"Stephen E. Jones" writes
in message <200004192253.GAA21816@popserver-02.iinet.net.au>:
> TH>That's obvious. However, the claim of variety would be falsified
> >if we found only the same life forms over a variety of conditions.
>
> If Tedd concedes that it is "obvious" that "Darwinism would not be
> falsified if we found another Earth-like planet with no life...on
> it", then I rest my case.
No, obvious that Darwinism would not be falsified if we found another
Earth-like planet ... etc. I supplied what I believe would be
falsification in the paragraph above.
> See above. On Tedd's own admission, Darwinism cannot even predict
> that there would be any life at all!
No, if there is a good supply of imperfectly replicating molecules,
natural selection can act on them to produce levels of complexity
logically limited only by time and energy supply. I would
argue that complexity is a prediction of the laws of physics
and Darwinism is merely one combination of those.
<snip>
> >SJ>My prediction is that by the early 21st century the Darwinists
> >>will be unable to continue preventing the critical discussion
> >>of Darwinism's many problems in science classes.
>
> TH>That's not much of a prediction unless you identify which of
> >Darwinism's "many problems" you think aren't being discussed
> >today. Can you supply specifics?
>
> I have just cited two to Tedd, namely the origin of sex, which Dawkins said
> was "probably the most baffling topic in modern evolutionary theory"
No, this topic is being discussed today. It's certainly not being
hidden.
> But here is another. There is little or no empirical scientific
> evidence for positive natural selection:
"Little" is subjective, given that it is not clear what kinds
of examples one would expect given observed mutation rates.
If natural selection is the main driving force of evolution,
what evidence should exist for it? "No" is, of course, incorrect
as I show below.
> "Despite its biological importance, positive selection is seldom
> observed at work in nature. A few well-known, and constantly
> cited examples are industrial melanism in moths (Kettlewell,
> 1955, 1956, 1958), DDT resistance in insects and antibiotic
> resistance in bacteria." (Kimura M., "The Neutral Theory of
> Molecular Evolution," 1990, p.118)
>
> And even that constantly cited evidence is shaky. Kettlewell's
> "industrial melanism in moths" has been largely discredited,
Perhaps you could supply details how this is not an example of
natural selection? I should warn you in advance that I've
read Donald Frack's article posted to this list last April.
> and Spetner has pointed out that "resistance in insects and
> antibiotic resistance in bacteria" is caused by a *loss* of
> genetic information!
Not always. Compensatory mutations and reverse mutations are
known to occur. See "Reducing antibiotic resistance." Schrag.
Nature Vol 381 9 May 1996. If a mutation can occur that
improves the fitness of a bacteria in the *absence* of the
antibiotic, Spetner's whole thesis has been derailed.
<rearrangement of paragraphs:>
>TH>There's no particular reason I see that such evidence is needed.
>>I've listed the obvious problems with attempting to use quotes
>>to bolster a particular viewpoint. This isn't just a problem
>>unique to you, it's a problem for anyone who attempts to represent
>>a person's views out of full context. That's just the nature of
>>the written word and the reason why people typically write books
>>to express their views, not single paragraphs.
>
> Tedd is begging the question that my quotes are "out of full
> context". It is simply an absurdity that one would have to quote
> an author's whole "book" to express his/her views on any particular
> point. If that was the case, scientific journals which make a
> point and reference it with a footnote to another journal should
> cite the entire journal!
>
> I regard this "`out-of-context quote' defence as just a ploy. If
> Tedd was interested in getting at the truth, he would debate what
> the quotes actually say. If they were out-of-context, Tedd could
> show that they are by citing the wider context and win that point.
Why bother? You're an old hand at using quotes for propaganda
purposes, and you're skilled at not quite crossing the line into
blatant misquoting. Whatever I wrote, you could go on insisting
that your interpretation was correct and non-evolutionists would
side with you, evolutionists would side with me. Instead of
productive discussions on what you and I actually believe, we
would likely be sidetracked into hair-splitting and accusations
of word games. Instead of discussing evidence, we would be
posting dictionary definitions of English words. Painful,
tedious, and eventually pointless.
Could it be that this is what you want? Such a game is certainly
a lot easier to appear to win then specifically talking about
details, issues and evidence and actually defending arguments
raised...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 20:32:57 EDT