser degree), so have already shown themselves prepared to
change their minds.
True, although a biblical literalist can't accept evolution and remain a
biblical literalist.
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 12:53:49 EST