Other options. Close drawer menu Financial Times International Edition. Search the FT Search. World Show more World. US Show more US. Companies Show more Companies. DD Please pay attention. Why ignore the fact that Darwin's prediction has been completely demolished ; Despite millions of new fossils since Darwin, the transitional fossils he predicted and said his theory required have never been found.
The groupings I have listed above are very contrasting in their internal workings and each fossil find confirms how separate they are from each other. You will get all the insight you want into QM when you try to commit an objective definition of "supernatural" to this blog!
Been waiting a long time for this - how can you exclude it from science if you cant define it? Been waiting a looonnngg time for answers, they are simple points it's not as if I am talking QM or anything! The question on the supernatural was answered-apologies if you did not understand the the response. BTW-still waiting an apology for all the blatant untruths you told about QM, Dover etc-remember cognitive dissonance? PB, the sickle cell question is actually not relevant to the point I made.
SCA is a different matter, but we can actually use that information as well. For one thing, the genome has not changed in length, so in terms of coding basepairs, you could say that the information content is the same. However, high levels of HbS carriage are found in areas that are either currently or historically malarial, so we can actually derive REAL information from a population in which we find high levels. We can use what we know of natural selection to infer that the population under study has been historically exposed to malaria over a number of generations.
This is actually now pretty commonplace, and there are new techniques for detecting this, which are quite interesting, but I won't bore you with at this point. You seem to choose Norman Nevin's association with "Truth [sic] in Science" as an implication of his endorsement of some article or other I'll read it, but I don't hold out high hopes.
But this is by the by. My point is not to swamp you with authority; YOU are the one trying to pull the authority card, but it is worthwhile you knowing that Norman's creationist views are not shared by the genetics community, including large numbers of scientists far more eminent than him. As for the fossils, we can come back to them another time. I was answering the information question, so you can consider that answered. PB- I have an idea. Let's say we give you the fossil record.
It's yours. Have it. The others on here have been trying to explain to you that you're wrong on the fossil record, but let's grant you for the sake of argument that you're right. How do you explain away every other piece of evidence for evolution? How do the predictions of evolution happen to be true each and every time they're used in genetics, biology, physics and so much more? What you seem to be missing is that the theory of evolution does not stand or fall on the fossil record:.
Until you can deal with the rest of the evidence for evolution, you can't rely upon the fossil record alone: that's willful ignorance. Engage in the debate, or don't have it at all! First of all, don't fall for DDs flirtations, he's not serious about you the way I am.
For instance, I'm quite serious when I say you should not misrepresent what was said, by whom, etc. As I already said, and DD also mentioned again, see e. So what are your views on QM? And on all the other issues you left open? Surely you're not going to remain blank for a second year on everything that has been put to you and you haven't answered sofar? Oh dear. It is a rambling free-association chin-rub. Thanks for your reply in post I'm afraid there are a few points I don't go along with.
You wrote. I see in your reply to pb little that takes away my previously stated problem: your theistic proposition only has going for it that at present it can't be disproven.
The naturalist proposition is more modest in its claims. It describes the regular patterns of the world around us, whether they are just there or are the result of the 'legislator'. Now it seems to have gone down to redefining the meaning of certain English words. Do two magnets that you can feel attracting each other have a magnetic 'consciousness'? That's not what the word for it is. I have no info to go on, yet I thoroughly suspect that you have not looked into any detail what the prediction by string theory would be.
Care to give us your more detailed thoughts about how likely it is that braneworld gravity would predict the right interference pattern by chance? Somehow I have a gut feeling that your statement there was fired off without being very well considered.
Not so strange I think if you look at it from a historic rather than scientific or philosophical point of view. Newtonian mechanics were thought to be the key to everything at the end of the 19th century. That turned out to be incorrect.
Atoms were once thought to be the elementary building blocks. But then we learned about atomic nuclei with protons and neutrons. And the latter later turned out to consist of quarks. I don't see why I should. I would expect them to be the answer to everything for a while, until something is discovered that can't be explained by them.
And then maybe we'll learn about some phenomena at even vastly smaller scales. When Newtonian physics started to be surpassed by relativity and quantum mechanics noone had yet heard of string theory. Ok, sorry about that last sentence. While I was not convinced by your follow-up post, I do enjoy this discussion very much. So thanks again for posting. JW Sorry it took me so long to reply - I did post on Thursday but it didnt take obviously.
The first point I would make is that I have not seen anyone actually explain that I am wrong on the fossil record, they have only asserted it.
You must appreciate that as M Hull points out, the difference here between two contrasting worldviews. There are of course well understood reason why fossils dont form. Without question! But I have yet to hear good reasons for why these reasons ONLY apply to transitional lifeforms which a literal reading of Genesis suggests dont exist. That is a very different question and when I ask it all I get is bile and insults.
I would like to see you have a go at it. I have no reason to sacrifice my reason for the current theory of creationism, but nobody is even trying to address this point.
Are they avoiding it or dont they understand? They seem determined to disguise their lack of any answer with ever more shrill insults and declarations of undying love. Why is it that the fossil record and natural world record only evidence for specific kinds of animals as recorded, roughly speaking, to a literal reading of genesis, but excluding transitional forms between;- single celled animals plants invertebrates fish amphibians reptiles mammals I would have expected the fossil record to have much more like a continous spectrum of lifeforms with little in the way of distinct species.
You might at least expect more of a continuum in the living world. But no. We have the opposite. Only more or less biblical creationist kinds, as listed above.
I appreciate there is "a" logic to evolutionary theory which I used to believe and its interpretation of the evidence, but you are really speculating when you imagine creatures that there is no evidence for. If you review the facts carefully you actually cant dispute this. That is why Karl Popper did not accept evolution as a normal scientific theory; he said it was much too difficult to test!
If you surrender the point just for the sake of argument of course that the primary evidence in the argument is much stronger for creationism you are in diffs however; if you concede that the roots and trunk of the tree look very much like an oak you are already on the backfoot if you are going to try and argue that the rest of the branches are pine! As we have discussed before, creationist theory having already the upper hand in the fossil record and the living world, then goes on to make a strong case for common design being the reason for evidence which evolutionists take as common descent.
The only real argument you guys appear to have against this is that I can't bring supernatural creation into the discussion. That might be true in a biology paper but this is not a biology paper; this is the real world. As we have seen, even Dr Peter Klaver cant give a definition of supernatural that does not exclude any future "mainstream" scientific breakthroughs, such as worm hole travel NASA working on it or anti-gravity technology BAE were working on it memes no actual evidence for this, just speculation, as I understand.
It seems to be a convenient arbitrary clause invoked by the high priests in order to keep certain "heresies" out! Other "evidence";- Does the fact that embryos from many types of animals look the same really PROVE they evolved from common lines, or does it just prove that they look alike when embryos?
The answer of course is that it only proves they look alike. Anything more than this is speculative interpretation. It is not observed evidence! Again, this is why Popper said evolution was not a normal theory - it is so difficult to test. Creationism of course falls into the same category - you cant observe or replicate it happening. I know that chimps and men are seperated by a minute degree of DNA but chickens also share a large amount with humans. I suppose many of their organs and systems are so similar.
But all BMWs in the same series have similar design and they did not evolve. So common design is a reasonable alternative - especially as the primary evidence fossils and natural world supports creationism more than evolution.
Peter Yes well observed, you are a phd in physics and know a lot about QM and I am a layman who does not; you are missing a small point though Pete, nobody is disputing this. But is the evidence for worm holes strong theory or memes stronger than for creationism??? So why reject one out of hand and retain the rest?
The group which Prof Norman Nevin campaigns under, Truth in Science, seems to follow the common creationist view check the website for yourself that adaptions can happen within a species eg look at all the variety of dogs, but that mutations can never turn dogs into cats or cows or anything else. In fact, professional dog breeders fear mutations because they know they will damage the dogs health. What organisms are we talking about in these papers? Do these mutations cause them to leave the parameters of natural variation and into territory of a new species?
This is of course, never observed. You may say, it takes so many millions of years so you cant watch it. Fair enough, but that is your problem in proving your theory, not mine. I suspect that any interpretation you put on "information gain" is therefore speculative and subjective. Because of this difficulty in testing Popper said he did not accept it as a regular scientific theory. You state that Michael's theistic proposition only has going for it that at present that it can't be disproven.
That is hardly a fair representation of ID advocates such as McGrath, who would argue that design in nature is evidence for God. You have NOT chosen to debate this topic on a science website, remember? It also takes in philsophy and religion and questions what if any true demarcation there is between them in the real world. You also take him to task for redefining certain English words, when you yourself can define the dividing line between science and religion, at least so far in this discussion.
When we are talking about what is postulated and what is proven, lets have a look again at theoretical physics, worm holes and string theory. You seem very comfortable on the one hand with the fact that physics has undergone what were unforseen revolutions in understanding the world and are comfortable with "guessing" what might come after string theory.
Could it be "supernatural" a word which you cant define, to date. I also note that you appear to represent the evolution of physics across these periods as a smooth accumulation of knowledge, but we know in fact that it was anything but. The 20th century for example had very contrasting views of what exactly light was which did not follow from one another.
QM also outraged many people with its "counterintuitive" views, as Dawkins puts it. But you seem to be sectarian and guilty of double standards;- if an advocate of ID suggests that it might be the next thing after evolution you go completely crazy. Are you actively testing your worldview like me or are you in denial about how you approach these subjects?
Why can't ID advocates have the same scientific credibility in debating their views as memes, worm holes and string theory currently have? Sweety, you keep repeating all this stuff about fossils and declare rather confidentially that your views are "facts" and back up Ken Ham's interpretation of ancient Hebrew creation myths. The thing is PB, fossils have been explained to you many times but none of it sinks in because you are wilfully ignorant and it is absolutely pointless trying to debate you.
Your assertions about fossils reveal so many fallacies nothing new there! If indeed creationist "theory" perhaps you could give us a full breakdown of this "theory"? Since fossils are a classic eg of empirical, standalone evidence perhaps you could answer these very simple points-maybe you missed them!
Science has to produce results-could someone name me the practical results of Biblical creationism you give the excellent eg of fossils and say their theory is superior so I am afraid PB if you can't answer you are not talking "fact" but indeed give a whole brand new definition to the word eg. If your scientific method were up to scratch, PB, you'd say, "OK, so we can't find out from the fossil record what happened, let's look elsewhere," at which stage you'd go elsewhere and find the ton of evidence in biology, genetics, geology, physics, cosmology, astrophysics etc.
Understand my point? A problem with one source of evidence out of hundreds of supporting sources of evidence does not a failed theory make, even if it IS true that the fossil record does not contain proof of evolution. A single problem with Einstein's theory of general relativity doesn't sink the theory, because the theory is adequately supported everywhere else. As I tried to explain before, even if we give you a point for the fossil record which is very generous, since it doesn't prove creationism by any stretch , the tally looks something like this:.
In short, PB, you're a man who's built his house out of straw, and the wind has blown most of it away. On the other hand, I'm warm and comfortable in my house of rock, and it's based on the well-understood, almost unanimously accepted, peer-reviewed, theory of evolution, upon which much modern science is built.
What I've been trying to explain to you PB is that there are hundreds of sources of evidence other than the fossil record, all of which point toward evolution. So you could claim, at most, that the fossil record is inconclusive. But so many other bits of evidence are entirely conclusive. Hello PB. Information, baby. That seems to satisfy your question as to whether information has been observed being added to a genome.
I've given you the citation; take yourself over to Pubmed and look it up. It's not an uncommon phenomenon - gene duplications, insertions etc are very common events.
I was just giving you one small example that was worked out here in Belfast. The group which Prof Norman Nevin campaigns under, Truth in Science, seems to follow the common creationist view. Yes, they are a very questionable bunch. However, you are saying here that Norman "campaigns under" them - can you provide evidence for that?
As far as I can see he was just the lead of a crowd of misguided people who wrote favourably about this group to the UK government. There is nothing on their website or elsewhere to indicate that he is either a member or an affiliate of this gaggle of frauds and charlatans. Which is a good thing. Hopefully he feels embarrassed about it now. Evolution does not suggest that it does. Dogs and cats for example diverged quite a while ago, so each lineage has picked up its own mutations that has resulted in reproductive isolation of the lineages i.
There are just more of them. You have mutations that I do not, and vice versa. There is no pre-assigned "territory" of a species, other than that defined by the genepool, which shifts with each generation. This has been answered ad nauseam. Please engage brain. New species arise from splitting genepools, and at the point of the split it is not at all evident that they are even different species - the big changes occur in subsequent generations as they diverge further there's nothing keeping them together any more.
It is not a "jump". This can happen quite quickly, however maybe a couple of hundred generations , which is too fast for the fossil record to capture, if there is a strong selective pressure. However, the genetic record is very explicit - you can get much higher-resolution comparisons by using the "fossils" within our cells. No - it can happen quickly, as I've said, but "quickly" is still often slow in terms of a human lifetime.
Species keep branching and creating new biodiversity. Well, Popper has his fans and detractors. The Theory is our framework for understanding the mechanisms and processes involved in producing the fact of evolution. Whether Popper popperly understood this is not entirely clear. It's a fascinating and beautiful thing. PB- I don't want to be too overbearing in my pressing of this point, but you'd do well to print and read, and re-read and study, Amen's response to you in It contains everything you're patently missing on this topic, especially with regard to his last paragraph.
Pb, as I've told you so many time already now, DD answered your question about the definition of supernatural already very adequately. Why would I spend time in addition to DD on what is just another tangent from you to distract attention from all the gaping holes in your story still no evidence for creationism, your views on QM -whahaha!!
Oh, and I did look at the BAE site remember, and found there was not a single piece of physics on there, just fancy jargon which you aren't able to distinguish from real research. Not surprising, as your grasp of physics can be estimated when speak of "worm holes strong theory". And apart from outright dishonesty we also see the more subtle misrepresentation of other peoples positons again in your post And then you quote me as saying that I describe my own position as"not exactly firm ground to stand on".
Care to remind me where I said that please? Peter, good point re McGrath. I'm not at all sure where PB got the notion that he was a cdesign proponentsist. He clearly believes in an old earth and evolution, albeit guided by god. In fact, I've run across quite a few people who think that "Intelligent Design" is the same thing as "theistic evolution" - this seems to be part of the sleight-of-brain that the loonies are using to get their half-arsed cobblers into "respectable" circles.
Small point: I'm a "theistic evolutionist" but I don't believe God needs to 'guide' the process of evolution supernaturally in any way. Remember, if indeed a creative being exists outside of our space-time constraints, then that God's creation may not necessarily be the 'content' of the universe but maybe its laws and constants, or in the hypothesis of a multiverse maybe only ITS laws and constants.
Theistic evolutionist mustn't necessarily believe that God is active supernaturally in the evolutionary process. John, you never tried to explain why the only fossils we are missing are broadly speaking the ones the bible record says dont exist.
I have yet to see any crediblke evidence from other areas that cannt be easily accepted as evidence of common designer ie by a single designer, rather than common descent. Remember, all BMWs in the same series have similar design traits, but they never evolved from each other. In post 87 you argued using a phrase about not having firm ground to stand on see penultimtae paragraph.
The fact that McGrath is not a creationist does not weaken his argument; he still believes in ID. Full marks for oserving that I am not a physicst and that as you prooduly display on your url you have a phd in the field; I sitll question what evidence you might believe that tiny strings across dimensions might hold the answer to a grand unified theory of eveything! It appears your double standards when it comes to ID is is sectarian discrimination.
You have never given me the slightest reason to think otherwise Pete. You seem to be playing the dumb semanticist. It is a matter of public record, as you well know, that Nevin signed the open letter to the Govt calling for ID to be taught in schools. But most interesting of all you are now telling us that the evidnence for new-species evolution by mutation comes from I just have one small problem with that Amen, I have yet to see the evidence for anything either evolving to of from humans.
It will be interesting to see if the authors actually make the verbatim claims about their work that you do! I see a parallel in this field where people claiming to be priests of this particular religion tell the laity that only they can understand the mysteries. But it appears to me you are making much bolder claims for your evidence that the evidence actually allows.
I see you are stung by Popper's conclusions, trying to set them aside but faily to refute the points he raised; I dont believe you even realise yourself when you are going beyond the actual acience and into speculation which suits your agressive form of athiesm.
As you are throwing mud, I wont feel too bad in reminding readers that you previously tried to convince me that you are the Son of God and also that Christ was not a joiner!! As I recall you backed down on both counts. That is not intended as an attack on your character but as a reflection of your record in displaying facts.
Fossils have been explained to you verbatim. You are wilfully ignorant and it is very insulting when you ask questions-get answers but and ignore them and repeat the same old dishonest creationist canards. Anyway you did not present "positive evidence" in favour of creationism, the best you did was make assertions. Now these are some extremely simple points that you keep missing them indeed some of them for a year and a half!
It is even more mad considering that you said that your opinions are "fact" and creationist theory whatever the hell that is! Oh well here they are again!!!!! Let's go easy on pb for this once. Obviously the festive season meant he had a little too much to drink before he posted. How else could he have repeated his ludicrous claim that McGrath supports ID?
Or missed again, sigh my reference to DDs answer regarding the supernatural. I see no other explanation for such bad posts other than drunkenness or willful dishonesty. It couldn't be the latter could it? Pb my sweet, beware of Dylan Dog. Being an atheist, he is of course morally degenerate and an utterly evil man. He's the sort of person who would take advantage of you in your drunken state. It's good to see that you're getting into the spirit of Pastafarianism by having lots of beer.
But it will make you vulnerable. So don't have too much and don't allow DD to have his way with you in an unguarded moment. Honestly, if you had that sort of encounter with him I'd be devastated. It would take me ages to recover. It think it would take me all of the rest of the year to recover from it if it happened.
So please be good. I too can't see how PB could have posted a comment like his latest one, other than maybe drunkenness or perhaps a hostage situation which forced him to make the comments under duress? Either way, he's merely rebuilding the same old sandcastle of nonsense which has been brought crumbling down time and time again by the tide of reason.
For example:. I've spent a portion of my spare time from the past couple of YEARS doing just that, but you reject it, not out of concern for scientific congruity, but because it doesn't fit your ideology. See the evidence from human chromosome 2, for a single tiny example out of hundreds of such possible examples. Nothing they've tested or discovered for hundreds of years has called into question the theory of evolution. It's established.
It's the best operating theory. They're sure it happened. The details are being worked out, but evolution is a certainty. The longer you take to learn that, the more you resemble a church member at the time of Galileo, who were absolutely certain that the earth was at the centre of the universe that is until good scientists finally persuaded them otherwise.
How long will it take for science to sway you from your wayward theology, PB? Hope you had a great Christmas, btw, and I look forward to more of this in ' I have told you off about this before!
Incidentally John, PB according to his own philosophy should indeed be a Geo-centrist. Well, I'm flattered but I have to disappoint you. I am fully monogamously devoted to my sweet peab. You twist everything! I of course meant that I am keeping an eye on your nefarious tactics! Tarnation - my posts keep getting chewed by Will's dastardly blog software wot doesn't let comments get through. Anyway, PB: how do you think your latest post or, rather, the bits that were targeted at me addressed any of the issues I raised?
Why did you take what I said on one aspect and try to misapply it to another, where I had already shown that you had a wrong idea of what evolutionary theory predicts? Go back and read the thread. Previous Article Next Article. Article Navigation.
Research Article February 01 E-mail: countnomis aol. This Site. Google Scholar. The American Biology Teacher 75 2 : 83— Get Permissions. Cite Icon Cite. But think about it. Consider what Herbert Spenser said over a century ago:. On our turf. On our terms — scientific terms. All rights reserved. Send Email Recipient s will receive an email with a link to 'Yes! Recipient Optional Message: Optional message may have a maximum of characters.
Citing articles via Web Of Science 2. Email alerts Article Activity Alert. Latest Issue Alert. Stay Informed Sign up for eNews. I remain uncertain as to whether this onslaught, and the sacrificial takedown of Wright, brought dignity or embarrassment to the history of ideas. It seems dangerous argumentative waters to imagine candidates must make transparent all their functioning myths, all their enduring premises.
I say this because the correlation between what we believe and what we do what we govern has yet to be intellectually demonstrated as coherent or demonstrably consistent, across the political spectrum.
There is something to be said for that command performance, for the candidates forced into a position where they must show themselves as thinkers, as believers, as members of social movements often inexplicable to those outside and estranged from the disappointment and alienation which congeals those enclaves.
After all, that is the executive expectation set before their runs toward elected office. Now creationism makes a brief shadowy show, still unsubstantiated, mocked and feared by those flailing in the vagaries of Dover, Pennsylvania and the Institute for Creation Research.
Sarah Palin owes it to her constituents, and to her critics, to account for this accounting, for the ways she reconciled her science teacher father and Pentecostal pastor. If she cannot make an argument as to what role her beliefs play in her framing of the world, in her imagination of the American scientific, political, and evolutionary possibility, then she will have not only demonstrated definitively with verifiable evidence that she should not be the vice president of anything, but also that banning her, from universities or intellectual exposure, does nobody—not her, not creationists, and not the religions that produce it—any sort of intellectual good.
This is a thoughtful piece that makes some interesting connections. And Lofton is right. Palin does need to account for this accounting instead of hiding behind the fortress between her and the media. Except for the thin interview with Charlie Gibson, no one has been allowed to question her on the record.
I find that outrageous. As for her beliefs on creationism, whether she believes in creationism of not, she has gone on record that she favors creationism be taught in the public schools. Maybe because teaching creationism is teaching religion not teaching about religion but is actually teaching religion and not teaching science?
0コメント