Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (687)	9/16/1999 11:39:00 PM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Tunica- I see you have given up debating me - losing the arguments eh? Here are a few more pops. A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. This is such an old chestnut that is trotted out by the creationists. Hell - I've even debunked it myself. WHY DO YOU IGNORE THE POST! The statement is true. However 'Gradualism' has been replaced by 'punctuated equilibrium' to explain the current view of the fossil record. The root of the problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. ...... I don't see what this pargraph contributes to the argument - severe OT obfuscation. The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism It isn't any more controversial than either of the theories of Gravity. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. If one weighs the balance of probabilities, evolution is a fact, as is the round world and any other fact you care to name. Evolution is NOT mindless or random. Natural selection preserves gains and eradicates mistakes. only nine percent of Americans accept the central finding of biology that human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved from more ancient beings with no divine intervention along the way. This probably goes a long way to explaining the high percentage of foreign nationals working in Silicon Valley. An even more compelling reason for keeping the lid on public discussion is that the official neo-Darwinian theory is having serious trouble with the evidence. The what? What is official neo-Darwinism? Since the Darwinists sometimes define evolution merely as "change," and lump minor variation with the whole creation story as "evolution," a few trivial examples like dog-breeding or fruit fly variation allow them to claim proof for the whole system. This is a gross distortion of the facts. See my potted summary of Evolutionary theory in Post #538 The really important claim of the theory -- that the Darwinian mechanism does away with the need to presuppose a creator -- is protected by a semantic defense-in-depth. This is outrageous. An outright lie. Evolutionary theory, Darwinian or otherwise, makes no such claim! Prove me wrong. Here's just one example of how real science is replaced by flim-flam. The standard textbook example of natural selection involves a species of finches in the Galapagos, whose beaks have been measured over many years. In 1997 a drought killed most of the finches, and the survivors had beaks slightly larger than before. The probable explanation was that larger-beaked birds had an advantage in eating the last tough seeds that remained. A few years later there was a flood, and after that the beak size went back to normal. Nothing new had appeared, and there was no directional change of any kind. Nonetheless, that is the most impressive example of natural selection at work that the Darwinists have been able to find after nearly a century and a half of searching. This is NOT the most impressive example. The fossil record is. (See Gould "A wonderful life"). The explanation for the return to normal beak size has been conveniently excised. It's called 'regression to the mean'. In the absence of environmental factors forcing the change in he first place, regression to the mean will always take place. Thats why tall parents can sometime beget shorter offspring. If the Academy meant to teach scientific investigation, rather than to inculcate a belief system, it would encourage students to think about why, if natural selection has been continuously active in creating, the observed examples involve very limited back-and-forth variation that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. This is an apparent problem with the academy, one not shared abroad I'm sad to say. Why is the fossil record overall so difficult to reconcile with the steady process of gradual transformation predicted by the neo-Darwinian theory? Because Gradualism might be wrong? You are debating a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself! See above I'm beginning to wonder I bother. w.

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (687)	9/17/1999 10:33:00 AM
From: Bill Ounce	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 69300

re: straw horse arguments from Creationists "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin." Notice the deception here. Religion inspired people wish to block the teaching of a scientific theory which is the foundation of biology. This is a separation of Church and State issue more than a criticism of Darwin issues. (Which the Creationists say separation of Church and State is a bad idea, forgetting that the reason people came to this continent was for Religious freedom and forgetting the centuries of wars in Western Europe between government sponsored Christian factions -- Even in the 20th century, when a religion gains control of a country nasty things start happening in the name of God.) a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. Science is based upon observation, we can't observe God, so Science can say nothing about God. That's why God is left out of the picture. It's kinda like trying to do a math proof using a step "then a miracle occurred". For more info see talkorigins.org and talkorigins.org So one reason the science educators panic at the first sign of public rebellion is that they fear exposure of the implicit religious content in what they are teaching. No, one reason science educators panic is that they have studied the history of science and know how in the past religion has persecuted scientists. These are but a few of the most obvious problems with that particular posting.