From: Spencer W. Bailey (fishonastick@cox.net)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 07:03:47 BST
I suppose part of my problem is exactly what Platt has pointed out...which
is a new idea to me, but fits my viewpoint. Evolution as a theory means
that it can be tested, tried, and found to be either "true" or "false."
Evolutionary theory is untestable. It is also incomplete. So, regardless
of anyone's lack of exposure to the ongoing argument over Evolution
(Darwinism), it is heavily debated.
My "ooze struck by lightening" comment was more of a stab at Darwinism than
a "fact" or "theory" purported by Darwinists. It was to point out that
although the theory of Evolution claims to know (via fossil record) where
humans, plants, animals, bacteria, etc came from, they fail to address the
question of how it all started. We see biological similarities in our
comparisons of primates and humans that match/mesh at a higher degree than
humans and locusts, but what is not understood or mentioned, is that
molecular genetics isn't necessary for that distinction...biology is all
that is necessary...simple biology, that is.
Is it not possible that whatever (or whomever) kicked life into being simply
saw that the DNA strand was the most versatile mode of code transference and
any and all similarities animals or plants share is simply a coincidence or,
more importantly, a sign of a sort of intelligent design?
I am not purporting Creationism here, but do question why Darwinism is
taught to children in schools around the world as the way things ARE...not
the way things MIGHT be...with no alternative ideas put forth as
possibilities. Seems to me that the issue of Darwinism is no longer
questioned, but accepted, again, not as a THEORY, but as a LAW/FACT.
Any problems I have with Darwinism are not simply mine, nor do they lack
credence even if it were so.
Spencer
> Hi Jonathan, Steve, All
>
> Jonathan, we've been around this block before, but since there are many
> new residents on the block since our last go around, a response to your
> position on evolutionary theory seems called for.
>
> STEVE
> > Scientific theories generally make verifiable predictions and can be
> > judged on how well predictions match measurements. Evolution seems to be
> > different. Can anyone tell me what does evolution predict?
> >
> > JONATHAN
> > I answered this before, e.g. in my reply to George on 23 July 2002
> > (archived at
> > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0207/0604.html)
> >
> > Here is the relevant part again:
> > >The only way to test a theory is to test its predictions. If the theory
> > > makes no testable predictions, then according to Popper, it isn't a
> > >scientific theory. The theory of evolution makes many predictions:
>
> Popper said that Darwinism is not really a scientific theory because
> natural selection is an all-purpose explanation which can account for
> anything and therefore explains nothing. It is not obvious that a
> faster horse sires more offspring, or that wings give an animal an
> advantage to breed more survivors.
>
> > >Evolutionary Theory predicts the emergence of antibiotic-resistant
> > >bacteria, pesticide resistant insects and herbicide resistant plants -
> > >all of these predictions verified.
>
> These are examples of microevolution. What's at issue, and what evolution
> theory fails to predict, are macro changes like the origin of life
> from matter, the development up from the simple cell, and the evolution
> of the cell into complicated, living organisms. The theory is always
> looking back. It can't tell us what the next macro change, if any,
> will be.
>
> > >Evolutionary Theory predicts that you have more in common with a
> > >gorilla than with a locust - MOLECULAR GENETICS CONFIRMS THIS.
>
> I know of nothing in evolutionary theory that would predict the
> emergence of self-consciousness, the step up from the gorilla. As noted
> above, your theory really can't say what's ahead. Even the old saw
> about moths turning brown to better hide themselves by imitating soot
> from English chimneys has been challenged.
>
> > >George, I challenge you to provide one example of a (valid) prediction
> > >of Evolutionary Theory that has been disproved. (I should warn you,
> > >people have been trying to do this, without success, since Darwin).
>
> What other predictions does evolutionary theory make besides the two
> you've named? You say there are many. How about half a dozen? (I doubt
> if those predictions you cited above were actually made, but were
> rather drummed up after the fact.) Are there any evolutionary
> predictions around that might come to pass in our lifetime that we
> could all see? (Predicting there will be new varieties of the flu virus
> doesn't count. We want something better than that, like the emergence
> of a giant frog or something.)
>
> And, lest we forget:
>
> "Today we have as a result a theory of evolution in which man is
> ruthlessly controlled by the cause and effect laws of the universe
> while the particles of his body are not. The absurdity of this seems to
> have been neglected." (Lila, ch.11)
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 05:01:46 BST