In a message dated 8/12/00 8:42:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Bertvan@aol.com
writes:
<< << Huxter:And why do you insist on using that moniker? Whne[pardon my
typo]
>>>referring to evolutionists?
Bertvan:
>> Because I am not necessarily skeptical of "evolution", only Darwin's
>>version: random mutation and natural selection. This is true of most IDs.
>Huxter I wasn't aware that Darwin said anything about mutations. How many
actual Darwinists do you know? You do realize, skepticism or no, there is
evidence
>for selection, right?
Bertvan:
Hi Huxter, Are you telling me "random mutation and natural selection" isn't
Darwin's term? (It's not my bible and I don't keep a copy handy, but I'm
sure someone else on the list knows whether Darwin actually used the term.)
.
*** It is not my bible either. In fact, I have only read part of it. Steve
Jones is the one that uses a bible. Yes, I am telling you that Darwin said
nothing of random mutation. Even if it were, so what?***
Some form common ancestry was discussed decades before Darwin, and I
believe
Darwin's contribution was the theory that life's complexity was the result
of
small random changes, (without plan, purpose or design) , and that those
organism with the most advantageous (complex?) changes thrived and
produced
progeny at the expense of those lacking such advantageous mutations. Thus
natural selection supposedly (gradually) "designed" complex organisms. (If
this is not your belief, we might not necessarily be in disagreement.)
**** Darwin spoke of life's diversity - complexity is a religio-political
buzz word used when arguing against science. You seem to imply that you
believe that there IS plan, purpoe, and design in the random variations in a
population. If so, what is your evidence for this? Natural selection
selected for organuisms that were best able to produce offspring, i.e., best
adapted to a particular environment and selected aginst those that were/are
not. It is not advantageous for cetaceans to have hind limbs, so the
apparatus that limbs used to be attached to is selected agaisnt, i.e., whales
born without the are better off in the long run.***
The only person on the list I've asked if they believe random mutation and
natural selection created life's complexity was Susan, and she proudly
announced she did. Most who write about evolution acknowledge the term,
"random mutation and natural selection".
**** Yes, they do. Implicit in this 'belief', I am confident, is also an
understanding that there are other mechanisms involved (e.g. drift).
Darwinism better describes a belief that ONLY gradual accumulations of change
result in diversification. What you and others that use the terms Darwinist
and Darwinism are doing is tantamount to someone like me referring ot IDers
and creationists as Flat Earthers.***
Certainly Dawkins does, as does Gould. Any biologist who questions "random
mutation and natural selection" as the designer of life's complexity is
promptly attacked as an anti-evolutionist, such as Denton or Behe.
*** If you say so. Sounds more like you are trumpeting the party line. Behe
and Denton are 'attacked' for 1) bypassing normal channels of scientific
inquiry/discussion by publishing their opinions as facts in a vanity press
without any sort of peer review 2) using erroneous or otherwise inapplicable
data to reach their 'conclusions, etc., and rightly so. ***
Both believe in common descent. Our own Steve Jones believes in common
descent, as do most people supporting ID.
*** Really? Do you think he 'believes' that humans and chimps sharfe a recent
common ancestry? I doubt it. And the reason for that is obvious.
Creationists of all stripes accept common descent of some sort - they HAVE
to, for a number of reasons. But they all seem to draw arbitrary lines,
depending on their philosophical blinders.***
If anyone admits they don't know how life's complexity arose, I don't
disagree with them. Yes, I know selection probably occurs. It selects
traits and genes already in the gene pool.
*** And you think that these already existing genes were put there by some
benevolence. As a belief, thats fine. But as science, where's the beef? ***
I question that it is responsible for creating complex, novel organs, systems
and body parts. Those were "created" by the "mutations". I'm skeptical
that those mutations occurred without plan, purpose, or design. Since that
is something that can be neither proved nor disproved at this point, I
insist that everyone is
entitled to their own judgement on the matter.
*** Sure - anyone can 'believe' anything they want to. In the realm of
science, however, one cannot simply trot out their personal beliefs with no
evidenciary support and insist that they are equivalent in respectability to
those that DO present evidence for their 'beliefs.' You 'believe' that there
is plan and purpose in the extant and extinct diversity we see - where is the
evidence?
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 16:58:13 EDT