Reflectorites
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:56:59 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>>BV>It is possible that whales evolved from some wolf-like creature. What is
>>>>being questioned is whether it happened because of "chance variation and
>>>>natural selection".
>>
>>SB>since we can watch variation (whether "chance" or not) and natural
>>>selection happen every day ...
>SJ>Compare this with:
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:17:43 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote
>>re: Examples of natural selection generating CSI:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>WE>Natural selection, though, is notoriously difficult to
>>>empirically isolate as a mechanism of action. The level of
>>>evidence needed to both implicate natural selection and to
>>>exclude genetic drift is high. [...]
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>So when asked to give hard evidence of random mutation and natural
>>selection accomplishing anything *today*, Darwinists either downplay
>>RM&NS and talk of other mechanisms, or they present evidence of
>>something *trivial* (like fluctuating colours in moths or length of finches'
>>beaks), and even then there is some doubt that RM&NS was responsible.
SB>good god! (or deity of your choice) You quoted a participating member of
>this list out of context! ROFL!!!
This is just bluster. There was no "quote...out of context"
SB>Wesley was talking about *isolating* one of the mechanisms of evolution
>from the the others.
Agreed. One of the "mechanisms" (in fact the *only* one mentioned) was
"Natural selection".
SB>He didn't say it didn't exist
I didn't say anything above about whether "Natural selection" "didn't exist".
SB>or couldn't be observed.
I didn't say "Natural selection" "couldn't be observed".
Susan said "we can watch ... natural selection happen every day ..." Wesley
said "Natural selection, though, is notoriously difficult to empirically isolate
as a mechanism of action."
How can Susan "watch" something "happen every day" that is "notoriously
difficult to empirically isolate"? IOW how does Susan know she is watching
"Natural selection"?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Another philosophical question regards the very definition of the word
'selection'. One of the original formulations of selection was 'the survival of
the fittest'. If you open a standard textbook of genetics 'fitness' will
probably be defined as 'the ability to survive' or something similar. But if he
'fittest' are defined as 'the best survivors' then the idea of natural selection
becomes 'the survival of those best at surviving'. So what else is new? If
there is no more to Darwinism than a truism then the whole theory rests on
very shaky ground." (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of
Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.21)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 17:21:24 EDT