On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:14:07 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://phys.org/news/2023-07-genes-memory-million-years.htmlInteresting; thanks. Any prospect of finding out if this is
The Phys.org article claims that the genes responsible for making
monoamines (molecules like adrenaline and dopamine) that are involved in
things like memory and behaviors such as sleep, feeding, and agression)
evolved in the bilaterian stem group around 650 million years ago. The
article also suggests that the neurological circuits that these
monoamines are associated with were important for the radiation observed
in the Cambrian explosion that would have occurred after a hundred
million years period when these neurological circuits would have been
evolving.
This must mean that these genes aren't found in Cnidaria that may have
neuronal cells, but they should lack these genes, since Cnidaria split
off before bilateral animals evolved.
the case?
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement
with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I
searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a
smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a
person or a person's POV.
It is an initialism that stands for Point Refuted A Thousand Times.
Other initialisms include YMMV for your mileage may vary and
IMHO for in my humble opinion, NTTAWWT for not that there's
anything wrong with that.
Generally speaking, I dislike their use as they seem more a mechanism
for failed communication.
On 7/15/2023 4:29 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:14:07 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://phys.org/news/2023-07-genes-memory-million-years.htmlInteresting; thanks. Any prospect of finding out if this is
The Phys.org article claims that the genes responsible for making
monoamines (molecules like adrenaline and dopamine) that are involved in >>> things like memory and behaviors such as sleep, feeding, and agression)
evolved in the bilaterian stem group around 650 million years ago. The
article also suggests that the neurological circuits that these
monoamines are associated with were important for the radiation observed >>> in the Cambrian explosion that would have occurred after a hundred
million years period when these neurological circuits would have been
evolving.
This must mean that these genes aren't found in Cnidaria that may have
neuronal cells, but they should lack these genes, since Cnidaria split
off before bilateral animals evolved.
the case?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39030-2
The research paper is open access, and it looks complicated. It looks
like a lot of the enzymes needed to make the monoamines are found in >Cnidaria, but Cnidaria lacks some monoamine transporters that are only
found in bilateria.
It might be the case that Cnidaria could make the monoamines, but did
not develop the ability to used them the way bilateria was able to use
them, or I guess Cnidaria could have lost the ability to use the
monoamines the way bilateria does.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement
with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I
searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a
smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a
person or a person's POV.
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement
with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I >searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a
smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a >person or a person's POV.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:55:40?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:beautiful membrane structures and here you can see smaller vesicles trapped inside a big one they're really really quite beautiful but they also have the amazing property that they can grow in very interesting ways
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:18:30 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:05:40?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:More of your baseless allusions and quotemines designed to obfuscate.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 13:28:37 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 4:35:36?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak,
describing the current status of his team's efforts to identify
plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with a
30-minute Q&A with the audience.
Actually closer to 35 minutes, and very indicative of how much
we still do NOT know about how hard or easy abiogenesis is.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge.
Too bad so many of your kindred spirits in talk.origins don't
acknowledge this where abiogenesis, a.k.a. OOL, is concerned.
Faced with huge gaps in our knowledge about it, they
use formulas like, "Sure, we don't know everything about it yet,"
or "Huge progress is being made every day," etc.
The topic is about what Szostak says in the cited video, not what some
alleged kindred spirits in T.O. allegedly said. But then your
compulsive hijacking of topics also serves to obfuscate.
Even if your allegations were accurate, the sense of your alleged
quote actually well describes YOUR willingness here to dismiss what is
known by pointing to what is unknown.
Then instead of your arguments based on allusions and quotemines, youThat you apply it to abiogenesis uniquely overplays YOUR hand.
Not with the way your kindred spirits overplay THEIR hand
with nary a protest by you.
need to specify how these alleged kindred spirits allegedly
overplaying their hand informs you actually overplaying YOUR hand.
They rhapsodize about how what I call the first two floorsThen cite this alleged insult, so everybody can check for themselves
of my metaphoric 100 floor skyscraper are being better
and better understood every day. One of them, who
killfiled me about five years ago, even got angry at MarkE
for not reading up on these articles and books, and refusing all
invitations to discuss what I call the 40th floor and beyond.
Just the other day, he insulted Ron Dean for not acknowledging
the fact [read: falsehood] that his questions about pathways
from the phyla of the Cambrian back to the LCA of those phyla
had been answered.
to what you only allude above. More likely, this is another case of
what you claim to have happened, having little resemblance to what
actually happened. But avoiding a specific cite gives you an excuse
to add yet another round of your mindless compulsive obfuscations.
The title of the lecture really overplays its hand:
"Scientist Stories: Jack Szostak, The Origin of Life Not as Hard as it Looks"
I much prefer the title given in another place where the same lecture is shown, despite
the misspelling of Szostak's name:
"The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer"
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLzyco3Q_Rg
The question mark in this title of the lecture is VERY appropriate.
If one wants to remove it, one needs a much more modest title:
"A Few Isolated Steps in the Origin of Life Are Not as Hard as they Look."
I've often used the metaphor of a 100 foot skyscraper, with the first free-living
prokaryote on the roof, while the prebiotic result of the Miller-Urey experiment
is in the basement, the complete list of amino acids used by life as we know it is on the first floor,
and the five nucleotides of life as we know it are on the second floor. >> >> >
Some of the highlights of the lecture include demonstrations of how >> >> >> lipid bilayers abiotically self-assemble, grow, and divide,
This was the isolated stage that impressed me the most.
The necessary lipids themselves I would put on the second floor, but once they are there,
they quickly ascend to the 10th floor to form the lipid vesicles with multiple membrane layers.
From the transcript, unedited except for removing linebreaks and intermediate times:
~46:10: "one of the nice things is you use microscopy to get beautiful images so like what you see here is when a vesicle made of a simple fatty acid oleic acid you just shake it up in water under the right conditions and it spontaneously makes
andwill grow in this unusual way into filaments which we kind of understand but not completely these are very fragile so they can break down to smaller the other vesicles which can grow and the cycle can repeat"~47:40and so what I'm going to show you here's another movie this is one of these vesicles it's encapsulating a
fluorescent dye which is what you can actually see we had food which is more fatty acids and it grows like in this really an unexpected way ~46:55
...
~47:11: "if you have these vesicles that are kind of complex and they have multiple membrane layers you can throw in more of the building blocks of the membrane fatty acids in this case still and get incorporated into the membrane which will grow
No troll here. Nah.So you recognize Ron Dean as someone who, when confronted with
Unfortunately, having outrun the other necessities, they are stuck on the 10th floor until
the necessities make their way up there, and they can incorporate useful biomolecules
that they can metabolize, and not just ions or useless garbage.
nonenzymatic RNA duplication,
This was around the 39 minute point, where he tried to show a film
about it, but after he made it work, he had to admit that there were a whole raft
of problems to complete the process, beginning with the puzzle of how to make the
two strands separate without either one coming apart, due to the complicated structure.
In our cells, other enzymes make this child's play, but...where's
the non-enzymatic way to complete the replication?
The whole process has to repeat on the complementary strand before there is a duplicate of the original.
"This is one of the big things we are working on now," says he a bit after the 45 minute mark,
after showing us a complicated disk with RNA in various places that he didn't have the time
to explain in detail.
Now you overplay YOUR hand:
Your comments remind me of Creationists
Like Ron Dean? If not, can you name one who is or was
active in talk.origins in the last decade?
EVEN JUST ONE?
evidence of transitional forms, demands evidence of transitional forms
for those transitional forms. That suggests your previous baseless
allusion of alleged insults in fact was nothing like what you alleged
to have happened.
Even if he did, that would be a good example.who, when confronted with
evidence of transitional forms,
... under the broad idea of the word "transitional forms" whereby
a platypus is somehow "transitional" between mammals and
living reptiles? Harshman did this a long while ago.
Your comments above are a specific case. Thank you for proving mydemand evidence of transitional forms
for those transitional forms. It's easy to dismiss what is known by
pointing to what is unknown.
You are taking refuge in a huge generality. Try arguing this specific case:
It is easy to dismiss ideas of "transitional" forms that still
leave huge gaps, like the best candidate for ancestry of full-fledged
pterosaurs being a lizardlike reptile that shows no signs of developing gliding
membranes, let alone wings, and whose forelimbs were much shorter than its hindlimbs.
point for me. Once again, you turn your post into a self-parody.
Do your employers know you associate them with a parody of yourself?abiotic substrates for protein
synthesis, and functions of the first peptides.
The lecture suffers from multiple technical glitches. IMO the
information Szostak provides despite these glitches make viewing this >> >> >> video worthwhile.
No argument there, as long as everyone reading this realizes how apropos my
much more modest suggestion for a title is.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g>
Szostak is about as good as they come in the field of OOL, and the way he admits
to how much we do NOT know, especially in the Q&A session, he is well worth listening to.
Note the words "the way" and "how much": not vague generalities like yours,
but one specific example after another.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
--
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement
with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I
searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a
smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a
person or a person's POV.
It is an initialism that stands for Point Refuted A Thousand Times.
Other initialisms include YMMV for your mileage may vary and
IMHO for in my humble opinion, NTTAWWT for not that there's
anything wrong with that.
Generally speaking, I dislike their use as they seem more a mechanism
for failed communication.
That wasn't your error. Your error was in stopping there,
revealing the fact that you have zero interests in these
topics and were merely grepping for a dig.
Yes, I agree revealing that I have
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:----------------------------------
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement
with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I
searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a person or a person's POV.
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a person or a person's POV.----------------------------------
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a person or a person's POV.
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to modern----------------------------------
animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has
been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times
in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a person or a person's POV.
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to modern----------------------------------
animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has
been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times
in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it isIt is an initialism that stands for Point Refuted A Thousand Times.
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a person or a person's POV.
Other initialisms include YMMV for your mileage may vary and
IMHO for in my humble opinion, NTTAWWT for not that there's
anything wrong with that.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:15:41 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreementIt is an initialism that stands for Point Refuted A Thousand Times.
with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I
searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a
smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a
person or a person's POV.
Other initialisms include YMMV for your mileage may vary and
IMHO for in my humble opinion, NTTAWWT for not that there's
anything wrong with that.
Then there's the cricket player from a Monty Python sketch:
Y.E.T. A.N.O.T.H.E.R. Pratt.
William Hyde
Science does not work like that. From sample of one life
we can not calculate likelihood of other life.
From
sample of one sentient specie we can not calculate
likelihood of other such species.
Also we do not know
average life expectancy of civilizations.
Ours is rather
young and rather suicidal
All true but so far we have not found any exoplanets with
clear biosignatures.
If aliens are looking, and they're at least as advanced as
we are, they can find out. If they're 50 years ahead of us,
they found us already. If they're a thousand years ahead
of us, they may have already launched probes in our
direction.
You mean they were as advanced as us, saw us, sent
probes to us, but after that their home stellar system
lost its biosignatures so we do not see them anymore?
We do not always do what we theoretically could.
Even
for to search biosignatures, nothing to talk of sending
probes.
AFAIK James Webb Space Telescope
is not designed to search for biosignatures
Accepting something without any evidence is belief.
Alien civilizations are plausible.
They aren't a fact until you can point to one.
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:43:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:
"The prestigious journal Nature commented that the fossil from dawn of animal life found in Indias famous caves offers insights into the range of emerging complex life"
"The patterns of remaining wax, where the beehives were attached to the cave wall and fell off, just accidently happened to resemble the shape of Dickinsonia fossils at first glance. Thats a big oopsie. "
Of course,
"the original authors publicly admitted their mistaken identification (Retallack et al. 2023), for which they have even been praised as a kind of heroes of science"
Oopsie Daisy!
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/07/fossil-friday-alleged-precambrian-fossil-unmasked-as-rotten-beehive/
You appear to take great pleasure in identifying mistakes, hoaxes and >dishonesty in science. You don't, however, seem to grasp the
significance of the fact that these incidents are invariably exposed
by other scientists, not by IDers or Creationists. I can't think of a
single example identified by an IDer or Creationist, can you?
jillery wrote:
That wasn't your error. Your error was in stopping there,
revealing the fact that you have zero interests in these
topics and were merely grepping for a dig.
Yes, I agree revealing that I have
... desperate need to pretend that you're clever.
If you want to look stupid, one of the best ways to do that,
here on usenet, is to open & reply to threads in which you
have absolutely no interest.
Knowledge follows interest, sugar lips.
An even better way to look stupid is to open and reply to threads in
which you have no idea what you're talking about
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43 PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:----------------------------------
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a person or a person's POV.
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, that claim, too, will become a PRATT.----------------------------------
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has
been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times
in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43 PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement
with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a
smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a
person or a person's POV.
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, that claim, too, will become a PRATT.----------------------------------
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has
been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times
in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.----------------------------------
When you prove god exists.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43 PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:----------------------------------
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43 PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a person or a person's POV.
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, that claim, too, will become a PRATT.----------------------------------
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times
in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.----------------------------------
When you prove god exists.
You should be proof enough of that.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:----------------------------------
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:----------------------------------
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement
with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I >> > > > > searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a
smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a
person or a person's POV.
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to >> > > > modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, >> > > > that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single
individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has
been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times
in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
You should be proof enough of that.
jillery wrote:
An even better way to look stupid is to open and reply to threads in
which you have no idea what you're talking about
Which is what I just said
jillery wrote:
Alien civilizations are plausible.
No. It's *Way* beyond that. You can say that there existence is
inferred but, regardless, it is something accepted as fact. Only
the highly religious claim otherwise.
They aren't a fact until you can point to one.
You're exactly like any other religious believer...
"Aliens" would be on the order of a scientific theory.
Do you know what a theory is in science?
Öö Tiib wrote:That I don't dispute. Sentient life is clearly not impossible. Likelihood
Science does not work like that. From sample of one life"Likelihood" is in regards to commonality.
we can not calculate likelihood of other life.
Once you establish something as possible, you need a reason
for it to not happen else it will happen.
Also we do not know
average life expectancy of civilizations.
Utterly irrelevant. As I pointed out, but your lack of comprehension
and retention prevents you from considering, we are likely on the
receiving end of extinct civilizations right now.
Ours is rather
young and rather suicidal
Lol! You're knee deep in baseless speculation.
Homo is millions of years old. Humans of 30k years ago were
just as intelligent as we are today, and possibly more so.
All true but so far we have not found any exoplanets withWrong. We've actually found biosignatures within our own
clear biosignatures.
solar system. Yes, on Mars but elsewhere as well.
The most recent claim is Venus, of course.
Our priorities suck.
AFAIK James Webb Space TelescopeIt is.
is not designed to search for biosignatures
Accepting something without any evidence is belief.Like your baseless claims here.
the JWST searching for life by analyzing light. It's
not collecting samples of an atmosphere, it's analyzing
what light is being absorbed, what is passing through...
I've already posted cites.
These techniques were first used on the planet earth,
from space, "Proving" that life exists here...
Just Google up Spectrum Analysis and have a day.
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>So you are demonstrating your wokeness by referring to Dexter as "it". Awesome.
wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:----------------------------------
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:----------------------------------
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement
with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I
searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a
smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a
person or a person's POV.
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to
modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so,
that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single >> > > individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has >> > > been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times >> > > in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
You should be proof enough of that.Except it isn't a proof. It's not even any kind of evidence.
--
Once you establish something as possible, you need a reason
for it to not happen else it will happen.
That I don't dispute. Sentient life is clearly not impossible. Likelihood
is needed for determining average distance between two of such in
time and space.
Utterly irrelevant. As I pointed out, but your lack of comprehension
and retention prevents you from considering, we are likely on the receiving end of extinct civilizations right now.
Why right now?
Why is likelihood of a probe arriving now bigger than
100 millions years ago?
We have not found any probes that did arrive
in masses by your idea ... so those must be are rather rare or we
search very badly.
Homo is millions of years old. Humans of 30k years ago were
just as intelligent as we are today, and possibly more so.
We are behaving as stupidly as ages ago?
Wrong. We've actually found biosignatures within our own
solar system. Yes, on Mars but elsewhere as well.
You mean methane on Mars and Titan?
That likely is abiotic
Would we send something to trillion times farther
than to Titan just because of some methane?
Even farther from clear: <https://newatlas.com/space/phosphine-biosignature-life-venus-mistake/>
Our priorities suck.
May be because
Google tells that there are no results "yet".
Incorrect. "no interest" != "no understanding".
Stupid and mentally ill but not named jillery wrote:
[---burp---]
You're not bright, but you're <ahem> "Arguing" that alien
civilizations are on the same level as evolution, therefor
we can't consider their existence to be a fact.
It actually means we can. And we do.
You simply are fucked up and have this need to contradict,
to obstruct...
They aren't a fact until you can point to one.
You're exactly like any other religious believer...
"Aliens" would be on the order of a scientific theory.
Do you know what a theory is in science?
Since you asked, yes I do:
<https://ncse.ngo/theory-and-fact>
Too bad you don't.
You're welcome.
jillery wrote:
Incorrect. "no interest" != "no understanding".
You have no interest in these topics. None. Knowledge follows
interests: If you're interested in a topic, if you read about it,
watch documentaries, take classes then you gain knowledge
BECAUSE you had an interest.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 9:55:44?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>So you are demonstrating your wokeness by referring to Dexter as "it". Awesome.
wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:Except it isn't a proof. It's not even any kind of evidence.
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:----------------------------------
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:----------------------------------
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement
with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I
searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is
a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a
smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a
person or a person's POV.
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to
modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so,
that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single >> >> > > individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has >> >> > > been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times >> >> > > in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
You should be proof enough of that.
--
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:----------------------------------
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:----------------------------------
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:----------------------------------
I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement >> > > > > with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I >> > > > > searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is >> > > > > a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a >> > > > > smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a >> > > > > person or a person's POV. >> > > >PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to >> > > > modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, >> > > > that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single >> > > individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has >> > > been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times >> > > in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
So you are demonstrating your wokeness by referring to Dexter as "it". Awesome.You should be proof enough of that.Except it isn't a proof. It's not even any kind of evidence.
--
Is there an award for
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:40:52 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
Incorrect. "no interest" != "no understanding".
You have no interest in these topics. None. Knowledge follows
interests: If you're interested in a topic, if you read about it,
watch documentaries, take classes then you gain knowledge
BECAUSE you had an interest.
I bet 100 Quatloos you have knowledge of many things of which you have
zero interest.
jillery wrote:
Is there an award for
I'm saying alien civilizations are fact, that their existence is on the order >or level of a scientific "Theory." This is a thread, I did use the word >"inferred" and described it as "accepted as fact" but mostly I just got
lazy and said "fact."
YOU, being a goddamn idiot, insist that things like evolution and other >scientific theories are not considered fact...
You are just fucked up. Seriously. You are *Way* fucked up.
You are a narcissist trying to fool itself into believing that it is not as >stupid as it knows it is...
Honestly, you really can STOP making yourself look like such a retard.
That's my job, making you look like a retard. I don't need any help.
Believe me, I do NOT need any help...
Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
Glenn wrote:
English word. I >> > > > > searched three dictionaries and the word doesn'tOn Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >> > > > > I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement >> > > > > with another person's opinion or view. It's not an
exist. However, it is >> > > > > a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a
meaningless word. But it's a >> > > > > smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a >> > > > > person or a person's POV. >> > > >
to >> > > > modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 timesPRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors
or so, >> > > > that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single
individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has
been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times
in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
----------------------------------So you are demonstrating your wokeness by referring to Dexter as "it". Awesome.You should be proof enough of that.Except it isn't a proof. It's not even any kind of evidence.
--
That's all you've got, eh? Your response is
powerful evidence for a very small mind.
JTEM truthed:
YOU, being a goddamn idiot, insist that things like evolution and other >scientific theories are not considered fact...
I posted nothing of the kind. That
jillery wrote:
JTEM truthed:
YOU, being a goddamn idiot, insist that things like evolution and other
scientific theories are not considered fact...
I posted nothing of the kind. That
Liar. Coward.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 5:40:44 PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:----------------------------------
Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:person or a person's POV. >> > > >
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >> > > > > I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a disagreement >> > > > > with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I >> > > > > searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't exist. However, it is >> > > > > a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a >> > > > > smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a >> > >
----------------------------------PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to >> > > > modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, >> > > > that claim, too, will become a PRATT. >> > > ----------------------------------
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single >> > > individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has >> > > been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times >> > > in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
----------------------------------So you are demonstrating your wokeness by referring to Dexter as "it". Awesome.You should be proof enough of that.Except it isn't a proof. It's not even any kind of evidence.
--
That's all you've got, eh? Your response is
powerful evidence for a very small mind.
LMAO!
Glenn wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 5:40:44 PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
Glenn wrote:
is a disagreement >> > > > > with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I >> > > > > searched three dictionaries andOn Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >> > > > > I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there
the word doesn't exist. However, it is >> > > > > a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a >> > > > > smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a >> > >
claim has >> > > been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than aperson or a person's POV. >> > > >
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times." >> > > >----------------------------------
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to >> > > > modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, >> > > > that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single >> > > individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...'
thousand times >> > > in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
----------------------------------
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
----------------------------------So you are demonstrating your wokeness by referring to Dexter as "it". Awesome.You should be proof enough of that.Except it isn't a proof. It's not even any kind of evidence.
--
That's all you've got, eh? Your response is
powerful evidence for a very small mind.
LMAO!----------------------------------
Thanks for confirming.
Prove it...
Glenn wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 5:40:44 PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
Glenn wrote:
is a disagreement >> > > > > with another person's opinion or view. It's not an English word. I >> > > > > searched three dictionaries andOn Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >> > > > > I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there
the word doesn't exist. However, it is >> > > > > a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a >> > > > > smear used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a >> > >
claim has >> > > been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than aperson or a person's POV. >> > > >
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times." >> > > >----------------------------------
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors to >> > > > modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times or so, >> > > > that claim, too, will become a PRATT.
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single >> > > individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...'
thousand times >> > > in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
----------------------------------
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
----------------------------------So you are demonstrating your wokeness by referring to Dexter as "it". Awesome.You should be proof enough of that.Except it isn't a proof. It's not even any kind of evidence.
--
That's all you've got, eh? Your response is
powerful evidence for a very small mind.
LMAO!----------------------------------
Thanks for confirming.
Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:----------------------------------
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>So you are demonstrating your wokeness by referring to Dexter as "it".
wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:disagreement >> > > > > with another person's opinion or view. It's not an >>> English word. I >> > > > > searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't >>> exist. However, it is >> > > > > a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a >>> meaningless word. But it's a >> > > > > smear used for the purpose of
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a
discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a >> > > > > person or a person's
POV. >> > > >
to >> > > > modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times >>> or so, >> > > > that claim, too, will become a PRATT.PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors
Except it isn't a proof. It's not even any kind of evidence.--------------------------------------------------------------------
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single >>>>>>> individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has >>>>>>> been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times >>>>>>> in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
You should be proof enough of that.
--
Awesome.
That's all you've got, eh? Your response is
powerful evidence for a very small mind.
Dexter <n...@home.com> wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:----------------------------------
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>So you are demonstrating your wokeness by referring to Dexter as "it".
wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:disagreement >> > > > > with another person's opinion or view. It's not an
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there is a
English word. I >> > > > > searched three dictionaries and the word doesn't
exist. However, it is >> > > > > a last name, as in Fred Pratt. So, it's a
meaningless word. But it's a >> > > > > smear used for the purpose of >>> discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a >> > > > > person or a person's >>> POV. >> > > >
or so, >> > > > that claim, too, will become a PRATT.PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times."
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of precursors >>> to >> > > > modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian another 985 times
Except it isn't a proof. It's not even any kind of evidence.--------------------------------------------------------------------
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a single >>>>>>> individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...' claim has >>>>>>> been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a thousand times >>>>>>> in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
You should be proof enough of that.
--
Awesome.
That's all you've got, eh? Your response is
powerful evidence for a very small mind.
Microscopic! That he robotically forcefits a flailing Desantis trope (“wokeness”) into a discussion where it is not remotely relevant shows Glenn is thoroughly addled by ideology.
Mentally and emotionally frayed but not named jillery wrote:
Prove it...
You want me to prove that you <ahem> "argued" that
evolution is not a fact?
JTEM wrote:
Do you know what a theory is in science?
Since you asked, yes I do:************************************
<https://ncse.ngo/theory-and-fact>
Too bad you don't.
You're welcome.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:20:46?AM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 5:40:44?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:----------------------------------
Glenn wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 9:55:44?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:----------------------------------
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> > > > > wrote:So you are demonstrating your wokeness by referring to Dexter as "it".
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:50:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:is a disagreement >> > > > > with another person's opinion or view. >> > > > > It's not an English word. I >> > > > > searched three dictionaries and
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:30:43?PM UTC-7, Dexter wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:00:41?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > I seen the word pratt used numeroun times when there
the word doesn't exist. However, it is >> > > > > a last name, as in
Fred Pratt. So, it's a meaningless word. But it's a >> > > > > smear
used for the purpose of discounting, denouncing and rebuffing a >> > >
precursors to >> > > > modern animal phyla from before the Cambrian >> > > > > another 985 times or so, >> > > > that claim, too, will become a PRATT.person or a person's POV. >> > > >
PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times." >> > > > > >> > > >
Once you've claimed that there is no fossil evidence of
single >> > > individual to become a PRATT. The 'no fossil evidence...'----------------------------------
A refuted clain doesn't have to be made a thousand times by a
claim has >> > > been refuted many orders of magnitude greater than a
thousand times >> > > in this newsgroup as well in other arenas.
Except it isn't a proof. It's not even any kind of evidence.----------------------------------
Prove that.
When you prove god exists.
You should be proof enough of that.
--
Awesome.
That's all you've got, eh? Your response is
powerful evidence for a very small mind.
LMAO!
Thanks for confirming.
One of the points about PRATT I like is that the word 'prat' was a popular euphemism for 'ass.' This is recalled in 'prat fall.'
"According to Dr. Clauser, The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the worlds economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies,
https://co2coalition.org/publications/nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors/
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government
wrote:
"According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive
https://co2coalition.org/publications/nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors/
And it is of course entirely coincidental that the weather extremes
currently being experienced globally are precisely as predicted by
those climate scientists.
On 21/07/2023 15:33, Martin Harran wrote:shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:
"According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive
https://co2coalition.org/publications/nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors/
And it is of course entirely coincidental that the weather extremes
currently being experienced globally are precisely as predicted by
those climate scientists.
When you say it like that it sounds like a conspiracy lol.
Has that happened yet ? The final form of climate change denialism,
"It's happening, and it's human caused, and it's an actual problem BUT
IT'S CAUSED BY THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS TO CONVINCE US TO GIVE UP
ON OUR FREEDOMS"
On 21/07/2023 15:33, Martin Harran wrote:shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:
"According to Dr. Clauser, The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the worlds economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive
https://co2coalition.org/publications/nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors/
And it is of course entirely coincidental that the weather extremes
currently being experienced globally are precisely as predicted by
those climate scientists.
When you say it like that it sounds like a conspiracy lol.
Has that happened yet ? The final form of climate change denialism,
"It's happening, and it's human caused, and it's an actual problem BUT
IT'S CAUSED BY THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS TO CONVINCE US TO GIVE UP
ON OUR FREEDOMS"
On 21/07/2023 15:33, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:
"According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate
change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the
world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided
climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic
pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for
a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and
extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents,
politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.
In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a
very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the
world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter
is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is
incorrect climate science.”
https://co2coalition.org/publications/nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors/
And it is of course entirely coincidental that the weather extremes
currently being experienced globally are precisely as predicted by
those climate scientists.
When you say it like that it sounds like a conspiracy lol.
Has that happened yet ? The final form of climate change denialism,
"It's happening, and it's human caused, and it's an actual problem BUT
IT'S CAUSED BY THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS TO CONVINCE US TO GIVE UP
ON OUR FREEDOMS"
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:10:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:35:36?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak,The original lecture was "The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer"
describing the current status of his team's efforts to identify
plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with a
30-minute Q&A with the audience.
Some of the highlights of the lecture include demonstrations of how
lipid bilayers abiotically self-assemble, grow, and divide,
nonenzymatic RNA duplication, abiotic substrates for protein
synthesis, and functions of the first peptides.
The lecture suffers from multiple technical glitches. IMO the
information Szostak provides despite these glitches make viewing this >> video worthwhile.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g>
https://www.youtube.com/@asuchemistry
This is just an announcement, not even a synopsis of the film.The YouTube is the lecture slides.Your comment illustrates a limit of transcripts, which identified it
as a "hiring lecture", which led me to imagine Szostack was doing an overly demanding job interview.
You seem familiar with the context of this lecture. I was surprisedThere were 2 lectures. The YouTube posted was for the general audience. The professional audience was the following day.
at the number of children in the audience and the naivete of many of
the questions, suggesting something like the Royal Institute's
Christmas lectures, in contrast to a presentation to Szostack's professional peers.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
https://news.asu.edu/20230309-nobel-laureate-jack-szostak-deliver-distinguished-eyring-lecture-series-asu
I have no idea why the professional audience lecture was not video taped of YouTube.
Emotionally unstable, jillery trolled:
[...]
Again: Evolution is a theory, a theory isn't treated as fact, according
to you,
so evolution shouldn't be considered nor treated as fact.
Your disorder may be preventing you from seeing this but that's what
makes you such a laughing stock.
On 7/21/23 7:00 AM, Arkalen wrote:
On 21/07/2023 15:33, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
"According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate
change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the
world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided >>> climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic
pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for
a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and
extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents,
politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. >>> In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a
very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the
world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter >>> is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is
incorrect climate science.”
https://co2coalition.org/publications/nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors/
And it is of course entirely coincidental that the weather extremes
currently being experienced globally are precisely as predicted by
those climate scientists.
When you say it like that it sounds like a conspiracy lol.
Has that happened yet ? The final form of climate change denialism,
"It's happening, and it's human caused, and it's an actual problem BUT IT'S CAUSED BY THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS TO CONVINCE US TO GIVE UP
ON OUR FREEDOMS"
Well, it was certainly the case that climate change denial was a
conspiracy. The Heartland Institute which pushed most of it got its
funding from more than one oil company.
Again: Evolution is a theory, a theory isn't treated as fact, according
to you,
Prove it.
Mental waste product, jillery wrote:
Again: Evolution is a theory, a theory isn't treated as fact, according
to you,
Prove it.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8eYUSpUSkGs/m/mWtCBUZJAwAJ
Only problem is, you are emotionally incapable of accepting your own >positions so this is all very pointless.
On 7/14/23 3:18 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
who, when confronted with
evidence of transitional forms,
... under the broad idea of the word "transitional forms" whereby
a platypus is somehow "transitional" between mammals and
living reptiles? Harshman did this a long while ago.
demand evidence of transitional forms
for those transitional forms. It's easy to dismiss what is known by
pointing to what is unknown.
You are taking refuge in a huge generality. Try arguing this specific case:
It is easy to dismiss ideas of "transitional" forms that still
leave huge gaps, like the best candidate for ancestry of full-fledged pterosaurs being a lizardlike reptile that shows no signs of developing gliding
membranes, let alone wings, and whose forelimbs were much shorter than its hindlimbs.
So you take a passing comment that doesn't even concern me as an
opportunity to rant about how dumb I am?
Of course a platypus is a
transitional form, in exactly the sense paleontologists mean the term.
It displays a combination of traits intermediate between the "reptilian"
and "mammalian" conditions. That is, it retains some primitive traits
long since transformed in other mammal lineages. Why is that obviously wrong?
Is that not evidence that mammals are descended from "reptiles",
just as much as Tiktaalik is evidence that tetrapods are descended from "fish"?
Regarding the Cambrian explosion, wouldn't a primitive lophotrochozoan
not belonging to any extant phylum be a good transitional form between
those phyla and earlier bilaterians? How big a gap is too big to be used
as evidence of a transition?
Of course this is all irrelevant to the supposed topic, but I guess
jillery was the first person to begin the derailment.
Sorry to be so late with this, John. As you probably know, I've been intensely busy on the thread, Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/23 3:18 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
who, when confronted with
evidence of transitional forms,
... under the broad idea of the word "transitional forms" whereby
a platypus is somehow "transitional" between mammals and
living reptiles? Harshman did this a long while ago.
demand evidence of transitional forms
for those transitional forms. It's easy to dismiss what is known by
pointing to what is unknown.
You are taking refuge in a huge generality. Try arguing this specific case: >>>So you take a passing comment that doesn't even concern me as an
It is easy to dismiss ideas of "transitional" forms that still
leave huge gaps, like the best candidate for ancestry of full-fledged
pterosaurs being a lizardlike reptile that shows no signs of developing gliding
membranes, let alone wings, and whose forelimbs were much shorter than its hindlimbs.
opportunity to rant about how dumb I am?
What's gotten into you, John? Lately you've been turning one on-topic
issue after another into a purely personal one, and an intense one
at that, simply because we are in disagreement over some statement
involving on-topic matters.
Now you've taken that dysfunctional behavior to a new depth
by taking umbrage over a factual statement that you not only
do not disagree with, you *confirm* it below!
I was just letting jillery know how loosely the word
"transitional" is used these days. And what better authority to cite than you, who are the default person for most t.o. regulars to go to for information
on systematics?
So where do you get this stuff about "dumb"? Have you forgotten
what semantics is all about?
Of course a platypus is a
transitional form, in exactly the sense paleontologists mean the term.
Could you please point us to a published source where a paleontologist uses the
following definition?
It displays a combination of traits intermediate between the "reptilian"
and "mammalian" conditions. That is, it retains some primitive traits
long since transformed in other mammal lineages. Why is that obviously
wrong?
Why so defensive so soon? I don't even recall that definition from earlier.
But now that you ask, it seems, to my mathematical mind, that it lacks a clear picture of necessary and sufficient conditions for being transitional.
Consider this: if a platypus could talk, it might say
how insulted it is in being called a "duckbill", inasmuch as its bill
makes ducks' bills (and indeed all other mouth parts in Chordata) into primitive traits in comparison. It is extensively innervated, with numerous sense organs, and so efficient at hunting in murky water that the platypus closes its
eyes and ears when underwater, relying on its bill alone for catching its aquatic prey.
After describing a few more "advanced" features it has, it might then turn the tables on us
and say that it is we, who flatter ourselves with the term "higher mammals," who are transitional between it and the LCA of Crown Mammalia.
How would you argue against that?
But, to answer your question another way: there is nothing wrong with using a word
once its usage is properly defined and its limitations understood.
In particular, it does not imply that a transitional organism is anything like one
in a direct evolutionary pathway of intermediates, which is what Ron Dean
was asking for on the thread, Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
Is that not evidence that mammals are descended from "reptiles",
just as much as Tiktaalik is evidence that tetrapods are descended from
"fish"?
Tiktaalik is MUCH closer to a true intermediate than a platypus.
If we used an up to date system of taxonomy where morphospace is used
to decide what rank an assemblage of genera fits into, I could
probably say that Tiktaalik is in the same family as the
LCA of crown Tetrapoda, and Elpistostege in the same subfamily.
About the best I could say about the platypus is that it is
in the same infraclass as the LCA of crown Mammalia.
Unfortunately, the dominant systematists of today are so
caught up in the slogan, "Ranks are arbitrary" that nobody
has any incentive to bring the concept of rank into the 21st century.
Regarding the Cambrian explosion, wouldn't a primitive lophotrochozoan
not belonging to any extant phylum be a good transitional form between
those phyla and earlier bilaterians? How big a gap is too big to be used
as evidence of a transition?
Since this is being actively discussed on the thread, Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
I'll postpone talking about this here until the issue there is clarified.
Of course this is all irrelevant to the supposed topic, but I guess
jillery was the first person to begin the derailment.
This is so typical of the evolution of threads in talk.origins,
going back to before I first participated here in 1995, that
it hardly seems to be worth mentioning.
On 7/14/23 3:18 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
So you take a passing comment that doesn't even concern me as anwho, when confronted with... under the broad idea of the word "transitional forms" whereby
evidence of transitional forms,
a platypus is somehow "transitional" between mammals and
living reptiles? Harshman did this a long while ago.
>demand evidence of transitional forms
for those transitional forms. It's easy to dismiss what is known byYou are taking refuge in a huge generality. Try arguing this specific case: >>
pointing to what is unknown.
It is easy to dismiss ideas of "transitional" forms that still
leave huge gaps, like the best candidate for ancestry of full-fledged
pterosaurs being a lizardlike reptile that shows no signs of developing gliding
membranes, let alone wings, and whose forelimbs were much shorter than its hindlimbs.
opportunity to rant about how dumb I am? Of course a platypus is a >transitional form, in exactly the sense paleontologists mean the term.
It displays a combination of traits intermediate between the "reptilian"
and "mammalian" conditions. That is, it retains some primitive traits
long since transformed in other mammal lineages. Why is that obviously >wrong? Is that not evidence that mammals are descended from "reptiles",
just as much as Tiktaalik is evidence that tetrapods are descended from >"fish"?
Regarding the Cambrian explosion, wouldn't a primitive lophotrochozoan
not belonging to any extant phylum be a good transitional form between
those phyla and earlier bilaterians? How big a gap is too big to be used
as evidence of a transition?
Of course this is all irrelevant to the supposed topic, but I guess
jillery was the first person to begin the derailment.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:41:13 -0700, John HarshmanI suppose you don't regard those comments as classic troll bait.
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/23 3:18 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
So you take a passing comment that doesn't even concern me as an >opportunity to rant about how dumb I am? Of course a platypus is a >transitional form, in exactly the sense paleontologists mean the term.who, when confronted with... under the broad idea of the word "transitional forms" whereby
evidence of transitional forms,
a platypus is somehow "transitional" between mammals and
living reptiles? Harshman did this a long while ago.
demand evidence of transitional formsYou are taking refuge in a huge generality. Try arguing this specific case:
for those transitional forms. It's easy to dismiss what is known by
pointing to what is unknown.
It is easy to dismiss ideas of "transitional" forms that still
leave huge gaps, like the best candidate for ancestry of full-fledged
pterosaurs being a lizardlike reptile that shows no signs of developing gliding
membranes, let alone wings, and whose forelimbs were much shorter than its hindlimbs.
It displays a combination of traits intermediate between the "reptilian" >and "mammalian" conditions. That is, it retains some primitive traits
long since transformed in other mammal lineages. Why is that obviously >wrong? Is that not evidence that mammals are descended from "reptiles", >just as much as Tiktaalik is evidence that tetrapods are descended from >"fish"?
Regarding the Cambrian explosion, wouldn't a primitive lophotrochozoan
not belonging to any extant phylum be a good transitional form between >those phyla and earlier bilaterians? How big a gap is too big to be used >as evidence of a transition?
Of course this is all irrelevant to the supposed topic, but I guess >jillery was the first person to begin the derailment.Your comment above is typical of your baseless personal attacks which
you indugle yourself. Even if it was true, it would still have
utterly no relevance to the topic or anything anybody said; classic
troll bait.
--
On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 2:15:51?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:41:13 -0700, John HarshmanI suppose you don't regard those comments as classic troll bait.
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/23 3:18 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Your comment above is typical of your baseless personal attacks which
So you take a passing comment that doesn't even concern me as anwho, when confronted with... under the broad idea of the word "transitional forms" whereby
evidence of transitional forms,
a platypus is somehow "transitional" between mammals and
living reptiles? Harshman did this a long while ago.
demand evidence of transitional formsYou are taking refuge in a huge generality. Try arguing this specific case:
for those transitional forms. It's easy to dismiss what is known by
pointing to what is unknown.
It is easy to dismiss ideas of "transitional" forms that still
leave huge gaps, like the best candidate for ancestry of full-fledged
pterosaurs being a lizardlike reptile that shows no signs of developing gliding
membranes, let alone wings, and whose forelimbs were much shorter than its hindlimbs.
opportunity to rant about how dumb I am? Of course a platypus is a
transitional form, in exactly the sense paleontologists mean the term.
It displays a combination of traits intermediate between the "reptilian" >> >and "mammalian" conditions. That is, it retains some primitive traits
long since transformed in other mammal lineages. Why is that obviously
wrong? Is that not evidence that mammals are descended from "reptiles",
just as much as Tiktaalik is evidence that tetrapods are descended from
"fish"?
Regarding the Cambrian explosion, wouldn't a primitive lophotrochozoan
not belonging to any extant phylum be a good transitional form between
those phyla and earlier bilaterians? How big a gap is too big to be used >> >as evidence of a transition?
Of course this is all irrelevant to the supposed topic, but I guess
jillery was the first person to begin the derailment.
you indugle yourself. Even if it was true, it would still have
utterly no relevance to the topic or anything anybody said; classic
troll bait.
--
In the category of "Even if isn't, it is."
Visit another planet and chances are it's devoid
of life. But even if it isn't then the life it holds poses a
hyper major threat to your life.
Bacterial infectons, viruses... molds/fungus...
A planet devoid of life would not have bacteria, molds, or fungus to
infect anybody, by definition.
On 7/12/23 1:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
In the category of "Even if isn't, it is."
Visit another planet and chances are it's devoid
of life. But even if it isn't then the life it holds poses a
hyper major threat to your life.
Bacterial infectons, viruses... molds/fungus...
A planet devoid of life would not have bacteria, molds, or fungus to infect anybody, by definition.
You need to parse better. Admittedly, multiple negatives can be
difficult. But it seems to me that a planet that isn't devoid of life
might in fact have life.
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:10:55 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:20:55 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/12/23 1:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
In the category of "Even if isn't, it is."
Visit another planet and chances are it's devoid
of life. But even if it isn't then the life it holds poses a
hyper major threat to your life.
Bacterial infectons, viruses... molds/fungus...
A planet devoid of life would not have bacteria, molds, or fungus to infect anybody, by definition.
You need to parse better. Admittedly, multiple negatives can be difficult. But it seems to me that a planet that isn't devoid of life might in fact have life.
There's a formatting confusion.
When I read this nomination, I saw the category line, then quoted
lines with a single chevron indent. I figured that quoted lines was
the one being nominated. It's been rather typical to strip out all
context and nominate a single sentence or phrase.
But in this case, that chevron indented part was included toThe same is true of the new nomination that I posted this morning.
provide some context for the non-indented line that follows.
That non-indented line is the line actually being nominated.
I was concerned that the first sentence might be very distracting without the context.
Like you, I read that final line as editorial commentary by the
nominator on their nomination of what was quoted above.
I was corrected on my perception up-thread. I had figured it out
before that as I looked up the original post and discovered that
the only thing added by the nominator was the category line
while all the rest was directly quoted.
So you're in Bad Company, and I can't deny. Bad Company, till the day I die.Is this from a song?
Here is something that you are uniquely equipped
to appreciate. It's the ending of a '60's song by the Doors:
When the music is your special friend.
Dance on fire as it intends.
Music is your only friend,
Until the end,
Until the end,
Until the END!
https://genius.com/The-doors-when-the-musics-over-lyrics
Peter Nyikos
PS That last word sounds like "E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-END!" in the end of the song, but it isn't screamed, just belted out at a higher pitch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2pOoqDzEh8
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:20:55 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/12/23 1:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
In the category of "Even if isn't, it is."
Visit another planet and chances are it's devoid
of life. But even if it isn't then the life it holds poses a
hyper major threat to your life.
Bacterial infectons, viruses... molds/fungus...
A planet devoid of life would not have bacteria, molds, or fungus to infect anybody, by definition.
You need to parse better. Admittedly, multiple negatives can be
difficult. But it seems to me that a planet that isn't devoid of life might in fact have life.
There's a formatting confusion.
When I read this nomination, I saw the category line, then quoted
lines with a single chevron indent. I figured that quoted lines was
the one being nominated. It's been rather typical to strip out all
context and nominate a single sentence or phrase.
But in this case, that chevron indented part was included to
provide some context for the non-indented line that follows.
That non-indented line is the line actually being nominated.
Like you, I read that final line as editorial commentary by the
nominator on their nomination of what was quoted above.
I was corrected on my perception up-thread. I had figured it out
before that as I looked up the original post and discovered that
the only thing added by the nominator was the category line
while all the rest was directly quoted.
So you're in Bad Company, and I can't deny. Bad Company, till the day I die.
Who was the founder of Christianity? I think the founders were certain
Old Testament
prophets and the 12 Apostles.
Who was the founder of Christianity? I think the founders were certain
Old Testament
prophets and the 12 Apostles.
On 7/12/23 1:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
In the category of "Even if isn't, it is."You need to parse better. Admittedly, multiple negatives can be
Visit another planet and chances are it's devoid
of life. But even if it isn't then the life it holds poses a
hyper major threat to your life.
Bacterial infectons, viruses... molds/fungus...
A planet devoid of life would not have bacteria, molds, or fungus to
infect anybody, by definition.
difficult. But it seems to me that a planet that isn't devoid of life
might in fact have life.
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 1:00:56 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:10:55 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:20:55 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:The same is true of the new nomination that I posted this morning.
On 7/12/23 1:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
In the category of "Even if isn't, it is."You need to parse better. Admittedly, multiple negatives can be
Visit another planet and chances are it's devoid
of life. But even if it isn't then the life it holds poses a
hyper major threat to your life.
Bacterial infectons, viruses... molds/fungus...
A planet devoid of life would not have bacteria, molds, or fungus to >>>>> infect anybody, by definition.
difficult. But it seems to me that a planet that isn't devoid of life
might in fact have life.
There's a formatting confusion.
When I read this nomination, I saw the category line, then quoted
lines with a single chevron indent. I figured that quoted lines was
the one being nominated. It's been rather typical to strip out all
context and nominate a single sentence or phrase.
But in this case, that chevron indented part was included to
provide some context for the non-indented line that follows.
That non-indented line is the line actually being nominated.
I was concerned that the first sentence might be very distracting without the context.
Is this from a song?
Like you, I read that final line as editorial commentary by the
nominator on their nomination of what was quoted above.
I was corrected on my perception up-thread. I had figured it out
before that as I looked up the original post and discovered that
the only thing added by the nominator was the category line
while all the rest was directly quoted.
So you're in Bad Company, and I can't deny. Bad Company, till the day I die.
Here is something that you are uniquely equipped
to appreciate. It's the ending of a '60's song by the Doors:
When the music is your special friend.
Dance on fire as it intends.
Music is your only friend,
Until the end,
Until the end,
Until the END!
https://genius.com/The-doors-when-the-musics-over-lyrics
Peter Nyikos
PS That last word sounds like "E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-END!" in the end of the song, >> but it isn't screamed, just belted out at a higher pitch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2pOoqDzEh8
Comes out of the Virginia swamps, cool and slow
With plenty of precision. The back beat narrow and hard to master
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:10:55 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 9:20:55 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/12/23 1:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
In the category of "Even if isn't, it is."You need to parse better. Admittedly, multiple negatives can be
Visit another planet and chances are it's devoid
of life. But even if it isn't then the life it holds poses a
hyper major threat to your life.
Bacterial infectons, viruses... molds/fungus...
A planet devoid of life would not have bacteria, molds, or fungus to
infect anybody, by definition.
difficult. But it seems to me that a planet that isn't devoid of life
might in fact have life.
There's a formatting confusion.
When I read this nomination, I saw the category line, then quoted
lines with a single chevron indent. I figured that quoted lines was
the one being nominated. It's been rather typical to strip out all
context and nominate a single sentence or phrase.
But in this case, that chevron indented part was included to
provide some context for the non-indented line that follows.
That non-indented line is the line actually being nominated.
The same is true of the new nomination that I posted this morning.
I was concerned that the first sentence might be very distracting without the context.
Like you, I read that final line as editorial commentary by the
nominator on their nomination of what was quoted above.
I was corrected on my perception up-thread. I had figured it out
before that as I looked up the original post and discovered that
the only thing added by the nominator was the category line
while all the rest was directly quoted.
So you're in Bad Company, and I can't deny. Bad Company, till the day I die.
Is this from a song?
Here is something that you are uniquely equipped
to appreciate. It's the ending of a '60's song by the Doors:
When the music is your special friend.
Dance on fire as it intends.
Music is your only friend,
Until the end,
Until the end,
Until the END!
https://genius.com/The-doors-when-the-musics-over-lyrics
Peter Nyikos
PS That last word sounds like "E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-END!" in the end of the song, but it isn't screamed, just belted out at a higher pitch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2pOoqDzEh8
Pro Plyd wrote:
Until some aliens are actually found, there are no facts
No. You're goddamn idiot. That's all.
There's plenty of facts.
And one of those facts is that the earth has been broadcasting "Biosignatures" for at least 2 billion years.
We found our first exoplanet 30 years ago and already are
scanning worlds 700 light years away in search of life...
Again, it really comes down to how common you want to make
such life, but the odds against us being spotted by an alien
civilization are miniscule.
Pro Plyd wrote:
Until some aliens are actually found, there are no facts,
You are scientifically illiterate.
This is in addition to are embarrassing lack of reading
comprehension.
Alien civilizations are a fact, except perhaps to the
feverishly religious who view mankind as God's special,
one-off creation.
So alien civilizations are real. Which means there signals
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 04:59:13 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Think about it. What if Noah just brought dinosaur
eggs with him on the ark? Then they would have
taken up very little space and they wouldn't have had
any food & water requirements!
Plus no fighting or eating each other.
Ostrich eggs take 36 days to hatch at a minimum,
Emus even longer and crocodiles longer still. But
here's the thing; God could have told them not to
hatch until after they were unloaded from the Ark
and there was enough for them to eat. So they
might've gone 45, 50 or even 60 days without
hatching, until all the trees grew back & stuff.
We know that Noah's Ark is literally true, that the
flood happened, because we find whale bones &
stuff on mountains. So we know that the waters
grew so high they could swim up there!
This also explains the Loch Ness Monster.
Nessie is a plesiosaur and plesiosaurs like warm
places, like Texas, not Scotland. But during the
flood the top of the water was much closer to the
sun, where it was warmer, so Nessie could swim
from Texas to Scotland and beyond, and when
God made the waters go down she got trapped in
Scotland and evolutionated to eat cold foods &
stuff. Some of her friends got stuck on mountain
tops, undoubtedly, and some of them were eaten
by the dinosaurs, after they hatched & grew up.
Sad, really.
The above raises a vital question of great philosophical, theological, historical, and biologal significance: Were dinosaurs kosher?
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:15:55 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
Who was the founder of Christianity? I think the founders were certain
Old Testament
prophets and the 12 Apostles.
Might I suggest the category "Error of omission or profound insight?"
On 28/07/2023 21:30, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:15:55 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
Who was the founder of Christianity? I think the founders were certain >>> Old Testament
prophets and the 12 Apostles.
Might I suggest the category "Error of omission or profound insight?"
Depending on perspective (doctrinal or historical) and other factors
there are a variety of answers, but I don't comprehend what kind of
belief could result in the above answer. For example, on a historical viewpoint why include Judas and exclude Paul.
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:10:55 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 28/07/2023 21:30, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:15:55 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:Depending on perspective (doctrinal or historical) and other factors
Who was the founder of Christianity? I think the founders were certain >>>>> Old Testament
prophets and the 12 Apostles.
Might I suggest the category "Error of omission or profound insight?"
there are a variety of answers, but I don't comprehend what kind of
belief could result in the above answer. For example, on a historical
viewpoint why include Judas and exclude Paul.
Jesus, am I that cryptic?
On 29/07/2023 14:35, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:10:55 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 28/07/2023 21:30, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:15:55 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:Depending on perspective (doctrinal or historical) and other factors
Who was the founder of Christianity? I think the founders were certain >>>>> Old Testament
prophets and the 12 Apostles.
Might I suggest the category "Error of omission or profound insight?" >>>
there are a variety of answers, but I don't comprehend what kind of
belief could result in the above answer. For example, on a historical
viewpoint why include Judas and exclude Paul.
Jesus, am I that cryptic?
No; I just didn't think it necessary to make explicit the glaring
omission. Even passing over the omission of the answer that would be
given by the average Christian in the pew, or for that matter the
average Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist and atheist, his answer is
surprising. Without reference to Old Testament prophets (but not, for
some reason, to Hillel and John the Baptist) it could be a naive understanding of the leadership at the time Christianity coalesced into
an institution; with reference to Old Testament prophets his beliefs
escape me - if you squint at it you could see a mythicist position, but
one doesn't expect to see an "intelligent design advocate" in a
Christian milieu adopting mythicism.
--
alias Ernest Major
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 04:59:13 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Think about it. What if Noah just brought dinosaur
eggs with him on the ark? Then they would have
taken up very little space and they wouldn't have had
any food & water requirements!
Plus no fighting or eating each other.
Ostrich eggs take 36 days to hatch at a minimum,
Emus even longer and crocodiles longer still. But
here's the thing; God could have told them not to
hatch until after they were unloaded from the Ark
and there was enough for them to eat. So they
might've gone 45, 50 or even 60 days without
hatching, until all the trees grew back & stuff.
We know that Noah's Ark is literally true, that the
flood happened, because we find whale bones &
stuff on mountains. So we know that the waters
grew so high they could swim up there!
This also explains the Loch Ness Monster.
Nessie is a plesiosaur and plesiosaurs like warm
places, like Texas, not Scotland. But during the
flood the top of the water was much closer to the
sun, where it was warmer, so Nessie could swim
from Texas to Scotland and beyond, and when
God made the waters go down she got trapped in
Scotland and evolutionated to eat cold foods &
stuff. Some of her friends got stuck on mountain
tops, undoubtedly, and some of them were eaten
by the dinosaurs, after they hatched & grew up.
Sad, really.
The above raises a vital question of great philosophical, theological, historical, and biologal significance: Were dinosaurs kosher?Good catch. But, as concerns the ark myth they would not
have been there as provisions so the dietary laws would
not kick in.
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
This work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as
evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
Darwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that
Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's
followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's
theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their goal of
for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people,
with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across
evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or
explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They start
out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective.
And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in
mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then ends
with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence to
support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of evolutionary biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton,
what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence you
need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with "some
unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video was
introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ
Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for a
later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too expensive. I >>>> live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another reason
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian
explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives more
details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't
attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has
happened since then.
for going into town.....
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves science as >>> much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it to
him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today if
time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
peter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwin
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
This work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen >>
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as
evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view of experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation." Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real design
would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose, pushed
back on conscious.". - Gould
Darwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural >> selection became his God replacemt
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps the
most important
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer". Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features
of organisms could bee explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate
world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)"
Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that
Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's
followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's
theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their goal of >> for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people,
with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across
evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or
explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They start
out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective.
And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in
mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then ends
with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence to
support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of evolutionary biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton,
what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence you
need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with "some unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video was
introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ >>> Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for a
later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too expensive. I >>>> live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another reason >>>> for going into town.....
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian
explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives more >>>>> details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't
attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has
happened since then.
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves science as >>> much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it to >>> him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today if
time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:10:37 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:10:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:Is this a duplicate of the following YouTube film? the title is the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLzyco3Q_Rg
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:35:36?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak,The original lecture was "The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer"
describing the current status of his team's efforts to identify
plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with a
30-minute Q&A with the audience.
Some of the highlights of the lecture include demonstrations of how >> lipid bilayers abiotically self-assemble, grow, and divide,
nonenzymatic RNA duplication, abiotic substrates for protein
synthesis, and functions of the first peptides.
The lecture suffers from multiple technical glitches. IMO the
information Szostak provides despite these glitches make viewing this >> video worthwhile.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g>
https://www.youtube.com/@asuchemistry
The YouTube is the lecture slides.Your comment illustrates a limit of transcripts, which identified it
as a "hiring lecture", which led me to imagine Szostack was doing an overly demanding job interview.
You seem familiar with the context of this lecture. I was surprisedThere were 2 lectures. The YouTube posted was for the general audience. The professional audience was the following day.
at the number of children in the audience and the naivete of many of
the questions, suggesting something like the Royal Institute's
Christmas lectures, in contrast to a presentation to Szostack's professional peers.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
https://news.asu.edu/20230309-nobel-laureate-jack-szostak-deliver-distinguished-eyring-lecture-series-asuThis is just an announcement, not even a synopsis of the film.
I have no idea why the professional audience lecture was not video taped of YouTube.Perhaps they were concerned about how much ignorance Szostak revealed among the best
scientists as to how abiogenesis COULD have occurred. Perhaps the questions the professional
scientists asked might be even more embarrassing to Szostak.
I"m surprised no one in the audience of his lecture that WAS taped asked him about the following
anomaly. I'd be very disappointed if the professionals didn't pick up on it either.
At one point in the film, between the ca. 13:00 minute point and the ca. 13:50 point, Szostak
completely abandons the project of trying to re-create prebiotic conditions or simulating something like natural selection. Instead, he talks about
an unspecified number of "generations" of RNA molecules in the laboratory, in which the human experimenters carefully select the mutants that are in the direction of
"molecules that do uh what we want okay."
The "what we want" is to bind an ATP molecule, but they are still working on how to bind more tightly to this quite simple molecule.
Human selection like this was well known before Darwin came along and showed how SOME
of it could be done (much more slowly!) via natural selection.
But Szostak's method is like Intelligent Design not only because it is a human selection process,
but because there was a specific goal in mind. The idea of physical processes having a specific direction
was abandoned over a century before Szostak's experiment.
After I pointed some of this out to Ron Dean on another thread, jillery figuratively threw
Charles Darwin under the bus by calling the distinction I was making between human selection and natural selection "a PRATT."
My rebuttal to that can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0XgjzJpuiMA/m/mKMU6r1oBgAJ
Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:45:55?AM UTC+1, Pro Plyd wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 04:59:13 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my heroGood catch. But, as concerns the ark myth they would not
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Think about it. What if Noah just brought dinosaur
eggs with him on the ark? Then they would have
taken up very little space and they wouldn't have had
any food & water requirements!
Plus no fighting or eating each other.
Ostrich eggs take 36 days to hatch at a minimum,
Emus even longer and crocodiles longer still. But
here's the thing; God could have told them not to
hatch until after they were unloaded from the Ark
and there was enough for them to eat. So they
might've gone 45, 50 or even 60 days without
hatching, until all the trees grew back & stuff.
We know that Noah's Ark is literally true, that the
flood happened, because we find whale bones &
stuff on mountains. So we know that the waters
grew so high they could swim up there!
This also explains the Loch Ness Monster.
Nessie is a plesiosaur and plesiosaurs like warm
places, like Texas, not Scotland. But during the
flood the top of the water was much closer to the
sun, where it was warmer, so Nessie could swim
from Texas to Scotland and beyond, and when
God made the waters go down she got trapped in
Scotland and evolutionated to eat cold foods &
stuff. Some of her friends got stuck on mountain
tops, undoubtedly, and some of them were eaten
by the dinosaurs, after they hatched & grew up.
Sad, really.
The above raises a vital question of great philosophical, theological,
historical, and biologal significance: Were dinosaurs kosher?
have been there as provisions so the dietary laws would
not kick in.
this should answer all your dinosaur diet related questions. >https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-015-0047-2
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwinpeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
This work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".-
Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as
evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >>> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view of experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation." Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real
design
would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose, pushed
back on conscious.". - Gould
Darwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps the
most important
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent
design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer". Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features
of organisms could bee explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild
speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that
Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's
followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's
theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their goal of >>> for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people,
with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across
evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or
explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They start
out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective.
And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in
mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then
ends with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence to
support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of evolutionary
biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton,
what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence you
need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with "some
unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video was
introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ
Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for a
later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian
explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives
more details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't
attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has
happened since then.
expensive. I
live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another reason >>>>> for going into town.....
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves
science as
much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it
to him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today if
time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
this should answer all your dinosaur diet related questions.
Good catch.
Name some ->
On 7/29/23 3:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
It's a little annoying that you make this a reply to me without actually replying to anything I said.
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwinpeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up
Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to someThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".-
Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as
evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific
observations, as
did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
view of
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's
structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the
explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real
design
would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on
purpose, pushed
back on conscious.". - Gould
;natural
Darwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps theselection became his God replacemt;
most important
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent
design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281
;With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features
of organisms could bee explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate
world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an
intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)"
Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild
speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that
Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's
followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's
theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their
goal of
for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people,
with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across
evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or
explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They
start out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective.
And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in
mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then
ends with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence
to support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of
evolutionary biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton,
what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence you
need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with "some
unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video was
introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ >>>>> Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for a
later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian
explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives
more details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't >>>>>>> attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has
happened since then.
expensive. I
live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another reason >>>>>> for going into town.....
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves
science as
much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it
to him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today
if time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/29/23 3:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
It's a little annoying that you make this a reply to me without actually replying to anything I said.
I overlooked deleting you, which was my intentions.
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/29/23 3:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
It's a little annoying that you make this a reply to me without
actually replying to anything I said.
I overlooked deleting you, which was my intentions.
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwinpeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up
Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to someThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize
Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific
observations, as
did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
view of
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's
structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the
explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a
real design
would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on
purpose, pushed
back on conscious.". - Gould
;natural
Darwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps theselection became his God replacemt;
most important
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent
design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent
designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281
;With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and
adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features
of organisms could bee explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate
world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an
intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" >>> Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild
speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that
Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's
followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's
theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their
goal of
for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people,
with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across
evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or
explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They
start out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective. >>>>> And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in
mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then
ends with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence
to support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of
evolutionary biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton,
what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence
you need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with
"some unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video
was introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ >>>>>> Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for
a later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian >>>>>>>> explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives >>>>>>>> more details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't >>>>>>>> attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has >>>>>>>> happened since then.
expensive. I
live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another
reason
for going into town.....
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves
science as
much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it >>>>>> to him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today >>>>>> if time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwinpeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up
Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for
the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view of >> experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;This work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen >>>>
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as
evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >>>> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's
structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation." >> Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real
design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps theDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural >>>> selection became his God replacemt
most important
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of >> the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features
of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate
world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an
intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)"
Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild
speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that
Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's
followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's
theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their goal of >>>> for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people,
with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across
evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or
explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They start >>>> out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective.
And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in
mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then ends >>>> with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence to
support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of evolutionary
biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton,
what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence you
need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with "some
unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video was
introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ >>>>> Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for a
later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too expensive. I >>>>>> live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another reason >>>>>> for going into town.....
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian
explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives more >>>>>>> details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't >>>>>>> attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has
happened since then.
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves science as >>>>> much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it to >>>>> him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today if >>>>> time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwinpeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up
Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >>>> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's >> structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real
design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
My argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity.
And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way toward
confirming my opinion.
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps theDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural >>>> selection became his God replacemt
most important
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer". >> Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of >> organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features
of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate
world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an
intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" >> Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or objective.
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild
speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that
Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's
followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's
theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their goal of
for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people,
with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across
evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or
explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They start >>>> out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective.
And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in
mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then ends >>>> with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence to >>>> support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of evolutionary >>> biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton,
what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence you >>> need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with "some
unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video was >>>>> introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ >>>>> Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for a >>>>> later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too expensive. I
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian >>>>>>> explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives more >>>>>>> details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't >>>>>>> attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has >>>>>>> happened since then.
live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another reason >>>>>> for going into town.....
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves science as
much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it to >>>>> him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today if >>>>> time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Burkhard wrote:.....
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwinpeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up
Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >>>> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's >> structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real
design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
My argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity.
And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin. And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way toward
confirming my opinion.
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps theDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural >>>> selection became his God replacemt
most important
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer". >> Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of >> organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features
of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate
world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an
intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" >> Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or objective.
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild
speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that
Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's
followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's
theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their goal of
for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people,
with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across
evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or
explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They start >>>> out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective.
And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in
mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then ends >>>> with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence to >>>> support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of evolutionary >>> biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton,
what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence you >>> need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with "some
unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video was >>>>> introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ >>>>> Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for a >>>>> later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too expensive. I
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian >>>>>>> explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives more >>>>>>> details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't >>>>>>> attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has >>>>>>> happened since then.
live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another reason >>>>>> for going into town.....
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves science as
much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it to >>>>> him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today if >>>>> time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56?PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwinpeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up
Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for
the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of >> Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view of >>> experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;This work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen >>>>>
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >>>>> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's
structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation." >>> Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real
design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
My argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, >accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity.
And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin. And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way >toward
confirming my opinion.
My argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, >accidental. random no caring world.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:connection whatsoever with his work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwinpeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up >>>> Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for >>> the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read as part of his BA, but which had no
My argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >>>>>> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's >>>> structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real >>>> design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent,
accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity.
And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was, and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives he had when starting
his research.
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially expected his findings
to support Paley
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way
toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat what one's teacher told someone
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps theDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural >>>>>> selection became his God replacemt
most important
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer". >>>> Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of >>>> organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features >>>> of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate
world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an
intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" >>>> Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the
historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
objective.
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the
intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that directly contradicts you claim
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild >>>>> speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that
Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's
followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's
theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their goal of >>>>>> for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people, >>>>> with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across
evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or
explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They start >>>>>> out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective. >>>>>> And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in >>>>>> mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then ends >>>>>> with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence to >>>>>> support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of evolutionary >>>>> biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton, >>>>> what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence you >>>>> need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with "some
unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video was >>>>>>> introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ >>>>>>> Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for a >>>>>>> later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too expensive. I
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian >>>>>>>>> explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives more >>>>>>>>> details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't >>>>>>>>> attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has >>>>>>>>> happened since then.
live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another reason >>>>>>>> for going into town.....
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves science as
much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it to >>>>>>> him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today if >>>>>>> time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:05:57 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:connection whatsoever with his work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post. >>>>>>
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwin >>>>>> In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up >>>>>> Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.peter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for >>>>> the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read as part of his BA, but which had no
I'll have to admit, I had no clue there were 2 books by Paley, with
"evidence" in the titles. Thank Y0u, for pointing that out.
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goalMy argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist, >>>>>>>> during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence >>>>>>>> pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >>>>>>>> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture. >>>>>>
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's >>>>>> structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real >>>>>> design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, >>>> accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity. >>>> And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was, >>> and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more
difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives he had when starting
his research.
as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer. I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm
convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >>>> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
Evolution is immune from falsification. Pasteur falsified the position
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way >>>> toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound in
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found
in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints
in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
Well, I would consider those (after correcting the obvious typos) to
be good falsifications of the theory of evolution. You wouldn't,
though, I suppose, since just a couple of paragraphs above you claim
that evolution is immune from falsification.
And you did not really explain why you think evolution is immune to falsification. There are certainly potential observations that would
falsify it.
If all individuals in any population produced the same
number of offspring, regardless of phenotype, evolution would be
impossible.
If traits were not passed from parent to offspring,
evolution would be impossible.
If each organism used a different
genetic code, evolution would be in trouble.
If there was noFor sure.
consistent pattern of faunal succession, or if phylogenetic trees
produced using morphologic characters were completely uncorrelated
with trees produced using genetic sequences, evolution would be is
serious trouble. There are all sorts of ways that evolution could be falsified. It just happens that it has withstood so many attempted falsifications (explicit and implicit) that it is very solidly
established.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, is indeed unfalsifiable, as
long as you carefully refuse to make any testable hypotheses about
the designer's nature, methods, or motives, and especially if you
hypothesize a designer of infinite capabilities and inscrutable
motives.
In the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps the >>>>>> most importantDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised >>>>>>>> a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281 >>>>>>>
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features >>>>>> of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate >>>>>> world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an >>>>>> intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" >>>>>> Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the >>>>> historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
objective.
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the
intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
You seem to think Darwin's "greatest achievement" was to have gotten rid of God. His greatest achievement was to develop a successful theory for the diversity of living things and the changes in them across geologic time.
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild >>>>>>> speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that >>>>>>> Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's >>>>>>>> followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's >>>>>>>> theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their goal of
for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people, >>>>>>> with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across >>>>>>>> evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or >>>>>>>> explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They start >>>>>>>> out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective. >>>>>>>> And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in >>>>>>>> mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then ends >>>>>>>> with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence to >>>>>>>> support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of evolutionary >>>>>>> biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton, >>>>>>> what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence you >>>>>>> need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with "some >>>>>>> unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video was >>>>>>>>> introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ >>>>>>>>> Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for a >>>>>>>>> later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too expensive. I
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian >>>>>>>>>>> explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives more >>>>>>>>>>> details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has >>>>>>>>>>> happened since then.
live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another reason
for going into town.....
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves science as
much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it to >>>>>>>>> him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today if >>>>>>>>> time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Burkhard wrote:connection whatsoever with his work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwinpeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up >>>> Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for >>> the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read as part of his BA, but which had no
I'll have to admit, I had no clue there were 2 books by Paley, with "evidence" in the titles. Thank Y0u, for pointing that out.
My argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence >>>>>> pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as
did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture. >>>>
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's >>>> structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real >>>> design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent,
accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity. >> And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was,
and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more
difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives he had when starting
his research.
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goal
as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer. I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially expected his findings
to support Paley
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way
toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
Evolution is immune from falsification. Pasteur falsified the position
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat what one's teacher told someone
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science, regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound in
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found
in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints
in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps the >>>> most importantDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features >>>> of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate >>>> world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an >>>> intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" >>>> Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the >>> historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
objective.
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the
intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that directly contradicts you claim
In the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
No need to be sorry for things you can't help, but yes, this is wild >>>>> speculation, free of any evidence, and requires you to suppose that >>>>> Darwin was systematically lying.
I honesty think, it's been the objective and the goal of Darwin's >>>>>> followers,
from the beginning, to _find_ supporting evidence for Darwin's
theory. Can this be objective?
And I think finding evidence to support evolution has been their goal of
for the past 150 years. If so, where does this leave truth.
Again, you assert more about the motivations of all sorts of people, >>>>> with zero evidence. Is this really a good thing to do?
If in searching for supporting evidence the searcher comes across >>>>>> evidence
that does not align with their goal. It's seen as "no data" or
explained away.
And where does this leave the search for truth?
This certainly can apply to the "flat earth" proponents. They start >>>>>> out with a
goal or and objective. Then they set out to prove their objective. >>>>>> And like evolutionist they start from the beginning with a goal in >>>>>> mind. Prove
the earth is flat. IOW real science starts with observation, then ends
with a conclusion.
It does not start with a conclusion, then set out to find evidence to >>>>>> support the
conclusion. I do not believe this is science.
It certainly wouldn't be. But you present a caricature of evolutionary >>>>> biology, based on nothing whatsoever.
I ask you once again: if the history of life is not one of evoluton, >>>>> what is it? You won't say. If you're going to talk about evidence you >>>>> need two hypotheses to compare. You can't just compare X with "some >>>>> unstated thing that isn't X". This is not science.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
between ca. 13 and 13.5 minutes into the video
This video is being discussed by me in a thread where the video was >>>>>>> introduced in the OP by jillery:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/zLkSPbLfklc/m/kDJB_bJBAgAJ
Re: Szostak on abiogenesis
I was rather complimentary, and am saving the above bombshell for a >>>>>>> later post.
I looked up this book on amazon. For a book, it's just too expensive. I
John Harshman loves to claim that the best book on the Cambrian >>>>>>>>> explosion is the one by Erwin and Valentine, but it only gives more
details
than Meyer's book about the events of the explosion, and doesn't >>>>>>>>> attempt
to explain how it occurred nor why nothing remotely like it has >>>>>>>>> happened since then.
live about 30 miles from the library, so unless I have another reason
for going into town.....
I bought a copy as a present for my brother-in-law, who loves science as
much as I do, but made a point to read most of it before giving it to
him.
Concluded in another post to this thread, to be done later today if >>>>>>> time permits;
if not, then Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goal
as to discounting Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a designer.
I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with Paley's date, the structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was
too much for coincidence. I know sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm convinced that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in accomplishing his objective.
Burkhard wrote:
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goal
as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose.
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to
address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from
"inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially
expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
Evolution is immune from falsification.
Pasteur falsified the position
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science, regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound in
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new
scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be
impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat
what one's teacher told someone
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found
in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints
in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered falsification?
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation thanIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that
directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 08:31:22 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56?PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
peter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwin
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up >>>> Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for >>> the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
My argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence
pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >>>>>> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's >>>> structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real >>>> design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent,
accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity.
And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin. And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way
toward
confirming my opinion.
Both Burkhard and Rogers already posted good responses to your
comments above. For your own sake and mine, please consider them
carefully. I don't know why you insist on inferring other people's
motives. Even if your inferences were correct, you still can't prove
them, and in either case don't inform the larger topic.
That Darwin was early inspired by Paley is a matter of
autobiographical record. That Darwin's intent was to prove Paley
wrong is contrary to that record, has no objective basis, and is
according to your own words a matter of your personal belief.
<snip remaining>
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
[much snippage]
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no
goal as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer.
No, Darwin's greatest achievement was a theory explaining the obvious interrelationships of living forms. It seems to be you who is insistent
on throwing out a designer.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose.
That's not true, but the exceptions are minor and not worth discussing.
I contend that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's data, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity.
I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Fine. Just remember that the sentences above are about Ron Dean, not
about Darwin or Paley.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >>>> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to
address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from
"inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially
expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
I don't understand your complaint. It's as if someone placed a pumpkin
on the table in front of you, and you shout, "There is no pumpkin on the table in front of me!" Perhaps you expect Darwin's words that
contradict your belief to turn into something else at the stroke of
midnight?
[...]
Evolution is immune from falsification.
What you mean is, Evolution cannot be falsified except by assuming a
reality different from what we observe. Yeah, that's true of most true things.
Pasteur falsified the position that life arose through spontaneous
generation via active testing. There is no known except, that life
comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
If you sequenced my genome and found it more similar to the genome of a
sea anemone than to my mother's, or even to a babboon's, that would be a
good clue that our understanding of how things are related is really
messed up. (Of course, you would need results such as this to be repeatable.)
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new
scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would
be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat
what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound
in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were
found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot
prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other
mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been
placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really
being human).
[...]
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation thanIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that
directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a
designer.
I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective of ruling
out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
[much snippage]
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no
goal as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer.
No, Darwin's greatest achievement was a theory explaining the obvious interrelationships of living forms. It seems to be you who is insistent on throwing out a designer.
You realize that was a quote from a scientist, Francis Ayala.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose.
That's not true, but the exceptions are minor and not worth discussing.
Then one goes off half cocked.
I contend that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's data, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity.
I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Fine. Just remember that the sentences above are about Ron Dean, not about Darwin or Paley.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >>>> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to >>> address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from
"inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially
expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
I don't understand your complaint. It's as if someone placed a pumpkin
on the table in front of you, and you shout, "There is no pumpkin on the table in front of me!" Perhaps you expect Darwin's words that
contradict your belief to turn into something else at the stroke of midnight?
[...]
Evolution is immune from falsification.
What you mean is, Evolution cannot be falsified except by assuming a reality different from what we observe. Yeah, that's true of most true things.
No, that's not falsification.
Pasteur falsified the position that life arose through spontaneous
generation via active testing. There is no known except, that life
comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
If you sequenced my genome and found it more similar to the genome of a sea anemone than to my mother's, or even to a babboon's, that would be a good clue that our understanding of how things are related is really messed up. (Of course, you would need results such as this to be repeatable.)
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new
scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would
be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat
what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound
in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were
found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot
prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really
being human).
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
[...]
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than >>> that behind allIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that
directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a designer.
Again this was the thought of Francis Ayala
I suspect you mean a 180 degree turn around. (Either that, or you've found a falsification for trigonometry).I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective of ruling out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
That's not my objective. I try to go where I _think_ the evidence takes me. with an open mind and hopefully without bias. During my life time I've
been on both sides of the fence. IOW I've made a 360 degree turn-around.
I remember questioning a fundamental Christian regarding a 7 day
and the 6 thousand year old creation and I had my head handed back to
me in a basket.
And you did not really explain why you think evolution is immune to
falsification. There are certainly potential observations that would
falsify it.
You mean that could have falsified it prior to our gathering the data we
now have.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not
science, regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to
be pound in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood
vessels were found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million
modern human foot prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of
this be considered falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other
mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been
placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really
being human).
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
[...]
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivationIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that
directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a
designer.
Again this was the thought of Francis Ayala
I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective ofThat's not my objective.
ruling out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
I try to go where I _think_ the evidence takes me.
with an open mind and hopefully without bias. During my life time I've
been on both sides of the fence. IOW I've made a 360 degree turn-around.
I remember questioning a fundamental Christian regarding a 7 day
and the 6 thousand year old creation and I had my head handed back to
me in a basket.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
[much snippage]
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no
goal as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer.
No, Darwin's greatest achievement was a theory explaining the obvious interrelationships of living forms. It seems to be you who is insistent on throwing out a designer.
You realize that was a quote from a scientist, Francis Ayala.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose.
That's not true, but the exceptions are minor and not worth discussing.
Then one goes off half cocked.
I contend that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's data, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity.
I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Fine. Just remember that the sentences above are about Ron Dean, not about Darwin or Paley.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >>>> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to >>> address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from
"inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially
expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
I don't understand your complaint. It's as if someone placed a pumpkin
on the table in front of you, and you shout, "There is no pumpkin on the table in front of me!" Perhaps you expect Darwin's words that
contradict your belief to turn into something else at the stroke of midnight?
[...]
Evolution is immune from falsification.
What you mean is, Evolution cannot be falsified except by assuming a reality different from what we observe. Yeah, that's true of most true things.
No, that's not falsification.
Pasteur falsified the position that life arose through spontaneous
generation via active testing. There is no known except, that life
comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
If you sequenced my genome and found it more similar to the genome of a sea anemone than to my mother's, or even to a babboon's, that would be a good clue that our understanding of how things are related is really messed up. (Of course, you would need results such as this to be repeatable.)
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new
scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would
be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat
what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound
in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were
found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot
prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really
being human).
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
[...]
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than >>> that behind allIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that
directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a designer.
Again this was the thought of Francis Ayala
I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective of ruling out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
That's not my objective. I try to go where I _think_ the evidence takes me. with an open mind and hopefully without bias. During my life time I've
been on both sides of the fence. IOW I've made a 360 degree turn-around.
I remember questioning a fundamental Christian regarding a 7 day
and the 6 thousand year old creation and I had my head handed back to
me in a basket.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
[much snippage]
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no
goal as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer.
No, Darwin's greatest achievement was a theory explaining the obvious
interrelationships of living forms. It seems to be you who is insistent >> on throwing out a designer.
You realize that was a quote from a scientist, Francis Ayala.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose.
That's not true, but the exceptions are minor and not worth discussing.
Then one goes off half cocked.
I contend that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's data, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity.
I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Fine. Just remember that the sentences above are about Ron Dean, not
about Darwin or Paley.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >>>>> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to >>>> address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from
"inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially
expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
I don't understand your complaint. It's as if someone placed a pumpkin
on the table in front of you, and you shout, "There is no pumpkin on the
table in front of me!" Perhaps you expect Darwin's words that
contradict your belief to turn into something else at the stroke of
midnight?
[...]
Evolution is immune from falsification.
What you mean is, Evolution cannot be falsified except by assuming a
reality different from what we observe. Yeah, that's true of most true
things.
No, that's not falsification.
Pasteur falsified the position that life arose through spontaneous
generation via active testing. There is no known except, that life
comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following >>> Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
If you sequenced my genome and found it more similar to the genome of a
sea anemone than to my mother's, or even to a babboon's, that would be a
good clue that our understanding of how things are related is really
messed up. (Of course, you would need results such as this to be
repeatable.)
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new
scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would
be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat
what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound
in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were
found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot >>> prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other
mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been
placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really
being human).
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
[...]
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than >>>> that behind allIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that
directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a
designer.
Again this was the thought of Francis Ayala
I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective of rulingThat's not my objective. I try to go where I _think_ the evidence takes me. >with an open mind and hopefully without bias. During my life time I've
out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
been on both sides of the fence. IOW I've made a 360 degree turn-around.
I remember questioning a fundamental Christian regarding a 7 day
and the 6 thousand year old creation and I had my head handed back to
me in a basket.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:t agree, but the point is the fellow you quoted to suggest Darwin's goal was to rule out God, did not think either that that was Darwin's main achievement, indeed, quite the contrary).
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
[much snippage]
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no
goal as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer.
No, Darwin's greatest achievement was a theory explaining the obvious interrelationships of living forms. It seems to be you who is insistent on throwing out a designer.
You realize that was a quote from a scientist, Francis Ayala.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose.
That's not true, but the exceptions are minor and not worth discussing.
Then one goes off half cocked.
I contend that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's data, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity.
I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Fine. Just remember that the sentences above are about Ron Dean, not about Darwin or Paley.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or >> his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to >>> address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from
"inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially >>> expected his findings
to support Paley
I don't understand your complaint. It's as if someone placed a pumpkin on the table in front of you, and you shout, "There is no pumpkin on the table in front of me!" Perhaps you expect Darwin's words that
contradict your belief to turn into something else at the stroke of midnight?
[...]
Evolution is immune from falsification.
What you mean is, Evolution cannot be falsified except by assuming a reality different from what we observe. Yeah, that's true of most true things.
No, that's not falsification.
Pasteur falsified the position that life arose through spontaneous
generation via active testing. There is no known except, that life
comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
If you sequenced my genome and found it more similar to the genome of a sea anemone than to my mother's, or even to a babboon's, that would be a good clue that our understanding of how things are related is really messed up. (Of course, you would need results such as this to be repeatable.)
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science, >> regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new
scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would >>> be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat
what one's teacher told someone
in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were
found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot >> prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really being human).
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
[...]
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than >>> that behind allIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose. >> And based on
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that
directly contradicts you claim
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a designer.
Again this was the thought of Francis AyalaIt might be interesting, for some, anyway, to read what Ayala actually wrote in an article entitled "Darwin's greatest discovery; Design without designer."
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0701072104
As someone already mentioned to you, Ayala was not concluding that Darwin's greatest contribution was to rule out God. Ayala, in fact considered Darwin's theory a gift to science and religion and thought that it resolved the problems of theodicy (I don'
You could read Ayala's book, Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion. Assuming you can tolerate the challenge to your idea that the goal of evolutionary biology is to exclude God.
Burkhard wrote:connection whatsoever with his work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwinpeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up >>>> Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for >>> the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read as part of his BA, but which had no
I'll have to admit, I had no clue there were 2 books by Paley, with "evidence" in the titles. Thank Y0u, for pointing that out.
My argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist,
during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence >>>>>> pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as
did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture. >>>>
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's >>>> structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real >>>> design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent,
accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity. >> And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was,
and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more
difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives he had when starting
his research.
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goal
as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer. I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing.
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially expected his findings
to support Paley
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way
toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
Evolution is immune from falsification.
Pasteur falsified the position
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat what one's teacher told someone
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science, regardless of what a teacher might say!
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found
in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints
in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps the >>>> most importantDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised
a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features >>>> of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate >>>> world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an >>>> intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" >>>> Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the >>> historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
objective.
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the
intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that directly contradicts you claim
In the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 19:18:07 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:31:33 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson ><eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 2:00:17?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 17:56:28 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Her erstwhile enemy, Martin Harran,
has followed her example since he decided to single me out in the same way.
You "singled" yourself out by trying to jump on Glenn's "Harran is an >>> atheist" bandwagon
and making up lies about me.
I told you long ago that if you stop telling lies
about me and dragging me into threads where I am not involved and you will not hear
from me
but you just can't help yourself.
[...]
Jillery's right; write off Peter. He'll never stop, but that's what he does. I can't
believe he presents himself to his colleagues as his unpleasant online persona.
Apparently we're special.
The following is yet another example of Harran posting about me when
he has no idea what he's talking about and is proud of it.
It seems to stick in Jillery's craw that I have killfiled her but not >Peter
One can only wonder why Harran would wrote the above, certainly not
from anything Simpson posted.
which means I regard her as worse than him. The difference to me
is that Peter is a pumped-up idiot
but there is a certain, almost
innocent, naivety about him; IME, Jillerey is pure venom. YMMV - can
make up your own mind about which is worse for you.
BTW, Jillery did tell lies about me -
One can only wonder why Harran would write the above, certainly not
from anything Simpson posted.
It seems Harran is so anxious to post more mindless VITRIOL about
jillery that he provides evidence that he hasn't killfiled jillery
after all.
I documented it before I
killfiled her and gave it as one of the reasons I was killfiling her.
but I have no particular desire to revisit it, despite the vitriolic >attack she will now undoubtedly launch against me.
And jillery documented Harran's lies that jillery lied.
And jillery documented Harran's lies.
And jillery documented Harran's failure to acknowledge Harran's lies.
That's just one of the things he has in common with PeeWee Peter.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:right control experiment, or statistical fluke. The more evidence that has accumulated in favor of a theory and the more times it has survived well-designed attempts at falsification, the more likely it is that a single anomalous result in fact does have
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You realize that was a quote from a scientist, Francis Ayala.
Burkhard wrote:
[much snippage]
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no
goal as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer.
No, Darwin's greatest achievement was a theory explaining the obvious >>> interrelationships of living forms. It seems to be you who is insistent >>> on throwing out a designer.
Then one goes off half cocked.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose.
That's not true, but the exceptions are minor and not worth discussing. >>>
No, that's not falsification.
I contend that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with >>>> Paley's data, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. >>>> I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Fine. Just remember that the sentences above are about Ron Dean, not
about Darwin or Paley.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or >>>> his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to >>>>> address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from
"inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially >>>>> expected his findings
to support Paley
I don't understand your complaint. It's as if someone placed a pumpkin >>> on the table in front of you, and you shout, "There is no pumpkin on the >>> table in front of me!" Perhaps you expect Darwin's words that
contradict your belief to turn into something else at the stroke of
midnight?
[...]
Evolution is immune from falsification.
What you mean is, Evolution cannot be falsified except by assuming a
reality different from what we observe. Yeah, that's true of most true >>> things.
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
Pasteur falsified the position that life arose through spontaneous
generation via active testing. There is no known except, that life
comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following >>>> Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
If you sequenced my genome and found it more similar to the genome of a >>> sea anemone than to my mother's, or even to a babboon's, that would be a >>> good clue that our understanding of how things are related is really
messed up. (Of course, you would need results such as this to be
repeatable.)
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science, >>>> regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound >>>> in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were >>>> found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot >>>> prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered >>>> falsification?
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new
scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would >>>>> be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat >>>>> what one's teacher told someone
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other
mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been >>> placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really
being human).
That's true in all of science. Anomalous results in any field may be the key to overturning a good but incomplete theory (and winning a Nobel prize), but far more often they are the result of technical error, misinterpretation, failure to include the
.....Again this was the thought of Francis Ayala
[...]
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out aYou have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than >>>>> that behind allIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose. >>>> And based on
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that
directly contradicts you claim
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective >>>
designer.
How does what Ayala thinks about Darwin's greatest achievement now tell
you anything at all about Darwin's motivations? And why do anyone's
thoughts about what made Darwin great have any bearing on the truth or falsity of his theory?
The fact is, I can not absolutely know what was on the mind of Darwin,
the only thing any of us can do is surmise from his results. And I think that's exactly what has been done. The difference is
what conclusion and rendering a scientific model.. And this is drawn
from his ultimate result life as the result of random mutations and and natural selection. I've explained my view several times derived from
what I perceived was his purpose by the results I've noted, and his familiarity with Paley's works.
I suspect you mean a 180 degree turn around. (Either that, or you've found a falsification for trigonometry).That's not my objective. I try to go where I _think_ the evidence takes me.
I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective of ruling >>> out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
with an open mind and hopefully without bias. During my life time I've
been on both sides of the fence. IOW I've made a 360 degree turn-around. >> I remember questioning a fundamental Christian regarding a 7 day
and the 6 thousand year old creation and I had my head handed back to
me in a basket.
No, I more or less returned from where I was in my early youth. During College I went 180 degrees a decade or so I went another 1890. Total
360, a complete circle. Not that I think I was an atheist,
but I was a disbeliever.
On 7/30/23 10:24 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not
science, regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to >>> be pound in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood
vessels were found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million
modern human foot prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of
this be considered falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other
mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been
placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really
being human).
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
Not always. If rabbit fossils are routinely found in Triassic or
earlier strata with no evidence of disturbance, they could not be
explained away.
You are grasping at straws and coming way short even of those.
[...]
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivationIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose. >>> And based on
than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that
directly contradicts you claim
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a
designer.
Again this was the thought of Francis Ayala
Have you read Ayala's book, _Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion_? I
have not read it myself, but I know Ayala was ordained a priest, and my understanding of his beliefs is that he believes in a creator/designer
of the universe, and that he sees evolution as solving the theological problem of malicious design (which problem you seem to want to keep).
am sure he would strongly object to your invoking his name to support
your ideas.
I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective of
ruling out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
That's not my objective.
Not consciously, but you are the only person who is keeping the subject
in the spotlight. You should know by now that evolution still allows
for belief in a designer, even if that designer is not so easily viewed
as a hyperactive magician.
I try to go where I _think_ the evidence takes me.
with an open mind and hopefully without bias. During my life time I've been on both sides of the fence. IOW I've made a 360 degree turn-around.
I remember questioning a fundamental Christian regarding a 7 day
and the 6 thousand year old creation and I had my head handed back to
me in a basket.
I prefer not to engage with people who use guillotines as a rhetorical device.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:the right control experiment, or statistical fluke. The more evidence that has accumulated in favor of a theory and the more times it has survived well-designed attempts at falsification, the more likely it is that a single anomalous result in fact does
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You realize that was a quote from a scientist, Francis Ayala.
Burkhard wrote:
[much snippage]
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no >>>>>> goal as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a >>>>>> designer.
No, Darwin's greatest achievement was a theory explaining the obvious >>>>> interrelationships of living forms. It seems to be you who is insistent
on throwing out a designer.
Then one goes off half cocked.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose. >>>>>That's not true, but the exceptions are minor and not worth discussing.
No, that's not falsification.
I contend that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with >>>>>> Paley's data, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for >>>>>> coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. >>>>>> I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Fine. Just remember that the sentences above are about Ron Dean, not >>>>> about Darwin or Paley.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to
address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from >>>>>>> "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially >>>>>>> expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
I don't understand your complaint. It's as if someone placed a pumpkin >>>>> on the table in front of you, and you shout, "There is no pumpkin on the
table in front of me!" Perhaps you expect Darwin's words that
contradict your belief to turn into something else at the stroke of >>>>> midnight?
[...]
Evolution is immune from falsification.
What you mean is, Evolution cannot be falsified except by assuming a >>>>> reality different from what we observe. Yeah, that's true of most true >>>>> things.
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
Pasteur falsified the position that life arose through spontaneous >>>>>> generation via active testing. There is no known except, that life >>>>>> comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following >>>>>> Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
If you sequenced my genome and found it more similar to the genome of a
sea anemone than to my mother's, or even to a babboon's, that would be a
good clue that our understanding of how things are related is really >>>>> messed up. (Of course, you would need results such as this to be
repeatable.)
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new >>>>>>> scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would >>>>>>> be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat >>>>>>> what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound >>>>>> in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were >>>>>> found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot >>>>>> prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered >>>>>> falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other >>>>> mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been >>>>> placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really >>>>> being human).
That's true in all of science. Anomalous results in any field may be the key to overturning a good but incomplete theory (and winning a Nobel prize), but far more often they are the result of technical error, misinterpretation, failure to include
actually wrote, is that he did not begin his research with the goal of disproving God......How does what Ayala thinks about Darwin's greatest achievement now tell >> you anything at all about Darwin's motivations? And why do anyone's
Again this was the thought of Francis Ayala
[...]
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a >>>>> designer.You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation thanIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose. >>>>>> And based on
that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that >>>>>>> directly contradicts you claim
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective >>>>>
thoughts about what made Darwin great have any bearing on the truth or
falsity of his theory?
The fact is, I can not absolutely know what was on the mind of Darwin,
the only thing any of us can do is surmise from his results. And I think >> that's exactly what has been done. The difference is
what conclusion and rendering a scientific model.. And this is drawn
from his ultimate result life as the result of random mutations and and >> natural selection. I've explained my view several times derived from
what I perceived was his purpose by the results I've noted, and his
familiarity with Paley's works.
No, you're right, you cannot know with certainty what was on Darwin's mind. You can, however, read what he himself wrote about what was on his mind in his papers and journals. Burkhard has shown that to you repeatedly. What you learn from what Darwin
Unfortunately, I don't have time to read everyone's response. What
exactly did Darwin write in respect to Paley's deity? So, I do not
recall anything Darwin wrote in this regard.
What would you like me to say about it? You've changed your mind back and forth. That's fine. Me too.No, I more or less returned from where I was in my early youth. DuringI suspect you mean a 180 degree turn around. (Either that, or you've found a falsification for trigonometry).That's not my objective. I try to go where I _think_ the evidence takes me.
I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective of ruling
out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
with an open mind and hopefully without bias. During my life time I've >>>> been on both sides of the fence. IOW I've made a 360 degree turn-around.
I remember questioning a fundamental Christian regarding a 7 day
and the 6 thousand year old creation and I had my head handed back to >>>> me in a basket.
College I went 180 degrees a decade or so I went another 1890. Total
360, a complete circle. Not that I think I was an atheist,
but I was a disbeliever.
Why did you ignore the trigonometry response?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:the right control experiment, or statistical fluke. The more evidence that has accumulated in favor of a theory and the more times it has survived well-designed attempts at falsification, the more likely it is that a single anomalous result in fact does
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You realize that was a quote from a scientist, Francis Ayala.
Burkhard wrote:
[much snippage]
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no >>>>>> goal as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a >>>>>> designer.
No, Darwin's greatest achievement was a theory explaining the obvious >>>>> interrelationships of living forms. It seems to be you who is insistent
on throwing out a designer.
Then one goes off half cocked.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose. >>>>>That's not true, but the exceptions are minor and not worth discussing.
No, that's not falsification.
I contend that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with >>>>>> Paley's data, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for >>>>>> coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. >>>>>> I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Fine. Just remember that the sentences above are about Ron Dean, not >>>>> about Darwin or Paley.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to
address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from >>>>>>> "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially >>>>>>> expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
I don't understand your complaint. It's as if someone placed a pumpkin >>>>> on the table in front of you, and you shout, "There is no pumpkin on the
table in front of me!" Perhaps you expect Darwin's words that
contradict your belief to turn into something else at the stroke of >>>>> midnight?
[...]
Evolution is immune from falsification.
What you mean is, Evolution cannot be falsified except by assuming a >>>>> reality different from what we observe. Yeah, that's true of most true >>>>> things.
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
Pasteur falsified the position that life arose through spontaneous >>>>>> generation via active testing. There is no known except, that life >>>>>> comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following >>>>>> Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
If you sequenced my genome and found it more similar to the genome of a
sea anemone than to my mother's, or even to a babboon's, that would be a
good clue that our understanding of how things are related is really >>>>> messed up. (Of course, you would need results such as this to be
repeatable.)
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new >>>>>>> scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would >>>>>>> be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat >>>>>>> what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound >>>>>> in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were >>>>>> found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot >>>>>> prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered >>>>>> falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other >>>>> mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been >>>>> placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really >>>>> being human).
That's true in all of science. Anomalous results in any field may be the key to overturning a good but incomplete theory (and winning a Nobel prize), but far more often they are the result of technical error, misinterpretation, failure to include
actually wrote, is that he did not begin his research with the goal of disproving God......How does what Ayala thinks about Darwin's greatest achievement now tell >> you anything at all about Darwin's motivations? And why do anyone's
Again this was the thought of Francis Ayala
[...]
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a >>>>> designer.You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation thanIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose. >>>>>> And based on
that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that >>>>>>> directly contradicts you claim
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective >>>>>
thoughts about what made Darwin great have any bearing on the truth or
falsity of his theory?
The fact is, I can not absolutely know what was on the mind of Darwin,
the only thing any of us can do is surmise from his results. And I think >> that's exactly what has been done. The difference is
what conclusion and rendering a scientific model.. And this is drawn
from his ultimate result life as the result of random mutations and and >> natural selection. I've explained my view several times derived from
what I perceived was his purpose by the results I've noted, and his
familiarity with Paley's works.
No, you're right, you cannot know with certainty what was on Darwin's mind. You can, however, read what he himself wrote about what was on his mind in his papers and journals. Burkhard has shown that to you repeatedly. What you learn from what Darwin
Unfortunately, I don't have time to read everyone's response.
What exactly did Darwin write in respect to Paley's deity? So, I do not recall anything Darwin wrote in this regard.
I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective of rulingThat's not my objective. I try to go where I _think_ the evidence takes me.
out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
with an open mind and hopefully without bias. During my life time I've >>>> been on both sides of the fence. IOW I've made a 360 degree turn-around.
I remember questioning a fundamental Christian regarding a 7 day
and the 6 thousand year old creation and I had my head handed back to >>>> me in a basket.
I suspect you mean a 180 degree turn around. (Either that, or you've found a falsification for trigonometry).No, I more or less returned from where I was in my early youth. During
College I went 180 degrees a decade or so I went another [180].
360, a complete circle. Not that I think I was an atheist,
but I was a disbeliever.
Why did you ignore the trigonometry response?
[ … ]
exactly did Darwin write in respect to Paley's deity? So, I do notUnfortunately, I don't have time to read everyone's response. What >>>>>>>>
recall anything Darwin wrote in this regard.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:15:40 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote: [text snipped by above writer]
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 3:20:39 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:05:40 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
snip
.To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge.
Too bad so many of your kindred spirits in talk.origins don't acknowledge this where abiogenesis, a.k.a. OOL, is concerned.
Faced with huge gaps in our knowledge about it, they
use formulas like, "Sure, we don't know everything about it yet,"
or "Huge progress is being made every day," etc.
That you apply it to abiogenesis uniquely overplays YOUR hand.
.Not with the way your kindred spirits overplay THEIR hand
with nary a protest by you.
very tempted to snip out much of that too.
Since you seem to agree, how exactly do we know that we know less.
that what we don't know, and why is it "the nature" of most knowledge?
That's a fair question. The answer is not simple but is, maybe, profound.
It isn't easy to know, it's harder to prove.
The usual metaphor is to portray knowledge as an expanding sphere
with the "unknown" being some area beyond the boundary of that
sphere.
But how far beyond the boundary of the sphere? Of course
there's the infinite out there in the "beyond". But to overwork the
metaphor some, consider the radius of this sphere of knowledge.
That in some ways represents where we have data we understand
which one might consider as things we can plot on a graph. Knowledge
is like the line or curve we fit to the data. But being curious types,
we often like to extrapolate to conditions beyond where we have
data.
So back to torturing the metaphor, we have our sphere of knowledge,
and a radius of that sphere, and the "what we don't know" is akin
to that area beyond our sphere of knowledge within our sight, which is
about one more radius out.
Without the metaphor, the more we learn, the more we discover things
beyond our knowledge. This observation is mostly a personal assertion,
and in no way a proof, except I can say it is an often repeated
observation of learned people.
Behind that, many have observed that education is the process of
refining our understanding of what we don't understand. Life experience reveals that adolescents know everything but as they age the
successful ones stop asserting to know everything. Partly, that's
a processes of trimming away the things we "know that just ain't so."
Few things illustrate this better than the process of learning
quantum mechanics.
None of this is likely to be a satisfactory answer to Glenn.
And I wouldn't fault him in the slightest for not thinking much of
my answer. It is, however, a sentiment I've seen expressed by
many people who I hold in the highest regard.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:the right control experiment, or statistical fluke. The more evidence that has accumulated in favor of a theory and the more times it has survived well-designed attempts at falsification, the more likely it is that a single anomalous result in fact does
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You realize that was a quote from a scientist, Francis Ayala.
Burkhard wrote:
[much snippage]
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no >>>>>> goal as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a >>>>>> designer.
No, Darwin's greatest achievement was a theory explaining the obvious >>>>> interrelationships of living forms. It seems to be you who is insistent
on throwing out a designer.
Then one goes off half cocked.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose. >>>>>That's not true, but the exceptions are minor and not worth discussing.
No, that's not falsification.
I contend that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with >>>>>> Paley's data, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for >>>>>> coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. >>>>>> I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
Fine. Just remember that the sentences above are about Ron Dean, not >>>>> about Darwin or Paley.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to
address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from >>>>>>> "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially >>>>>>> expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
I don't understand your complaint. It's as if someone placed a pumpkin >>>>> on the table in front of you, and you shout, "There is no pumpkin on the
table in front of me!" Perhaps you expect Darwin's words that
contradict your belief to turn into something else at the stroke of >>>>> midnight?
[...]
Evolution is immune from falsification.
What you mean is, Evolution cannot be falsified except by assuming a >>>>> reality different from what we observe. Yeah, that's true of most true >>>>> things.
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
Pasteur falsified the position that life arose through spontaneous >>>>>> generation via active testing. There is no known except, that life >>>>>> comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following >>>>>> Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
If you sequenced my genome and found it more similar to the genome of a
sea anemone than to my mother's, or even to a babboon's, that would be a
good clue that our understanding of how things are related is really >>>>> messed up. (Of course, you would need results such as this to be
repeatable.)
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new >>>>>>> scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would >>>>>>> be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat >>>>>>> what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound >>>>>> in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were >>>>>> found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot >>>>>> prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered >>>>>> falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other >>>>> mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been >>>>> placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really >>>>> being human).
That's true in all of science. Anomalous results in any field may be the key to overturning a good but incomplete theory (and winning a Nobel prize), but far more often they are the result of technical error, misinterpretation, failure to include
actually wrote, is that he did not begin his research with the goal of disproving God......How does what Ayala thinks about Darwin's greatest achievement now tell >> you anything at all about Darwin's motivations? And why do anyone's
Again this was the thought of Francis Ayala
[...]
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a >>>>> designer.You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation thanIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose. >>>>>> And based on
that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that >>>>>>> directly contradicts you claim
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective >>>>>
thoughts about what made Darwin great have any bearing on the truth or
falsity of his theory?
The fact is, I can not absolutely know what was on the mind of Darwin,
the only thing any of us can do is surmise from his results. And I think >> that's exactly what has been done. The difference is
what conclusion and rendering a scientific model.. And this is drawn
from his ultimate result life as the result of random mutations and and >> natural selection. I've explained my view several times derived from
what I perceived was his purpose by the results I've noted, and his
familiarity with Paley's works.
No, you're right, you cannot know with certainty what was on Darwin's mind. You can, however, read what he himself wrote about what was on his mind in his papers and journals. Burkhard has shown that to you repeatedly. What you learn from what Darwin
Unfortunately, I don't have time to read everyone's response. What
exactly did Darwin write in respect to Paley's deity? So, I do not
recall anything Darwin wrote in this regard.
No, I more or less returned from where I was in my early youth. DuringI suspect you mean a 180 degree turn around. (Either that, or you've found a falsification for trigonometry).That's not my objective. I try to go where I _think_ the evidence takes me.
I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective of ruling
out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
with an open mind and hopefully without bias. During my life time I've >>>> been on both sides of the fence. IOW I've made a 360 degree turn-around.
I remember questioning a fundamental Christian regarding a 7 day
and the 6 thousand year old creation and I had my head handed back to >>>> me in a basket.
College I went 180 degrees a decade or so I went another 1890. Total
360, a complete circle. Not that I think I was an atheist,
but I was a disbeliever.
Why did you ignore the trigonometry response?
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 2:05:47 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:10:37 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:10:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:Is this a duplicate of the following YouTube film? the title is the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLzyco3Q_Rg
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:35:36?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak,The original lecture was "The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer"
describing the current status of his team's efforts to identify
plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with a >> 30-minute Q&A with the audience.
Some of the highlights of the lecture include demonstrations of how >> lipid bilayers abiotically self-assemble, grow, and divide,
nonenzymatic RNA duplication, abiotic substrates for protein
synthesis, and functions of the first peptides.
The lecture suffers from multiple technical glitches. IMO the
information Szostak provides despite these glitches make viewing this
video worthwhile.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g>
https://www.youtube.com/@asuchemistry
The YouTube is the lecture slides.Your comment illustrates a limit of transcripts, which identified it as a "hiring lecture", which led me to imagine Szostack was doing an overly demanding job interview.
You seem familiar with the context of this lecture. I was surprisedThere were 2 lectures. The YouTube posted was for the general audience. The professional audience was the following day.
at the number of children in the audience and the naivete of many of the questions, suggesting something like the Royal Institute's Christmas lectures, in contrast to a presentation to Szostack's professional peers.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
https://news.asu.edu/20230309-nobel-laureate-jack-szostak-deliver-distinguished-eyring-lecture-series-asuThis is just an announcement, not even a synopsis of the film.
I have no idea why the professional audience lecture was not video taped of YouTube.
Perhaps they were concerned about how much ignorance Szostak revealed among the best
scientists as to how abiogenesis COULD have occurred. Perhaps the questions the professional
scientists asked might be even more embarrassing to Szostak.
What an erudite analysis, and an excellent example of seeing the "benefit of the doubt"
in action used by one of the greatest minds on TO!
(you often tell us that that's what you are,
and as you also often told us that you are the most honest person here,
how could I not believe it?)
I'm standing in awe, and someone like me can only try to learn from your example.
I'm particularly impressed how you ruled our after careful fact checking and research
into the event all the more mundane explanations why the second lecture was not filmed, such as e.g.;
- a general policy by the IT support that runs the university's youtube account to only ever post the
general public version the the Eyring lecture - just as they did in all the previous years (
if they posted any video at all that is0
- the technical glitches that beset the recording of the first
lecture were not resolved in time, so the decision was taking
not to record the technical lecture
- the technical problems got worse/made recording impossible
- the lecture was held in a different room, not suitable for recording a hybrid lecture
- one or several member(s) of the audience refused to sign the data protection release form
- the lecture contained copyrighted material, such as a 3. party video clip illustrating
a point, that made youtube posting too risky for the university' legal department
So that after careful research that allowed you to categorically rule out all these mundane
and innocent explanations, you are of course totally right to speculate about the nefarious
reasons - as Sherlock Holmes used to say, if you have ruled out the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be true. Even if in this case it means that a Nobel
Laureate talking about his core field of research made a methodological plunder to
obvious that someone like you who has not spend a single hour of his life in a lab
doing abiogenesis research would immediately spot it!
Szostak is about as good as they come in the field of OOL, and the way he admits
to how much we do NOT know, especially in the Q&A session, he is well worth listening to.
Now me, I've always admitted that I'm a layperson when it comes to biology, so what would
I know. But I have spend quite a bit of time among scientists who also try to distinguish
between design and natural causes, and strangely enough they too would do all the things
you find objectionable below.
I"m surprised no one in the audience of his lecture that WAS taped asked him about the following
anomaly. I'd be very disappointed if the professionals didn't pick up on it either.
At one point in the film, between the ca. 13:00 minute point and the ca. 13:50 point, Szostak
completely abandons the project of trying to re-create prebiotic conditions
or simulating something like natural selection. Instead, he talks about
an unspecified number of "generations" of RNA molecules in the laboratory, in which the human experimenters carefully select the mutants that are in the direction of
"molecules that do uh what we want okay."
The "what we want" is to bind an ATP molecule, but they are still working on
how to bind more tightly to this quite simple molecule.
Human selection like this was well known before Darwin came along and showed how SOME
of it could be done (much more slowly!) via natural selection.
But Szostak's method is like Intelligent Design not only because it is a human selection process,
but because there was a specific goal in mind. The idea of physical processes having a specific direction
was abandoned over a century before Szostak's experiment.
After I pointed some of this out to Ron Dean on another thread, jillery figuratively threw
Charles Darwin under the bus by calling the distinction I was making between
human selection and natural selection "a PRATT."
My rebuttal to that can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0XgjzJpuiMA/m/mKMU6r1oBgAJ
Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:05:57 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:connection whatsoever with his work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post. >>>>>>
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwin >>>>>> In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up >>>>>> Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.peter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for >>>>> the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read as part of his BA, but which had no
I'll have to admit, I had no clue there were 2 books by Paley, with
"evidence" in the titles. Thank Y0u, for pointing that out.
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goalMy argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist, >>>>>>>> during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence >>>>>>>> pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >>>>>>>> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture. >>>>>>
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's >>>>>> structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real >>>>>> design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, >>>> accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity. >>>> And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was, >>> and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more
difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives he had when starting
his research.
as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer. I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
And in science, the original hypothesis often needs revising in the light
of the evidence that is found during the research - and as a result the outcome can be very different from the initial plan. As we have here.
Darwin started with the "purpose" to contribute to the field by collecting more data that he thought would add detail to prevailing thinking without however revolutionising or overturning it. He later realised that this
was not what the evidence he had found showed, and therefore
changed the theory to match the newly discovered observations.
The rest as they say is history
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing.
which nobody ever contested. Just that nothing follows from this
It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm
convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
All his notes, correspondence and indeed behaviour shows the opposite. Or rather,
the one objective he accomplished was the general one, to increase our understanding
of biology
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >>>> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
Yes it is, among other places in the paper I cited to you - and that one in turn uses
Darwin's notebooks, correspondence and autobiography. And I cited form that as well. So for
instance from his notebook when starting the Beagle journey:
“It will be very interesting to find from future comparison to what district or ‘centre of creation’
the organized beings of this archipelago must be attached”
"Centres of creation" tries to confirm Paley and reconcile his view with the emerging biogeographical data.
Or again from his notebook, now quite a bit later:
"When I see these Islands in sight of each other, & possessed of but a scanty stock of
animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure & filling the same
place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. . . . If there is the slightest
foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes–will be well worth
examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of Species."
So he initially has the Paleyan/creation based assumption that the differences he had observed
were "only varieties" - and hence unproblematic under the old Paleyan model. But he also starts to
realise that that's not what the data shows - so he concludes that these Archipelagoes need to be
revisited and studies in mode depth to solve that puzzle.
And on his religious views at the time he started his research I quoted his autobiography:
"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and
I remember being heartily laughed at by several of
the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quot-
ing the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some
moral point. I suppose it was the novelty of the
argument that amused them"
I also gave the other facts that evidence the analysis (beyond those that you find
in Sulloway's paper that I cited. One is that he never displayed any hostility to religion
and remained his whole life involved with his parish church, including as generous
donor. Or that he delayed publishing the OOS because he was worried it would upset Christians, including his wife - he clearly disliked that some people would
draw religious implications from his work, to the degree that he almost did not
publish it. That is hardly consistent with an initial "motivation" to displace God, quite
on the contrary, for him that was nothing more than an unfortunate distraction.
Evolution is immune from falsification.
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way >>>> toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
Nonsense. To the extend that any supported theory is subject to falsification, so is the ToE
There have been, and are, a number of observation that would cast serious doubts on it that would
lead to revise all or at least significant parts of it. Every time a new species is discovered, it is put to
the test - finding e.g. a species of mammals that has DNA that codes in birds for wings, and which
therefore can fly, would do it. Something like this would be strongly indicative of design.
Pasteur falsified the position
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
Ehm, no. That is not how falsification works. He falsified a very specific claim made by John Needham,
that yeast and other complex life is created spontaneously in broth. Pasteur falsified this theory
by showing that Needham had not accounted for contamination, and in this way established a more
rigorous test protocol.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
You'd need a claim as specific as the one he refuted, and then see what its implications would
be. Other approaches would be to look for a non-environmental mechanism that accounts better
for the data that we observe, e.g. finding that there is a pattern that shows species have an allocated
time after which they die out, regardless of environment (the way humans die after a set number of years)
Generally though, theories get replaced when better alternatives are proposed that account for more
data, make fewer assumptions or have fewer anomalies. Pasteur e.g. showed how yeast fermentation
worked, which explained the data better than spontaneous generation
Just as an aside, "spontaneous generation" at that time was a doctrine that came from theology, had had
been proposed to exculpate God from the creation of nasty things like lice. John Ray, for instance had
still considered the spontaneous generation of insects, but then with some regret concluded that this
was unlikely. By the time of pasteur it hd been more or less accepted that mice, lice and other things not
nice do not simply pop up.
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say!
But that is the consequence of your own approach, IF you applied it consistently.
Every time a theory gets
falsified, you would note that
a) the falsification study mirrored the argument it falsifies (it has to, otherwise it would not work)
b) subsequently the falsified theory is abandoned.
And that is the only evidence you offered to claim that Darwin was unduly motivated by a desire to
overturn Paley, that his book mirrors Paley's argument, and that Paley was subsequently abandoned.
If you were consistent, you'd apply this every time - with other words every time a theory is falsified, you
would have to "cast doubt" on the motives of the student falsifying the teacher.
So the only way, in your own account, would be never to probe and test old knowledge,
because that would always indicate inappropriate motives
If a rabbit were to be pound in
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found
in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints
in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
Depends. Falsification of what exactly, how well is the old theory supported, how
reliable is the apparent contradictory finding, does it lead to a better explanation etc.
So if we find a single rabbit in old strata, the likely explanation is a hoax, or an unusual earthquake that
disrupted the layers etc. If we find lots of them, under good conditions, that would indeed falsify
quite a number of theories that we have. The second one would falsify theories we have of how
DNA is preserved, and again we'd first want to rule our contamination. Etc
In the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps the >>>>>> most importantDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised >>>>>>>> a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281 >>>>>>>
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features >>>>>> of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate >>>>>> world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an >>>>>> intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" >>>>>> Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the >>>>> historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
objective.
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the
intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
That is an evaluation of the outcome, not a statement about the initial motivation. The greatest
achievement . The most famous example for the difference is the working of the capitalist market:
"The individual undertaker (entrepreneur), seeking the most efficient allocation of resources,
contributes to overall economic efficiency; the merchant’s reaction to price signals helps to ensure
that the allocation of resources accurately reflects the structure of consumer preferences; and the drive
to better our condition contributes to economic growth."
The motivation of the individual entrepreneur is very limited and self seeking, the great achievement something
they have not in their mind at all, here the effective allocation of resources.
<snip>
Burkhard wrote:connection whatsoever with his work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:05:57 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> John Harshman wrote:The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin, >>>> "Natural Theology or
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention. >>>>>> My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background >>>>>> for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post. >>>>>>
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwin >>>>>> In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get uppeter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis >>>>>>>> it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to >>>>> do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only. >>>>> The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for
the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read as part of his BA, but which had no
I'll have to admit, I had no clue there were 2 books by Paley, with
"evidence" in the titles. Thank Y0u, for pointing that out.
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goal >> as to discountingMy argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist, >>>>>>>> during a lecture in California was warned about the direction >>>>>>>> he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but >>>>>>>> you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as
evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence >>>>>>>> pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as
did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture. >>>>>>
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's
structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real
design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, >>>> accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity. >>>> And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was,
and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more
difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives he had when starting
his research.
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer. I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
And in science, the original hypothesis often needs revising in the light of the evidence that is found during the research - and as a result the outcome can be very different from the initial plan. As we have here. Darwin started with the "purpose" to contribute to the field by collecting more data that he thought would add detail to prevailing thinking without however revolutionising or overturning it. He later realised that this
was not what the evidence he had found showed, and therefore
changed the theory to match the newly discovered observations.
The rest as they say is history
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing.
which nobody ever contested. Just that nothing follows from this
It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm >> convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
All his notes, correspondence and indeed behaviour shows the opposite. Or rather,
the one objective he accomplished was the general one, to increase our understanding
of biology
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >>>> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
Yes it is, among other places in the paper I cited to you - and that one in turn uses
Darwin's notebooks, correspondence and autobiography. And I cited form that as well. So for
instance from his notebook when starting the Beagle journey:
“It will be very interesting to find from future comparison to what district or ‘centre of creation’
the organized beings of this archipelago must be attached”
"Centres of creation" tries to confirm Paley and reconcile his view with the emerging biogeographical data.
Or again from his notebook, now quite a bit later:
"When I see these Islands in sight of each other, & possessed of but a scanty stock of
animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure & filling the same
place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. . . . If there is the slightest
foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes–will be well worth
examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of Species."
So he initially has the Paleyan/creation based assumption that the differences he had observed
were "only varieties" - and hence unproblematic under the old Paleyan model. But he also starts to
realise that that's not what the data shows - so he concludes that these Archipelagoes need to be
revisited and studies in mode depth to solve that puzzle.
And on his religious views at the time he started his research I quoted his autobiography:
"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and
I remember being heartily laughed at by several of
the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quot-
ing the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some
moral point. I suppose it was the novelty of the
argument that amused them"
I also gave the other facts that evidence the analysis (beyond those that you find
in Sulloway's paper that I cited. One is that he never displayed any hostility to religion
and remained his whole life involved with his parish church, including as generous
donor. Or that he delayed publishing the OOS because he was worried it would
upset Christians, including his wife - he clearly disliked that some people would
draw religious implications from his work, to the degree that he almost did not
publish it. That is hardly consistent with an initial "motivation" to displace God, quite
on the contrary, for him that was nothing more than an unfortunate distraction.
Evolution is immune from falsification.
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way >>>> toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
Nonsense. To the extend that any supported theory is subject to falsification, so is the ToE
There have been, and are, a number of observation that would cast serious doubts on it that would
lead to revise all or at least significant parts of it. Every time a new species is discovered, it is put to
the test - finding e.g. a species of mammals that has DNA that codes in birds for wings, and which
therefore can fly, would do it. Something like this would be strongly indicative of design.
Pasteur falsified the position
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
Ehm, no. That is not how falsification works. He falsified a very specific claim made by John Needham,
that yeast and other complex life is created spontaneously in broth. Pasteur falsified this theory
by showing that Needham had not accounted for contamination, and in this way established a more
rigorous test protocol.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
You'd need a claim as specific as the one he refuted, and then see what its implications would
be. Other approaches would be to look for a non-environmental mechanism that accounts better
for the data that we observe, e.g. finding that there is a pattern that shows species have an allocated
time after which they die out, regardless of environment (the way humans die after a set number of years)
Generally though, theories get replaced when better alternatives are proposed that account for more
data, make fewer assumptions or have fewer anomalies. Pasteur e.g. showed how yeast fermentation
worked, which explained the data better than spontaneous generation
Just as an aside, "spontaneous generation" at that time was a doctrine that came from theology, had had
been proposed to exculpate God from the creation of nasty things like lice. John Ray, for instance had
still considered the spontaneous generation of insects, but then with some regret concluded that this
was unlikely. By the time of pasteur it hd been more or less accepted that mice, lice and other things not
nice do not simply pop up.
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say!
But that is the consequence of your own approach, IF you applied it consistently.
Every time a theory gets
falsified, you would note that
a) the falsification study mirrored the argument it falsifies (it has to, otherwise it would not work)
b) subsequently the falsified theory is abandoned.
And that is the only evidence you offered to claim that Darwin was unduly motivated by a desire to
overturn Paley, that his book mirrors Paley's argument, and that Paley was subsequently abandoned.
If you were consistent, you'd apply this every time - with other words every time a theory is falsified, you
would have to "cast doubt" on the motives of the student falsifying the teacher.
So the only way, in your own account, would be never to probe and test old knowledge,
because that would always indicate inappropriate motives
If a rabbit were to be pound in
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found
in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints
in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
Depends. Falsification of what exactly, how well is the old theory supported, how
reliable is the apparent contradictory finding, does it lead to a better explanation etc.
So if we find a single rabbit in old strata, the likely explanation is a hoax, or an unusual earthquake that
disrupted the layers etc. If we find lots of them, under good conditions, that would indeed falsify
quite a number of theories that we have. The second one would falsify theories we have of how
DNA is preserved, and again we'd first want to rule our contamination. Etc
In the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or >>>> objective.
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps the >>>>>> most importantDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised >>>>>>>> a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281 >>>>>>>
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features
of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate >>>>>> world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an >>>>>> intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery >>>>>> that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)"
Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the >>>>> historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the >>>> intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
That is an evaluation of the outcome, not a statement about the initial motivation. The greatest
achievement . The most famous example for the difference is the working of the capitalist market:
"The individual undertaker (entrepreneur), seeking the most efficient allocation of resources,
contributes to overall economic efficiency; the merchant’s reaction to price signals helps to ensure
that the allocation of resources accurately reflects the structure of consumer preferences; and the drive
to better our condition contributes to economic growth."
The motivation of the individual entrepreneur is very limited and self seeking, the great achievement something
they have not in their mind at all, here the effective allocation of resources.
Okay, I am mistaken in this regard. I could not know what Darwin had on
his mind, but from the his results, I arrived at my conclusion. I can
accept that, what I saw was nothing more than coincidence.
Consequently, I was wrong concerning his purpose.
<snip>
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:10:59 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:connection whatsoever with his work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )
Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:05:57 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin, >>>>>> "Natural Theology or
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had >>>>>>>> regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention. >>>>>>>> My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background >>>>>>>> for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post. >>>>>>>>
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwin >>>>>>>> In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up >>>>>>>> Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.peter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis >>>>>>>>>> it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to >>>>>>> do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only. >>>>>>> The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for
the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read as part of his BA, but which had no
with the idea that it would convince you that evolution was not true. Your purpose in reading it was not to convince yourself that evolution was false, but to find out about it. Indeed, you say that you initially rejected the claims of the book and onlyOkay, I am mistaken in this regard. I could not know what Darwin had onI'll have to admit, I had no clue there were 2 books by Paley, with
"evidence" in the titles. Thank Y0u, for pointing that out.
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goal >>>> as to discountingMy argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist, >>>>>>>>>> during a lecture in California was warned about the direction >>>>>>>>>> he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but >>>>>>>>>> you better not criticize the government. But in the US you >>>>>>>>>> can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>>>>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence >>>>>>>>>> pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as
did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture. >>>>>>>>
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's
structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real >>>>>>>> design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, >>>>>> accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity. >>>>>> And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was,
and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more
difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives he had when starting
his research.
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer. I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
And in science, the original hypothesis often needs revising in the light >>> of the evidence that is found during the research - and as a result the
outcome can be very different from the initial plan. As we have here.
Darwin started with the "purpose" to contribute to the field by collecting >>> more data that he thought would add detail to prevailing thinking without >>> however revolutionising or overturning it. He later realised that this
was not what the evidence he had found showed, and therefore
changed the theory to match the newly discovered observations.
The rest as they say is history
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing.
which nobody ever contested. Just that nothing follows from this
It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm >>>> convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
All his notes, correspondence and indeed behaviour shows the opposite. Or rather,
the one objective he accomplished was the general one, to increase our understanding
of biology
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or >>>> his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >>>>>> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially expected his findings
to support Paley
Yes it is, among other places in the paper I cited to you - and that one in turn uses
Darwin's notebooks, correspondence and autobiography. And I cited form that as well. So for
instance from his notebook when starting the Beagle journey:
“It will be very interesting to find from future comparison to what district or ‘centre of creation’
the organized beings of this archipelago must be attached”
"Centres of creation" tries to confirm Paley and reconcile his view with the emerging biogeographical data.
Or again from his notebook, now quite a bit later:
"When I see these Islands in sight of each other, & possessed of but a scanty stock of
animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure & filling the same
place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. . . . If there is the slightest
foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes–will be well worth
examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of Species."
So he initially has the Paleyan/creation based assumption that the differences he had observed
were "only varieties" - and hence unproblematic under the old Paleyan model. But he also starts to
realise that that's not what the data shows - so he concludes that these Archipelagoes need to be
revisited and studies in mode depth to solve that puzzle.
And on his religious views at the time he started his research I quoted his autobiography:
"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and
I remember being heartily laughed at by several of
the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quot-
ing the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some
moral point. I suppose it was the novelty of the
argument that amused them"
I also gave the other facts that evidence the analysis (beyond those that you find
in Sulloway's paper that I cited. One is that he never displayed any hostility to religion
and remained his whole life involved with his parish church, including as generous
donor. Or that he delayed publishing the OOS because he was worried it would
upset Christians, including his wife - he clearly disliked that some people would
draw religious implications from his work, to the degree that he almost did not
publish it. That is hardly consistent with an initial "motivation" to displace God, quite
on the contrary, for him that was nothing more than an unfortunate distraction.
Evolution is immune from falsification.
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way >>>>>> toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
Nonsense. To the extend that any supported theory is subject to falsification, so is the ToE
There have been, and are, a number of observation that would cast serious doubts on it that would
lead to revise all or at least significant parts of it. Every time a new species is discovered, it is put to
the test - finding e.g. a species of mammals that has DNA that codes in birds for wings, and which
therefore can fly, would do it. Something like this would be strongly indicative of design.
Pasteur falsified the position
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
Ehm, no. That is not how falsification works. He falsified a very specific claim made by John Needham,
that yeast and other complex life is created spontaneously in broth. Pasteur falsified this theory
by showing that Needham had not accounted for contamination, and in this way established a more
rigorous test protocol.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
You'd need a claim as specific as the one he refuted, and then see what its implications would
be. Other approaches would be to look for a non-environmental mechanism that accounts better
for the data that we observe, e.g. finding that there is a pattern that shows species have an allocated
time after which they die out, regardless of environment (the way humans die after a set number of years)
Generally though, theories get replaced when better alternatives are proposed that account for more
data, make fewer assumptions or have fewer anomalies. Pasteur e.g. showed how yeast fermentation
worked, which explained the data better than spontaneous generation
Just as an aside, "spontaneous generation" at that time was a doctrine that came from theology, had had
been proposed to exculpate God from the creation of nasty things like lice. John Ray, for instance had
still considered the spontaneous generation of insects, but then with some regret concluded that this
was unlikely. By the time of pasteur it hd been more or less accepted that mice, lice and other things not
nice do not simply pop up.
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science, >>>> regardless of what a teacher might say!
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat what one's teacher told someone
But that is the consequence of your own approach, IF you applied it consistently.
Every time a theory gets
falsified, you would note that
a) the falsification study mirrored the argument it falsifies (it has to, otherwise it would not work)
b) subsequently the falsified theory is abandoned.
And that is the only evidence you offered to claim that Darwin was unduly motivated by a desire to
overturn Paley, that his book mirrors Paley's argument, and that Paley was subsequently abandoned.
If you were consistent, you'd apply this every time - with other words every time a theory is falsified, you
would have to "cast doubt" on the motives of the student falsifying the teacher.
So the only way, in your own account, would be never to probe and test old knowledge,
because that would always indicate inappropriate motives
If a rabbit were to be pound in
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found >>>> in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints >>>> in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
Depends. Falsification of what exactly, how well is the old theory supported, how
reliable is the apparent contradictory finding, does it lead to a better explanation etc.
So if we find a single rabbit in old strata, the likely explanation is a hoax, or an unusual earthquake that
disrupted the layers etc. If we find lots of them, under good conditions, that would indeed falsify
quite a number of theories that we have. The second one would falsify theories we have of how
DNA is preserved, and again we'd first want to rule our contamination. Etc >>>>>
In the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or >>>>>> objective.
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps the >>>>>>>> most importantDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised >>>>>>>>>> a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281 >>>>>>>>>
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features >>>>>>>> of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate >>>>>>>> world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an >>>>>>>> intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery >>>>>>>> that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)"
Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the >>>>>>> historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives. >>>>>>>
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the >>>>>> intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
That is an evaluation of the outcome, not a statement about the initial motivation. The greatest
achievement . The most famous example for the difference is the working of the capitalist market:
"The individual undertaker (entrepreneur), seeking the most efficient allocation of resources,
contributes to overall economic efficiency; the merchant’s reaction to price signals helps to ensure
that the allocation of resources accurately reflects the structure of consumer preferences; and the drive
to better our condition contributes to economic growth."
The motivation of the individual entrepreneur is very limited and self seeking, the great achievement something
they have not in their mind at all, here the effective allocation of resources.
his mind, but from the his results, I arrived at my conclusion. I can
accept that, what I saw was nothing more than coincidence.
What you saw was analogous to what you've said you experienced yourself. You said you started off accepting the theory of evolution, but read a book in which you found evidence that lead you to change your mind. Presumably, you did not choose the book
You would likely be offended if we said "Well, we will disregard what you said about your motives. It's obvious that if you ended up rejecting evolution, then your motive in reading the book from the beginning was simply to find a reason to rejectevolution." Yet you were quite comfortable using analogous reasoning on Darwin (and indeed on evolutionists in general). It would be more fair to assume the same good faith in others that you want others to assume in you.
Consequently, I was wrong concerning his purpose.
We are all wrong about things pretty often. No harm done.
<snip>
All my colleagues are at least three standard deviations
closer to normal than they are, and the only person I have
ever encountered in real life who was worse than them
was a passenger on a Los Angeles bus who hit me so hard
on the eye for daring to tell him how the exit worked [he was high on drugs] that I got lacerations that needed attention and floaters in that eye
that have plagued me ever since.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:05:57 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:connection whatsoever with his work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,
John Harshman wrote:
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post. >>>>>>
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwin >>>>>> In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up >>>>>> Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.peter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to
do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only.
The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for >>>>> the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read as part of his BA, but which had no
I'll have to admit, I had no clue there were 2 books by Paley, with
"evidence" in the titles. Thank Y0u, for pointing that out.
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goalMy argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist, >>>>>>>> during a lecture in California was warned about the direction
he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but
you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence >>>>>>>> pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as >>>>>>>> did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture. >>>>>>
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's >>>>>> structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real >>>>>> design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, >>>> accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity. >>>> And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was, >>> and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more
difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives he had when starting
his research.
as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer. I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
And in science, the original hypothesis often needs revising in the light
of the evidence that is found during the research - and as a result the outcome can be very different from the initial plan. As we have here.
Darwin started with the "purpose" to contribute to the field by collecting more data that he thought would add detail to prevailing thinking without however revolutionising or overturning it. He later realised that this
was not what the evidence he had found showed, and therefore
changed the theory to match the newly discovered observations.
The rest as they say is history
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing.
which nobody ever contested. Just that nothing follows from this
It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm
convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
All his notes, correspondence and indeed behaviour shows the opposite. Or rather,
the one objective he accomplished was the general one, to increase our understanding
of biology
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >>>> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
Yes it is, among other places in the paper I cited to you - and that one in turn uses
Darwin's notebooks, correspondence and autobiography. And I cited form that as well. So for
instance from his notebook when starting the Beagle journey:
“It will be very interesting to find from future comparison to what district or ‘centre of creation’
the organized beings of this archipelago must be attached”
"Centres of creation" tries to confirm Paley and reconcile his view with the emerging biogeographical data.
Or again from his notebook, now quite a bit later:
"When I see these Islands in sight of each other, & possessed of but a scanty stock of
animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure & filling the same
place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. . . . If there is the slightest
foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes–will be well worth
examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of Species."
So he initially has the Paleyan/creation based assumption that the differences he had observed
were "only varieties" - and hence unproblematic under the old Paleyan model. But he also starts to
realise that that's not what the data shows - so he concludes that these Archipelagoes need to be
revisited and studies in mode depth to solve that puzzle.
And on his religious views at the time he started his research I quoted his autobiography:
"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and
I remember being heartily laughed at by several of
the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quot-
ing the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some
moral point. I suppose it was the novelty of the
argument that amused them"
I also gave the other facts that evidence the analysis (beyond those that you find
in Sulloway's paper that I cited. One is that he never displayed any hostility to religion
and remained his whole life involved with his parish church, including as generous
donor. Or that he delayed publishing the OOS because he was worried it would upset Christians, including his wife - he clearly disliked that some people would
draw religious implications from his work, to the degree that he almost did not
publish it. That is hardly consistent with an initial "motivation" to displace God, quite
on the contrary, for him that was nothing more than an unfortunate distraction.
Evolution is immune from falsification.
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way >>>> toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
Nonsense. To the extend that any supported theory is subject to falsification, so is the ToE
There have been, and are, a number of observation that would cast serious doubts on it that would
lead to revise all or at least significant parts of it. Every time a new species is discovered, it is put to
the test - finding e.g. a species of mammals that has DNA that codes in birds for wings, and which
therefore can fly, would do it. Something like this would be strongly indicative of design.
Pasteur falsified the position
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
Ehm, no. That is not how falsification works. He falsified a very specific claim made by John Needham,
that yeast and other complex life is created spontaneously in broth. Pasteur falsified this theory
by showing that Needham had not accounted for contamination, and in this way established a more
rigorous test protocol.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
You'd need a claim as specific as the one he refuted, and then see what its implications would
be. Other approaches would be to look for a non-environmental mechanism that accounts better
for the data that we observe, e.g. finding that there is a pattern that shows species have an allocated
time after which they die out, regardless of environment (the way humans die after a set number of years)
Generally though, theories get replaced when better alternatives are proposed that account for more
data, make fewer assumptions or have fewer anomalies. Pasteur e.g. showed how yeast fermentation
worked, which explained the data better than spontaneous generation
Just as an aside, "spontaneous generation" at that time was a doctrine that came from theology, had had
been proposed to exculpate God from the creation of nasty things like lice. John Ray, for instance had
still considered the spontaneous generation of insects, but then with some regret concluded that this
was unlikely. By the time of pasteur it hd been more or less accepted that mice, lice and other things not
nice do not simply pop up.
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say!
But that is the consequence of your own approach, IF you applied it consistently.
Every time a theory gets
falsified, you would note that
a) the falsification study mirrored the argument it falsifies (it has to, otherwise it would not work)
b) subsequently the falsified theory is abandoned.
And that is the only evidence you offered to claim that Darwin was unduly motivated by a desire to
overturn Paley, that his book mirrors Paley's argument, and that Paley was subsequently abandoned.
If you were consistent, you'd apply this every time - with other words every time a theory is falsified, you
would have to "cast doubt" on the motives of the student falsifying the teacher.
So the only way, in your own account, would be never to probe and test old knowledge,
because that would always indicate inappropriate motives
If a rabbit were to be pound in
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found
in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints
in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
Depends. Falsification of what exactly, how well is the old theory supported, how
reliable is the apparent contradictory finding, does it lead to a better explanation etc.
So if we find a single rabbit in old strata, the likely explanation is a hoax, or an unusual earthquake that
disrupted the layers etc. If we find lots of them, under good conditions, that would indeed falsify
quite a number of theories that we have. The second one would falsify theories we have of how
DNA is preserved, and again we'd first want to rule our contamination. Etc
In the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps the >>>>>> most importantDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised >>>>>>>> a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281 >>>>>>>
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features >>>>>> of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate >>>>>> world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an >>>>>> intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery
that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" >>>>>> Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the >>>>> historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
objective.
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the
intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
That is an evaluation of the outcome, not a statement about the initial motivation. The greatest
achievement . The most famous example for the difference is the working of the capitalist market:
"The individual undertaker (entrepreneur), seeking the most efficient allocation of resources,
contributes to overall economic efficiency; the merchant’s reaction to price signals helps to ensure
that the allocation of resources accurately reflects the structure of consumer preferences; and the drive
to better our condition contributes to economic growth."
The motivation of the individual entrepreneur is very limited and self seeking, the great achievement something
they have not in their mind at all, here the effective allocation of resources.
<snip>
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:10:59 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:05:57 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had >>>>>>>> regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning >>>>>>>> was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention. >>>>>>>> My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background >>>>>>>> for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
peter2...@mail.com wrote
connection whatsoever with his work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin, >>>>>> "Natural Theology orI was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwin >>>>>>>> In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get upI had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method. >>>>>>>>>> The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I >>>>>>>>>> understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation, >>>>>>>>>> and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new >>>>>>>>>> hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis >>>>>>>>>> it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to >>>>>>>>>> graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... " >>>>>>>>>
Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. >>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to >>>>>>> do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only. >>>>>>> The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for
the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read as part of his BA, but which had no
I'll have to admit, I had no clue there were 2 books by Paley, with >>>> "evidence" in the titles. Thank Y0u, for pointing that out.
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goal >>>> as to discountingMy argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity , >>>>>> influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions >>>>>>>>>> he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from >>>>>>>>>> questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist, >>>>>>>>>> during a lecture in California was warned about the direction >>>>>>>>>> he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but >>>>>>>>>> you better not criticize the government. But in the US you >>>>>>>>>> can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as
evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence >>>>>>>>>> pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as
did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture.
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's
structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real
design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent,
accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity.
And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was,
and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more
difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives he had when starting
his research.
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer. I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
And in science, the original hypothesis often needs revising in the light
of the evidence that is found during the research - and as a result the >>> outcome can be very different from the initial plan. As we have here. >>> Darwin started with the "purpose" to contribute to the field by collecting
more data that he thought would add detail to prevailing thinking without
however revolutionising or overturning it. He later realised that this >>> was not what the evidence he had found showed, and therefore
changed the theory to match the newly discovered observations.
The rest as they say is history
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with >>>> Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing.
which nobody ever contested. Just that nothing follows from this
It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm
convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
All his notes, correspondence and indeed behaviour shows the opposite. Or rather,
the one objective he accomplished was the general one, to increase our understanding
of biology
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or >>>> his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially expected his findings
to support Paley
Yes it is, among other places in the paper I cited to you - and that one in turn uses
Darwin's notebooks, correspondence and autobiography. And I cited form that as well. So for
instance from his notebook when starting the Beagle journey:
“It will be very interesting to find from future comparison to what district or ‘centre of creation’
the organized beings of this archipelago must be attached”
"Centres of creation" tries to confirm Paley and reconcile his view with the emerging biogeographical data.
Or again from his notebook, now quite a bit later:
"When I see these Islands in sight of each other, & possessed of but a scanty stock of
animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure & filling the same
place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. . . . If there is the slightest
foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes–will be well worth
examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of Species."
So he initially has the Paleyan/creation based assumption that the differences he had observed
were "only varieties" - and hence unproblematic under the old Paleyan model. But he also starts to
realise that that's not what the data shows - so he concludes that these Archipelagoes need to be
revisited and studies in mode depth to solve that puzzle.
And on his religious views at the time he started his research I quoted his autobiography:
"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and
I remember being heartily laughed at by several of
the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quot-
ing the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some
moral point.
I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them"
I also gave the other facts that evidence the analysis (beyond those that you find
in Sulloway's paper that I cited. One is that he never displayed any hostility to religion
and remained his whole life involved with his parish church, including as generous
donor. Or that he delayed publishing the OOS because he was worried it would
upset Christians, including his wife - he clearly disliked that some people would
draw religious implications from his work, to the degree that he almost did not
publish it. That is hardly consistent with an initial "motivation" to displace God, quite
on the contrary, for him that was nothing more than an unfortunate distraction.
Evolution is immune from falsification.
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way
toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
Nonsense. To the extend that any supported theory is subject to falsification, so is the ToE
There have been, and are, a number of observation that would cast serious doubts on it that would
lead to revise all or at least significant parts of it. Every time a new species is discovered, it is put to
the test - finding e.g. a species of mammals that has DNA that codes in birds for wings, and which
therefore can fly, would do it. Something like this would be strongly indicative of design.
Pasteur falsified the position
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
Ehm, no. That is not how falsification works. He falsified a very specific claim made by John Needham,
that yeast and other complex life is created spontaneously in broth. Pasteur falsified this theory
by showing that Needham had not accounted for contamination, and in this way established a more
rigorous test protocol.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following >>>> Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
You'd need a claim as specific as the one he refuted, and then see what its implications would
be. Other approaches would be to look for a non-environmental mechanism that accounts better
for the data that we observe, e.g. finding that there is a pattern that shows species have an allocated
time after which they die out, regardless of environment (the way humans die after a set number of years)
Generally though, theories get replaced when better alternatives are proposed that account for more
data, make fewer assumptions or have fewer anomalies. Pasteur e.g. showed how yeast fermentation
worked, which explained the data better than spontaneous generation
Just as an aside, "spontaneous generation" at that time was a doctrine that came from theology, had had
been proposed to exculpate God from the creation of nasty things like lice. John Ray, for instance had
still considered the spontaneous generation of insects, but then with some regret concluded that this
was unlikely. By the time of pasteur it hd been more or less accepted that mice, lice and other things not
nice do not simply pop up.
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science, >>>> regardless of what a teacher might say!
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat what one's teacher told someone
But that is the consequence of your own approach, IF you applied it consistently.
Every time a theory gets
falsified, you would note that
a) the falsification study mirrored the argument it falsifies (it has to, otherwise it would not work)
b) subsequently the falsified theory is abandoned.
And that is the only evidence you offered to claim that Darwin was unduly motivated by a desire to
overturn Paley, that his book mirrors Paley's argument, and that Paley was subsequently abandoned.
If you were consistent, you'd apply this every time - with other words every time a theory is falsified, you
would have to "cast doubt" on the motives of the student falsifying the teacher.
So the only way, in your own account, would be never to probe and test old knowledge,
because that would always indicate inappropriate motives
If a rabbit were to be pound in
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found >>>> in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints >>>> in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
Depends. Falsification of what exactly, how well is the old theory supported, how
reliable is the apparent contradictory finding, does it lead to a better explanation etc.
So if we find a single rabbit in old strata, the likely explanation is a hoax, or an unusual earthquake that
disrupted the layers etc. If we find lots of them, under good conditions, that would indeed falsify
quite a number of theories that we have.
The second one would falsify theories we have of how
DNA is preserved, and again we'd first want to rule our contamination. Etc
That is an evaluation of the outcome, not a statement about the initial motivation. The greatestIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose. >>>> And based on
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or >>>>>> objective.
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps theDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised >>>>>>>>>> a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
most important
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281 >>>>>>>>>
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features
of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate
world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an
intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery >>>>>>>> that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)"
Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the
historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives. >>>>>>>
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and >>>>>> motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the >>>>>> intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer" >>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that directly contradicts you claim
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective >>>
achievement . The most famous example for the difference is the working of the capitalist market:
"The individual undertaker (entrepreneur), seeking the most efficient allocation of resources,
contributes to overall economic efficiency; the merchant’s reaction to price signals helps to ensure
that the allocation of resources accurately reflects the structure of consumer preferences; and the drive
to better our condition contributes to economic growth."
The motivation of the individual entrepreneur is very limited and self seeking,
book with the idea that it would convince you that evolution was not true. Your purpose in reading it was not to convince yourself that evolution was false, but to find out about it. Indeed, you say that you initially rejected the claims of the book andthe great achievement somethingOkay, I am mistaken in this regard. I could not know what Darwin had on >> his mind, but from the his results, I arrived at my conclusion. I can
they have not in their mind at all, here the effective allocation of resources.
accept that, what I saw was nothing more than coincidence.
What you saw was analogous to what you've said you experienced yourself. You said you started off accepting the theory of evolution, but read a book in which you found evidence that lead you to change your mind. Presumably, you did not choose the
evolution." Yet you were quite comfortable using analogous reasoning on Darwin (and indeed on evolutionists in general). It would be more fair to assume the same good faith in others that you want others to assume in you.You would likely be offended if we said "Well, we will disregard what you said about your motives. It's obvious that if you ended up rejecting evolution, then your motive in reading the book from the beginning was simply to find a reason to reject
Consequently, I was wrong concerning his purpose.
We are all wrong about things pretty often. No harm done.
Thank you.
Everything I write below, Ron, is primarily addressed to you,connection whatsoever with his work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )
even when I am reacting to what someone else had written.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:10:59 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:10:59 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:05:57 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had >>>>>>>>>> regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning >>>>>>>>>> was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention. >>>>>>>>>> My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background >>>>>>>>>> for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post.
How did the following line get in here?
peter2...@mail.com wrote
None of my earlier words appear below. The following words,
of course, are yours, Ron:
The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin, >>>>>>>> "Natural Theology orI was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwin >>>>>>>>>> In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get upI had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method. >>>>>>>>>>>> The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I >>>>>>>>>>>> understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation, >>>>>>>>>>>> and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new >>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis >>>>>>>>>>>> it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to >>>>>>>>>>>> graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... " >>>>>>>>>>>
Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. >>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to >>>>>>>>> do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only. >>>>>>>>> The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for
the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read as part of his BA, but which had no
I'll have to admit, I had no clue there were 2 books by Paley, with >>>>>> "evidence" in the titles. Thank Y0u, for pointing that out.
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goal >>>>>> as to discountingMy argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity , >>>>>>>> influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions >>>>>>>>>>>> he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from >>>>>>>>>>>> questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist, >>>>>>>>>>>> during a lecture in California was warned about the direction >>>>>>>>>>>> he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but >>>>>>>>>>>> you better not criticize the government. But in the US you >>>>>>>>>>>> can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as
evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence >>>>>>>>>>>> pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as
did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture. >>>>>>>>>>
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's
structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real
design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, >>>>>>>> accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity.
And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was,
and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more
difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives he had when starting
his research.
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer. I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
And in science, the original hypothesis often needs revising in the light >>>>> of the evidence that is found during the research - and as a result the >>>>> outcome can be very different from the initial plan. As we have here. >>>>> Darwin started with the "purpose" to contribute to the field by collecting
more data that he thought would add detail to prevailing thinking without >>>>> however revolutionising or overturning it. He later realised that this >>>>> was not what the evidence he had found showed, and therefore
changed the theory to match the newly discovered observations.
The rest as they say is history
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with >>>>>> Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing.
which nobody ever contested. Just that nothing follows from this
It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm >>>>>> convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
All his notes, correspondence and indeed behaviour shows the opposite. Or rather,
the one objective he accomplished was the general one, to increase our understanding
of biology
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or >>>>>> his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially expected his findings
to support Paley
Yes it is, among other places in the paper I cited to you - and that one in turn uses
Darwin's notebooks, correspondence and autobiography. And I cited form that as well. So for
instance from his notebook when starting the Beagle journey:
“It will be very interesting to find from future comparison to what district or ‘centre of creation’
the organized beings of this archipelago must be attached”
"Centres of creation" tries to confirm Paley and reconcile his view with the emerging biogeographical data.
Or again from his notebook, now quite a bit later:
"When I see these Islands in sight of each other, & possessed of but a scanty stock of
animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure & filling the same
place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. . . . If there is the slightest
foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes–will be well worth
examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of Species." >>>>>
So he initially has the Paleyan/creation based assumption that the differences he had observed
were "only varieties" - and hence unproblematic under the old Paleyan model. But he also starts to
realise that that's not what the data shows - so he concludes that these Archipelagoes need to be
revisited and studies in mode depth to solve that puzzle.
And on his religious views at the time he started his research I quoted his autobiography:
"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and
I remember being heartily laughed at by several of
the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quot-
ing the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some
moral point.
Note the word: "moral point," not "scientific point". Even when I was
closest to outright atheism -- and I got quite close -- I was extremely conservative about letting go of any moral principles that had been ingrained in me.
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
And yet, at least one of the regulars of talk.origins is a glaring exception, having claimed that I am need of help for doing this.
I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them"
I also gave the other facts that evidence the analysis (beyond those that you find
in Sulloway's paper that I cited. One is that he never displayed any hostility to religion
and remained his whole life involved with his parish church, including as generous
donor. Or that he delayed publishing the OOS because he was worried it would
upset Christians, including his wife - he clearly disliked that some people would
draw religious implications from his work, to the degree that he almost did not
publish it. That is hardly consistent with an initial "motivation" to displace God, quite
on the contrary, for him that was nothing more than an unfortunate distraction.
This could have been for social reasons. Recalling how devastated I was when my assurance of the faith in which I was brought up was shattered by
a single blow, I have been very careful about how much I reveal about my still-existing doubts to others.
Evolution is immune from falsification.
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way >>>>>>>> toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
Nonsense. To the extend that any supported theory is subject to falsification, so is the ToE
There have been, and are, a number of observation that would cast serious doubts on it that would
lead to revise all or at least significant parts of it. Every time a new species is discovered, it is put to
the test - finding e.g. a species of mammals that has DNA that codes in birds for wings, and which
therefore can fly, would do it. Something like this would be strongly indicative of design.
Pasteur falsified the position
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
Ehm, no. That is not how falsification works. He falsified a very specific claim made by John Needham,
that yeast and other complex life is created spontaneously in broth. Pasteur falsified this theory
by showing that Needham had not accounted for contamination, and in this way established a more
rigorous test protocol.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following >>>>>> Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
You'd need a claim as specific as the one he refuted, and then see what its implications would
be. Other approaches would be to look for a non-environmental mechanism that accounts better
for the data that we observe, e.g. finding that there is a pattern that shows species have an allocated
time after which they die out, regardless of environment (the way humans die after a set number of years)
Generally though, theories get replaced when better alternatives are proposed that account for more
data, make fewer assumptions or have fewer anomalies. Pasteur e.g. showed how yeast fermentation
worked, which explained the data better than spontaneous generation
Just as an aside, "spontaneous generation" at that time was a doctrine that came from theology, had had
been proposed to exculpate God from the creation of nasty things like lice. John Ray, for instance had
still considered the spontaneous generation of insects, but then with some regret concluded that this
was unlikely. By the time of pasteur it hd been more or less accepted that mice, lice and other things not
nice do not simply pop up.
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science, >>>>>> regardless of what a teacher might say!
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat what one's teacher told someone
But that is the consequence of your own approach, IF you applied it consistently.
Every time a theory gets
falsified, you would note that
a) the falsification study mirrored the argument it falsifies (it has to, otherwise it would not work)
b) subsequently the falsified theory is abandoned.
And that is the only evidence you offered to claim that Darwin was unduly motivated by a desire to
overturn Paley, that his book mirrors Paley's argument, and that Paley was subsequently abandoned.
If you were consistent, you'd apply this every time - with other words every time a theory is falsified, you
would have to "cast doubt" on the motives of the student falsifying the teacher.
So the only way, in your own account, would be never to probe and test old knowledge,
because that would always indicate inappropriate motives
If a rabbit were to be pound in
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found >>>>>> in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints >>>>>> in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
Depends. Falsification of what exactly, how well is the old theory supported, how
reliable is the apparent contradictory finding, does it lead to a better explanation etc.
So if we find a single rabbit in old strata, the likely explanation is a hoax, or an unusual earthquake that
disrupted the layers etc. If we find lots of them, under good conditions, that would indeed falsify
quite a number of theories that we have.
But not the fact of common descent. I broached that subject with Mark Isaak yesterday.
The second one would falsify theories we have of how
DNA is preserved, and again we'd first want to rule our contamination. Etc
That is an evaluation of the outcome, not a statement about the initial motivation. The greatestIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose. >>>>>> And based on
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or >>>>>>>> objective.
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps theDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised >>>>>>>>>>>> a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
most important
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281 >>>>>>>>>>>
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features
of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate >>>>>>>>>> world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an >>>>>>>>>> intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery >>>>>>>>>> that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)"
Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the
historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives. >>>>>>>>>
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and >>>>>>>> motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the >>>>>>>> intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer" >>>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that directly contradicts you claim
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective >>>>>
achievement . The most famous example for the difference is the working of the capitalist market:
"The individual undertaker (entrepreneur), seeking the most efficient allocation of resources,
contributes to overall economic efficiency; the merchant’s reaction to price signals helps to ensure
that the allocation of resources accurately reflects the structure of consumer preferences; and the drive
to better our condition contributes to economic growth."
This is the impersonal capitalistic economics of Adam Smith, often called "The Invisible Hand,"
but derided by so many Marxists.
The motivation of the individual entrepreneur is very limited and self seeking,
Burkhard, who wrote this, made a similar sweeping claim about me
on what he thought were firm principles, but was dead wrong about it.
Ron, did you see the post where I let him know that? It was some time in July,
on this thread.
> >>>the great achievement somethingbook with the idea that it would convince you that evolution was not true. Your purpose in reading it was not to convince yourself that evolution was false, but to find out about it. Indeed, you say that you initially rejected the claims of the book and
they have not in their mind at all, here the effective allocation of resources.Okay, I am mistaken in this regard. I could not know what Darwin had on >>>> his mind, but from the his results, I arrived at my conclusion. I can
accept that, what I saw was nothing more than coincidence.
What you saw was analogous to what you've said you experienced yourself. You said you started off accepting the theory of evolution, but read a book in which you found evidence that lead you to change your mind. Presumably, you did not choose the
Ron, you seem to have fallen under the spell of the following siren song:evolution." Yet you were quite comfortable using analogous reasoning on Darwin (and indeed on evolutionists in general). It would be more fair to assume the same good faith in others that you want others to assume in you.
You would likely be offended if we said "Well, we will disregard what you said about your motives. It's obvious that if you ended up rejecting evolution, then your motive in reading the book from the beginning was simply to find a reason to reject
Bill Rogers seems to be falling back on "Freon Bill's" motto,assess the danger a criminal poses by examining only what he does on an ordinary day? Can we understand health without considering wild diseases and epidemics? Indeed the normal is often irrelevant. Almost everything in social life is produced by rare
"People are the same everywhere."
But they are not, and Freon Bill was criticized by some of your own critics for it,
[maybe even Bill Rogers, I'll have to check] and could not argue effectively for his motto.
Bottom line: Bill Rogers is one of many regulars whose good faith cannot
be assumed. These regulars have fallen short according to the Black Swan principle again and again.
""I don't particularly care about the usual. If you want to get an idea of a friend's temperament, ethics, and personal elegance, you need to look at him under the tests of severe circumstances, not under the regular rosy glow of daily life. Can you
--Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (22 April 2007). "The Black Swan: Chapter 1: The Impact of the Highly Improbable". The New York Times. Quoted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
I showed this quote to Freon Bill, along with a good dose of commentary, here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/nmTq1MCK3hg/m/JnsJIvllBgAJ
Re: What is the probability?
Dec 13, 2022, 6:45:19 PM
Freon Bill tried to argue, but you can see the outcome on the following
day, same thread, and judge it for yourself:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/nmTq1MCK3hg/m/20MWQSOzAwAJ
Consequently, I was wrong concerning his purpose.
As on one other occasion less than a month ago, you gave in too easily to Bill Rogers.
Have you already forgotten about that?
Don't get me wrong: I still think Darwin only came by his opposition to divine
intervention after 1859. However, the way Fidel Castro so successfully
hid his true aims before he was securely in power, keeps me aware
of the possibility that I could be mistaken about this.
We are all wrong about things pretty often. No harm done.
Bill Rogers is wrong far more often than you have been. I think I need to tell you about some pretty strange behaviors of his, but that can wait.
Thank you.
Under the circumstances, this was the best response you could make.
But I hope these circumstances are temporary.
Peter Nyikos
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous >reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 4:05:18?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
One can only wonder why Harran would write the above, certainly not
from anything Simpson posted.
It seems Harran is so anxious to post more mindless VITRIOL about
jillery that he provides evidence that he hasn't killfiled jillery
after all.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" ><peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous >>reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
That is utter hypocrisy when you don't hesitate to tell blatant lies
about other people like the lies you told Ron about me and abortion in
this very thread and have chosen to let stand even after they were
pointed out to you.
Ron has accepted that he was wrong in some of the things he said and
has apologized for it. You would do better to try to learn from him
rather than preaching to him.
[...]
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Note the word: "moral point," not "scientific point". Even when I was closest to outright atheism -- and I got quite close -- I was extremely conservative about letting go of any moral principles that had been ingrained in me.
I can say the same for me. During my years at the local university, IMORE DELETIONS
began to question.
I never thought of myself as an atheist, but I did have serious doubts,
I did not
question evolution, I thought it was logical, rational and explained
lifeso rigin and changes..
This mindset lasted until I was challenged to read "Evolution a Theory
in Crisis",
By a Dr. Denton. So, I determined to do further reading and study.
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
And yet, at least one of the regulars of talk.origins is a glaring exception,
having claimed that I am need of help for doing this.
Even though some of what I wrote was called a lie. Right or wrong I
believed everything
I wrote. I did not mean anything, I wrote regarding Darwin's motivation (purpose) to
be an attack on the his character. However, I stepped out of the frying
pan into the fire.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 11:26:23 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" ><peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 4:05:18?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
One can only wonder why Harran would write the above, certainly not
from anything Simpson posted.
It seems Harran is so anxious to post more mindless VITRIOL about
jillery that he provides evidence that he hasn't killfiled jillery
after all.
Erik told me "Jillery's right;" but snipped what she had actually said
so I checked it on Google Groups (where there is no facility for
killfiling people) before responding to it. Just as you cannot believe
that people would simply not want to engage with you, she seems to be
unable to accept that someone really would killfile her - just another >example of how the two of you are so like each other.
[...]
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 12:36:00 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
DELETE MUCH
Note the word: "moral point," not "scientific point". Even when I was
closest to outright atheism -- and I got quite close -- I was extremely
conservative about letting go of any moral principles that had been ingrained in me.
I can say the same for me. During my years at the local university, IMORE DELETIONS
began to question.
I never thought of myself as an atheist, but I did have serious doubts,
I did not
question evolution, I thought it was logical, rational and explained
lifes origin and changes..
This mindset lasted until I was challenged to read "Evolution a Theory
in Crisis",
By a Dr. Denton. So, I determined to do further reading and study.
Even though some of what I wrote was called a lie. Right or wrong I
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous >>> reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
And yet, at least one of the regulars of talk.origins is a glaring exception,
having claimed that I am need of help for doing this.
believed everything
I wrote. I did not mean anything, I wrote regarding Darwin's motivation
(purpose) to
be an attack on the his character. However, I stepped out of the frying
pan into the fire.
My comment is about his bizarre take on atheism and the insinuation
that it would be accompanied by amorality. It's utter nonsense.
Penn Jillette of the Penn and Teller duo is oft quoted on this.
The story goes that as a public atheist he gets confronted by
a christian who asks, paraphrasing, without a belief in god
what's to stop me/you from raping and murdering all you want? >
The answer is, 'I already do rape and murder all I want. The amount
I want is zero.' Further, people who want to rape and murder but
only don't because Jesus said not to, and you'll get a cookie if you're
a good by scare me. They have no foundational morality.
Somebody frequently asserts that atheists are immoral and have
no compunction against lying. Such exists in the parts I deleted.
It's borderline insanity, not moralizing, but casting irrational
judgement.
These repeated assertions that atheism is coupled to a lack
of morals is simply obnoxious. I urge you to avoid following
suit Ron. Your personal testimony suggests that you were
in fact an atheist for a long time.
is someone who lacks an affirmative belief in the existence
of a god. Atheism does not require one have an antagonistic
view of the possibility that god(s) exist. It doesn't mean that
one is against the very concept of the existence of god(s).
And it is not a rejection of all morality. It isn't a rejection of
values that make lying wrong. It is uncoupled from some
promise of being rewarded in an afterlife for being good during
this life.
Please don't be suckered in by somebody who plays at
this invidious game about what it means to be an atheist.
It's ultimately just a cheap way to be nasty to others, and
that's a rather transparent hypocrisy.
It' no in my nature or character to accept anything without question.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 12:36:00 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
DELETE MUCH
Note the word: "moral point," not "scientific point". Even when I was >>> closest to outright atheism -- and I got quite close -- I was extremely >>> conservative about letting go of any moral principles that had been ingrained in me.
I can say the same for me. During my years at the local university, IMORE DELETIONS
began to question.
I never thought of myself as an atheist, but I did have serious doubts, >> I did not
question evolution, I thought it was logical, rational and explained
lifes origin and changes..
This mindset lasted until I was challenged to read "Evolution a Theory
in Crisis",
By a Dr. Denton. So, I determined to do further reading and study.
Even though some of what I wrote was called a lie. Right or wrong I
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous
reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
And yet, at least one of the regulars of talk.origins is a glaring exception,
having claimed that I am need of help for doing this.
believed everything
I wrote. I did not mean anything, I wrote regarding Darwin's motivation >> (purpose) to
be an attack on the his character. However, I stepped out of the frying >> pan into the fire.
My comment is about his bizarre take on atheism and the insinuation
that it would be accompanied by amorality. It's utter nonsense.
Penn Jillette of the Penn and Teller duo is oft quoted on this.
The story goes that as a public atheist he gets confronted by
a christian who asks, paraphrasing, without a belief in god
what's to stop me/you from raping and murdering all you want? >
The answer is, 'I already do rape and murder all I want. The amount
I want is zero.' Further, people who want to rape and murder but
only don't because Jesus said not to, and you'll get a cookie if you're
a good by scare me. They have no foundational morality.
You can speak for yourself, but not for others. Where there is no
common standard for morality, each person can decide
for himself his own morality. He can decide for himself what is
right or wrong. what is good and what is evil.
So, you can never know what to expect when dealing with
someone whose moral standard you cannot know about.
You can trust the wrong person.
Somebody frequently asserts that atheists are immoral and have
no compunction against lying. Such exists in the parts I deleted.
It's borderline insanity, not moralizing, but casting irrational judgement.
And what determines what is an irrational judgement? When each
person has the right to decide for himself what is right or wrong,
By what standard of fight and wrong does a person decide. By his
standard of morality or yours. In different societies the moral standard
is not the same. What's wrong in India or china, is not wrong in the
US. In some countries plural marriage is not wrong, In other
countries parents choose the marriage partner for their daughter.
it's wrong for her to object and choose another man whom she loves. In
some primitive cultures, killing a member of another tribe when
competing for limited food resources is not wrong.
These repeated assertions that atheism is coupled to a lack
of morals is simply obnoxious. I urge you to avoid following
suit Ron. Your personal testimony suggests that you were
in fact an atheist for a long time.
Actually, I did not place a label on myself. I just had doubts and
disbelief in any and all religions. And I did some things then that I would not do today. At the time I didn't take right and wrong into consideration only concern was legal and illegal. Today I do.
For clarification, an atheist
is someone who lacks an affirmative belief in the existence
of a god. Atheism does not require one have an antagonistic
view of the possibility that god(s) exist. It doesn't mean that
one is against the very concept of the existence of god(s).
And it is not a rejection of all morality. It isn't a rejection of
values that make lying wrong. It is uncoupled from some
promise of being rewarded in an afterlife for being good during
this life.
You can have faith that God eeist or faith that God does not exist.
IOW you can believe or disbelieve, but you cannot know.
Please don't be suckered in by somebody who plays at
this invidious game about what it means to be an atheist.
It's ultimately just a cheap way to be nasty to others, and
that's a rather transparent hypocrisy.
It' no in my nature or character to accept anything without question.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 12:36:00 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
DELETE MUCH
MORE DELETIONSNote the word: "moral point," not "scientific point". Even when I was
closest to outright atheism -- and I got quite close -- I was extremely >>>> conservative about letting go of any moral principles that had been ingrained in me.
I can say the same for me. During my years at the local university, I
began to question.
I never thought of myself as an atheist, but I did have serious doubts,
I did not
question evolution, I thought it was logical, rational and explained
lifes origin and changes..
This mindset lasted until I was challenged to read "Evolution a Theory
in Crisis",
By a Dr. Denton. So, I determined to do further reading and study.
Even though some of what I wrote was called a lie. Right or wrong I
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous >>>> reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
And yet, at least one of the regulars of talk.origins is a glaring exception,
having claimed that I am need of help for doing this.
believed everything
I wrote. I did not mean anything, I wrote regarding Darwin's motivation
(purpose) to
be an attack on the his character. However, I stepped out of the frying
pan into the fire.
My comment is about his bizarre take on atheism and the insinuation
that it would be accompanied by amorality. It's utter nonsense.
Penn Jillette of the Penn and Teller duo is oft quoted on this.
The story goes that as a public atheist he gets confronted by
a christian who asks, paraphrasing, without a belief in god
what's to stop me/you from raping and murdering all you want? >
The answer is, 'I already do rape and murder all I want. The amount
I want is zero.' Further, people who want to rape and murder but
only don't because Jesus said not to, and you'll get a cookie if you're
a good by scare me. They have no foundational morality.
You can speak for yourself, but not for others. Where there is no
common standard for morality, each person can decide
for himself his own morality. He can decide for himself what is
right or wrong. what is good and what is evil.
So, you can never know what to expect when dealing with
someone whose moral standard you cannot know about.
You can trust the wrong person.
Somebody frequently asserts that atheists are immoral and haveAnd what determines what is an irrational judgement? When each
no compunction against lying. Such exists in the parts I deleted.
It's borderline insanity, not moralizing, but casting irrational
judgement.
person has the right to decide for himself what is right or wrong,
By what standard of fight and wrong does a person decide. By his
standard of morality or yours.
In different societies the moral standard
is not the same. What's wrong in India or china, is not wrong in the
US. In some countries plural marriage is not wrong, In other
countries parents choose the marriage partner for their daughter.
it's wrong for her to object and choose another man whom she loves. In
some primitive cultures, killing a member of another tribe when
competing for limited food resources is not wrong.
These repeated assertions that atheism is coupled to a lackActually, I did not place a label on myself. I just had doubts and
of morals is simply obnoxious. I urge you to avoid following
suit Ron. Your personal testimony suggests that you were
in fact an atheist for a long time.
disbelief in any and all religions. And I did some things then that I would not do today. At the time I didn't take right and wrong into consideration only concern was legal and illegal. Today I do.
For clarification, an atheist
is someone who lacks an affirmative belief in the existenceYou can have faith that God eeist or faith that God does not exist.
of a god. Atheism does not require one have an antagonistic
view of the possibility that god(s) exist. It doesn't mean that
one is against the very concept of the existence of god(s).
And it is not a rejection of all morality. It isn't a rejection of
values that make lying wrong. It is uncoupled from some
promise of being rewarded in an afterlife for being good during
this life.
IOW you can believe or disbelieve, but you cannot know.
Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:05:57 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:I have to admit, I never read Paley. I had no way to know the mind of
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 1:35:57 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:I'll have to admit, I had no clue there were 2 books by Paley, with
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 11:00:56 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:The complete title Paley's book, that I believed influenced Darwin,
On 7/20/23 9:12 AM, Ron Dean wrote:A few days sago, I expressed some thoughts and questions I had
regarding evolution and Darwin. Unfortunately, my questioning
was taken as an attack of Darwin, which was _not_ my intention.
My mistake, was that I drew some final conclusions, from
my questioning without providing any evidence or any background
for my conclusions. I think to be fair, I need to revisit my post. >>>>>>>
I was Challenged on this, by a few people. So, a quote from Darwin >>>>>>> In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up >>>>>>> Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy.peter2...@mail.com wrote
I had some thoughts of Darwin and the scientific method.
The science is suppose to be indifferent, impersonal
non-emotional and objective. The scientific method as I
understand is observation, hypothesism experimentation,
and finally a conclusion. If it's a failure, then a new
hypothesis etc.. if experiment successful a theory
explains it! And if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis
it's falsifiable.
Which brings me to Darwin and his motivation. In order to
graduate, Darwin had to read Wm. Paley's "Evidences.... "
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/reception-of-william-paleys-natural-theology-in-the-university-of-cambridge/601C1E9A046AE096B2B964F919DA1F5E
Yes, the "Evidences of Christianity". They have however nothing to >>>>>> do with creation or biology, they are about the New Testament only. >>>>>> The relevant book for biology is another "Evidences", the "Evidences for >>>>>> the Existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of
Nature" .
To claim that reading the "Evidences of Christianity" motivated Darwin to refute
Paley by looking at finches makes no sense whatsoever.
"Natural Theology or
Evidences of the Existence and attributes of the Deity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity>
sigh... Yes, and you also claimed that that book had been mandatory
for his BA examination. With other words, you keep confusing the two
books by Paley that have "Evidence" in the title. One he had to read
as part of his BA, but which had no connection whatsoever with his
work in biology (Evidences for Christianity) . And then the other one
that he read for fun in his own time, and which influenced his
thinking about biology (Natural Theology of evidences for the Existence etc )
"evidence" in the titles. Thank Y0u, for pointing that out.
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no goalMy argument was Wm Paley's evidence for the existence of deity ,
So how does this support your argument?This conclusion caused the most ire of all. So, I went back to some view ofThis work impressed him; he claimed, there were portions
he could recite from memory. It might be just
be wild speculation on my part, but I cannot refrain from
questioning Darwin, but how safe is this? A Chinese scientist, >>>>>>>>> during a lecture in California was warned about the direction >>>>>>>>> he seemed to be going.
To which he remarked, "in China we can criticize Darwin, but >>>>>>>>> you better not criticize the government. But in the US you
can criticize the government, but you better not criticize Darwin".- Chen
At the time, Paley attributed the scientific observations, he saw as >>>>>>>>> evidence of God.
I'm sorry, but I cannot help, but suspect that Paley's evidence >>>>>>>>> pointing to God inspired Darwin to address scientific observations, as
did Paley, but with the purpose of writing God out of the picture. >>>>>>>
experts. After reading Wm Paley Stephen .J Gould wrote;
(qu0te) "I was struck by the correspondence, between Paley and Darwin's >>>>>>> structure of argument, though Darwin, of course, inverted the explanation."
Ref: The structure of Evolution Theory, Gould Pg. 119
(quote)'....Darwin went point by point, except opposite of what a real >>>>>>> design would do. starting out with a purpose- pushed back directly on purpose,
pushed back on conscious.". - Gould
influenced Darwin and made him determined to replace Deity
with a mindless, purposeless, conscienceless. agent-less, indifferent, >>>>> accidental. random no caring world. The exact opposite of Paley' deity. >>>>> And Darwin succeeded in his purpose.
There is no logical connection between what he outcome of his research was,
and the motivation you attribute to him. Paley influenced him to the degree that
it provided the best account of what was known at the time, and Darwin initially
thought he would find further and additional evidence to support Paley. When the
evidence he found pointed in the opposite direction and made it more and more
difficult to reconcile the observations with Paley, he started to revise the theory, as
every good scientist would and should. You have not only given no evidence that
Darwin started his reesach with the purpose of overturning Paley in mind, you have
also failed to address al the facts we know about Darwin's life that flat contradict it.
That the outcome of the work refuted and overturned Paley (and a number of other
folks, such as Lamarck) does not tell you anything about the motives
he had when starting
his research.
as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a
designer. I know that every
design and every project starts with a purpose.
And in science, the original hypothesis often needs revising in the light
of the evidence that is found during the research - and as a result the
outcome can be very different from the initial plan. As we have here.
Darwin started with the "purpose" to contribute to the field by collecting >> more data that he thought would add detail to prevailing thinking without
however revolutionising or overturning it. He later realised that this
was not what the evidence he had found showed, and therefore
changed the theory to match the newly discovered observations.
The rest as they say is history
I contended that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with
Paley's date, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing.
which nobody ever contested. Just that nothing follows from this
It was too much for
coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity. I'm >>> convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in
accomplishing his objective.
All his notes, correspondence and indeed behaviour shows the opposite. Or rather,
the one objective he accomplished was the general one, to increase our understanding
of biology
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe >>>>> did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to
address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from
"inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially
expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
Yes it is, among other places in the paper I cited to you - and that one in turn uses
Darwin's notebooks, correspondence and autobiography. And I cited form
that as well. So for
instance from his notebook when starting the Beagle journey:
“It will be very interesting to find from future comparison to what
district or ‘centre of creation’
the organized beings of this archipelago must be attached”
"Centres of creation" tries to confirm Paley and reconcile his view with
the emerging biogeographical data.
Or again from his notebook, now quite a bit later:
"When I see these Islands in sight of each other, & possessed of but a scanty stock of
animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure & filling the same
place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. . . . If there is the slightest
foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes–will be well worth
examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of Species."
So he initially has the Paleyan/creation based assumption that the
differences he had observed
were "only varieties" - and hence unproblematic under the old Paleyan
model. But he also starts to
realise that that's not what the data shows - so he concludes that these
Archipelagoes need to be
revisited and studies in mode depth to solve that puzzle.
And on his religious views at the time he started his research I quoted his autobiography:
"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and
I remember being heartily laughed at by several of
the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quot-
ing the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some
moral point. I suppose it was the novelty of the
argument that amused them"
I also gave the other facts that evidence the analysis (beyond those that you find
in Sulloway's paper that I cited. One is that he never displayed any hostility to religion
and remained his whole life involved with his parish church, including as generous
donor. Or that he delayed publishing the OOS because he was worried it would >> upset Christians, including his wife - he clearly disliked that some people would
draw religious implications from his work, to the degree that he almost did not
publish it. That is hardly consistent with an initial "motivation" to displace God, quite
on the contrary, for him that was nothing more than an unfortunate distraction.
Evolution is immune from falsification.
And Gould pointed out the similarity between Paley
and Darwin's
structure of argument. I think Gould's acknowledgement goes a long way >>>>> toward
confirming my opinion.
Not at all it doesn't , and I have explained to you several times why. >>>> Every scientists has to account
for the "prior art" and is in that sense "influenced" by it, science
does not happen in a vacuum
That's why we talk about falsification in science, it is the job of
the next generation to
experimentally test the theories of the previous generation(s) and
ideally come up with something
better, that is how all scientific progress is made. Testing and
falsification obviously mirror the theories
they critically engage with, that's true for Galileo. Newton,
Einstein, Pasteur, you name them. They all
enagaged with, and in that sense mirrored, theories their work eventually replaced.
Nonsense. To the extend that any supported theory is subject to
falsification, so is the ToE
There have been, and are, a number of observation that would cast
serious doubts on it that would
lead to revise all or at least significant parts of it. Every time a new
species is discovered, it is put to
the test - finding e.g. a species of mammals that has DNA that codes in
birds for wings, and which
therefore can fly, would do it. Something like this would be strongly
indicative of design.
Pasteur falsified the position
that life arose through spontaneous generation via active testing.
Ehm, no. That is not how falsification works. He falsified a very
specific claim made by John Needham,
that yeast and other complex life is created spontaneously in broth.
Pasteur falsified this theory
by showing that Needham had not accounted for contamination, and in
this way established a more
rigorous test protocol.
There is no known except, that life comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following
Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
You'd need a claim as specific as the one he refuted, and then see what
its implications would
be. Other approaches would be to look for a non-environmental mechanism
that accounts better
for the data that we observe, e.g. finding that there is a pattern that
shows species have an allocated
time after which they die out, regardless of environment (the way humans
die after a set number of years)
Generally though, theories get replaced when better alternatives are
proposed that account for more
data, make fewer assumptions or have fewer anomalies. Pasteur e.g.
showed how yeast fermentation
worked, which explained the data better than spontaneous generation
Just as an aside, "spontaneous generation" at that time was a doctrine
that came from theology, had had
been proposed to exculpate God from the creation of nasty things like
lice. John Ray, for instance had
still considered the spontaneous generation of insects, but then with
some regret concluded that this
was unlikely. By the time of pasteur it hd been more or less accepted
that mice, lice and other things not
nice do not simply pop up.
No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases.
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new
scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would be >>>> impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat
what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say!
But that is the consequence of your own approach, IF you applied it consistently.
Every time a theory gets
falsified, you would note that
a) the falsification study mirrored the argument it falsifies (it has
to, otherwise it would not work)
b) subsequently the falsified theory is abandoned.
And that is the only evidence you offered to claim that Darwin was
unduly motivated by a desire to
overturn Paley, that his book mirrors Paley's argument, and that Paley
was subsequently abandoned.
If you were consistent, you'd apply this every time - with other words
every time a theory is falsified, you
would have to "cast doubt" on the motives of the student falsifying the teacher.
So the only way, in your own account, would be never to probe and test old knowledge,
because that would always indicate inappropriate motives
If a rabbit were to be pound in
a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were found
in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot prints
in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
Depends. Falsification of what exactly, how well is the old theory supported, how
reliable is the apparent contradictory finding, does it lead to a better explanation etc.
So if we find a single rabbit in old strata, the likely explanation is a
hoax, or an unusual earthquake that
disrupted the layers etc. If we find lots of them, under good
conditions, that would indeed falsify
quite a number of theories that we have. The second one would falsify
theories we have of how
DNA is preserved, and again we'd first want to rule our contamination. Etc >>>>
In the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
Any time you design or create something you start with a purpose. or >>>>> objective.
(quote) "Natural selection is a simple concept.But, it is perhaps the >>>>>>> most importantDarwin needed an instrument to accomplish his goal. He devised >>>>>>>>> a concept, where as nature, in the form of random mutations and natural
selection became his God replacemt
idea in the history of human thought, for it explains the apparent design of
the living world without recourse to a supernatural omnipotent designer".
Ref: Douglas Futuyma Evolution 3rd Sinauer: Sunderland, MA Pg 281 >>>>>>>>
With Darwin's discovery of natural selection the origin and adaptation of
organisms were brought into the realm of science The adaptive features >>>>>>> of organisms could be explained. like the phenomena of the inabinate >>>>>>> world, with the process of natural selection, without recourse to an >>>>>>> intelligent designer.....This was Darwin's fundamental discovery >>>>>>> that there is a process that is creative, though no conscience. (mind)" >>>>>>> Ref: Francis Ayala 2007 PNAS 104:8567 - 8573
and how does this support your argument? This is a statement about the >>>>>> historical consequences of Darwin's work, not about his motives.
Then you make the effort to arrive at this objective. Purpose and
motivation
are not very different. I think it was Darwin's purpose to remove the >>>>> intelligent designer.
Ayala's Darwin' greatest discovery. "Design without (a) Designer"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876431/
None of hat makes much sense. The "purpose" of scientific research is to come up with
explanations that do some or all of the following:
- explain more data than the predecessor
- remove inconsistencies from the predecessor (falsification in the narrow sense)
- refine the available theoretical vocabulary to make new or more precise predictions
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation than that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that
directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
That is an evaluation of the outcome, not a statement about the initial
motivation. The greatest
achievement . The most famous example for the difference is the working
of the capitalist market:
"The individual undertaker (entrepreneur), seeking the most efficient
allocation of resources,
contributes to overall economic efficiency; the merchant’s reaction to
price signals helps to ensure
that the allocation of resources accurately reflects the structure of
consumer preferences; and the drive
to better our condition contributes to economic growth."
The motivation of the individual entrepreneur is very limited and self
seeking, the great achievement something
they have not in their mind at all, here the effective allocation of resources.
Darwin. My mistake was to
tie Paley's evidence of design as implying his deity with Darwin's
outcome. The result of Darwin's work was to replace Paley's deity with
a naturalistic explanation. Okay, this _result_ that I observed, was coincidence and _not_ Darwin's intent at the beginning. I read too much
into the
results I thought I saw. For this I apologize . >
<snip>
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 07:19:22 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous >>> reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
That is utter hypocrisy when you don't hesitate to tell blatant lies
about other people like the lies you told Ron about me and abortion in
this very thread and have chosen to let stand even after they were
pointed out to you.
Ron has accepted that he was wrong in some of the things he said and
has apologized for it. You would do better to try to learn from him
rather than preaching to him.
[...]
Pot... kettle... black.
Burkhard wrote:the right control experiment, or statistical fluke. The more evidence that has accumulated in favor of a theory and the more times it has survived well-designed attempts at falsification, the more likely it is that a single anomalous result in fact does
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:47:07 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:52:22 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/30/23 5:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You realize that was a quote from a scientist, Francis Ayala.
Burkhard wrote:
[much snippage]
I read what your wrote, that Darwin had no thought, no purpose, no >>>>>>>> goal as to discounting
Paley's work. But his greatest achievement, was design without a >>>>>>>> designer.
No, Darwin's greatest achievement was a theory explaining the obvious
interrelationships of living forms. It seems to be you who is insistent
on throwing out a designer.
Then one goes off half cocked.
I know that every design and every project starts with a purpose. >>>>>>>That's not true, but the exceptions are minor and not worth discussing.
No, that's not falsification.
I contend that Darwin read Paley, consequently he was familiar with >>>>>>>> Paley's data, the
structure of Paley's argument. and the timing. It was too much for >>>>>>>> coincidence. I know
sometimes after Paley, Darwin became disenchanted with Christianity.
I'm convinced
that Darwin started with purpose in mind and he succeeded in >>>>>>>> accomplishing his objective.
Fine. Just remember that the sentences above are about Ron Dean, not >>>>>>> about Darwin or Paley.
Everything you've written, regarding Darwin and what he had in mind or
The evidence Paley presented for the _existence_of_the_deity_ I believe
did inversely"
influence Darwin.
and you failed to provide any evidence for this belief, and failed to
address the information I gave
you (and which you at one point had accepted) , that far from >>>>>>>>> "inversely influencing" Darwin,
he a) admired Paley's work his whole life and b) at least initially
expected his findings
to support Paley
his absence of purpose is not evidenced!
I don't understand your complaint. It's as if someone placed a pumpkin
on the table in front of you, and you shout, "There is no pumpkin on the
table in front of me!" Perhaps you expect Darwin's words that >>>>>>> contradict your belief to turn into something else at the stroke of >>>>>>> midnight?
[...]
Evolution is immune from falsification.
What you mean is, Evolution cannot be falsified except by assuming a >>>>>>> reality different from what we observe. Yeah, that's true of most true
things.
That's my point. They could always be explained away.
Pasteur falsified the position that life arose through spontaneous >>>>>>>> generation via active testing. There is no known except, that life >>>>>>>> comes only from life.
And to this date Pasteur's "proof" stands. How would you, following >>>>>>>> Pasteur testing procedure try falsifying evolution?
If you sequenced my genome and found it more similar to the genome of a
sea anemone than to my mother's, or even to a babboon's, that would be a
good clue that our understanding of how things are related is really >>>>>>> messed up. (Of course, you would need results such as this to be >>>>>>> repeatable.)
The motivation is to find the truth, in all of these cases. >>>>>>>>>No, if a science cannot be subject to falsification, it's not science,
If one were to infer, as you do, that the mere fact that a new >>>>>>>>> scientific theory replaces an old one indicates
inappropriate motivation by the newcomer, scientific progress would
be impossible. The vision of science
that you promote is one where it is only ever legitimate to repeat >>>>>>>>> what one's teacher told someone
regardless of what a teacher might say! If a rabbit were to be pound
in a billion year old strata or soft tissues and blood vessels were >>>>>>>> found in 65 million year old dinosaurs 0r 3 million modern human foot
prints in fossilized in volcanic ash would any of this be considered
falsification?
A plethora of such anomalies would be falsification, assuming other >>>>>>> mundane explanations could not be found (e.g., the rabbit having been
placed there last night by pranksters, or the foot prints not really >>>>>>> being human).
That's true in all of science. Anomalous results in any field may be the key to overturning a good but incomplete theory (and winning a Nobel prize), but far more often they are the result of technical error, misinterpretation, failure to include
Darwin actually wrote, is that he did not begin his research with the goal of disproving God......How does what Ayala thinks about Darwin's greatest achievement now tell >>>> you anything at all about Darwin's motivations? And why do anyone's >>>> thoughts about what made Darwin great have any bearing on the truth or >>>> falsity of his theory?
Again this was the thought of Francis Ayala
[...]
You have not shown, at all, that Darwin had any other motivation thanIn the case of any project, design or goal, you start with a purpose.
that behind all
scientific research, and you failed to address the evidence that >>>>>>>>> directly contradicts you claim
And based on
Darwin's "greatest achievement...,", I would say he met his objective
And Darwin's great achievement had nothing to do with ruling out a >>>>>>> designer.
The fact is, I can not absolutely know what was on the mind of Darwin, >>>> the only thing any of us can do is surmise from his results. And I think
that's exactly what has been done. The difference is
what conclusion and rendering a scientific model.. And this is drawn >>>> from his ultimate result life as the result of random mutations and and >>>> natural selection. I've explained my view several times derived from >>>> what I perceived was his purpose by the results I've noted, and his >>>> familiarity with Paley's works.
No, you're right, you cannot know with certainty what was on Darwin's mind. You can, however, read what he himself wrote about what was on his mind in his papers and journals. Burkhard has shown that to you repeatedly. What you learn from what
Unfortunately, I don't have time to read everyone's response. What
exactly did Darwin write in respect to Paley's deity? So, I do not
recall anything Darwin wrote in this regard.
So you are saying you formed a strong and negative opinion about Darwin, without trying to find out from his own reading first what he actually thought?
Don't you think that's a wee bit problematic?
I read his Origin Of Species" decades ago. And some of what I found on the internet by other people. So, I thought I knew something about him and his motivations. I knew the results of his labors. And I had negative thoughts concerning random mutations and natural selection. So in my mind, there
was nothing good or admirable in this result. Quite the contrary. But I
was wrong in that I allowed my own personal mindset, to ignore the
believes and views of others. For this failure, I am truly sorry. And I apologize
It's not that I've given up my views. I still think purposeful and deliberate, design is the better explanation for what is observed. I
think it
takes faith to accept mindless, aimless, hazardous and random natural processes to accomplish the order, beauty and complexity we observe.
There is also all quite a lot of material out there, from entire books, such as William Phipps, "Darwin's religious odyssey" (the one that stays of
all the ones I know the closest to Darwin's actual writing) or David Wilson'
Darwin's cathedral: Evolution, religion, and the nature of society.
The latter is one of the most influential ones I'd say, and argues
in essence that you have it arse backwards: In Wilson's account, Darwin set out if not to prove Paley, then to add to his work, and as a result did
for a long time fail to correctly interpret the observations that he had made.
It was only after Darwin had lost his "religious blinkers" that he was able to see
the evidence for what it was, and then was able to develop his theory. I'm personally not entirely convinced by this account either, but it fits the data
considerably better than yours.
Is it true or _not_ true that Darwin at some point in time lost his religious faith?
Finally, one that I liked a lot is Charles and Emma: The Darwins' Leap of Faith by
Deborah Heiligman - not an academic study, but a well researched and
very engagingly written account of the discussions Emma and Charles
had on religion, which included adding commentaries to their family
bible, notes form their diaries after inviting the vicar to tea etc
If books are too much to do, there are quite a number of articles out there,
some of them probably open access (my computer has my university's token stored, so I don't often see if something is paywalled) - the most accessible
paper that I'd recommend is the verybalanced paper by Brooke form 2010, Darwin
and Religion: Correcting the Caricatures. Sci & Educ 19, 391–405, or the very detailed
Frank Burch Brown, The Evolution of Darwin's theism, Journal of the History of Biology ,
1986. That one is now a bit aged, but it was one of the first who took the then newly
available letters and notebooks into account, so the "first of the modern" papers on Darwin and religion.
I've given up my original opinion, that prior to writing his book. the Origin of
Species, Darwin he had alternative motives.
I'm also not sure what exactly you mean with your question. Do you mean if Darwin engaged
with Paley's theological writing and Paley's conception of God from his books other than
"Natural Theology"?
I did not know about Paley book defending Christianity. The book I was
in reference to
was where he, while walking across a field found a watch. And this watch because it
had purpose was complex, the watch, in certain ways was different from a nearby stone.
I still think this watch argument was valid. I could not have happened except by
information and action which means mind.
Not a lot would be the answer. Which also tells you something. IF you were right and
Darwin was motivated by refuting Paley's theology, one should expect to find direct
engagement and criticism of it. Instead there is pretty much nothing. Ruse concluded from
this that "Darwin simply cared less about religion than many other men". Or on
Darwin's own words: “I am not sure whether it would not be wisest for scientific men
quite to ignore the whole subject of religion”. I'd say while there is a degree of hyperbole in Ruse
it broadly fits the picture we get: Issues of religion pop up now and then, and Darwin
gives sometimes very tentative insights into his evolving and shifting thoughts about it, but
they are more often than not followed by a disclaimer. A typical quote is from his correspondence with Asa Grey
" I had no intention to write atheistically…I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal,
may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been
expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence.
[...] The more I think the more bewildered I become.”
Or, in another quote from him: “Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed
from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand
conclusions?
This has sometimes been described as deism in the spirit of Newton - God created the initial
laws which, omniscience as he is, then lead to the desired outcome of the evolutionary process.
But softened by an always present worry that humans really can't know anything about the divine,
something that has been called his agnosticism, but was much more akin to negative theology
of John Scotus Eriugena or Master Eckhard(or in modern times Barth, Franke or Dooyeweerd).
Arguing rationally for God is impossible due to human limitation and the limitation of our
language, what remains is the non-verbal experience of the divine - something Darwin described in
his notebook when in the Brazilian Forest:
"wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind." which then led him to the
"firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul"
In his Autobiography, he acknowledges however that as he grew older, even that
connection increasingly faded away, but this was a slow process, and took place in good parts
after the wrote OoS. Or again in his own words: "I was very unwilling to give up my belief
[in Christianity]. .. . Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate"
As I've pointed out before I've mad the complete 360 Degree turnaround.
Quite a a bit of the more substantial writing on God is in his correspondence with his deeply religious
wife, who would chide him for "overthinking" these things and sometimes needled him in a
friendly way to forget for once the scientist' need for clear and logical arguments in matters religious.
But despite their significant differences over this issue what clearly transpires is that for Darwin they
just did not matter much, and he never made any attempts to convince Emma of his views and
accommodated her preferences whenever possible. This included support for missionary work, and
a surprisingly positive attitude to missionaries:
"Tahiti is a most charming spot.... It is moreover admirable to behold what the Missionaries
both here & at New Zealand have effected. - I firmly believe they are good men
working for the sake of a good cause. I much suspect that those who have abused or sneered at
the Missionaries, have generally been such as were not very anxious to find the Natives moral &
intelligent beings"
And then again, he also saw abuses of missionary work, and in particular the ill-treatment of the
Fuegians which would later lead to their full-scale genocide. Two things were crucial for Darwin in this
respect:
a) seeing atrocities committed not just by Christians, but in the name of Christ and even more
importantly b) getting direct experience of cultures that were not Christian, or, like the Fuegians, had
no conception of a (creator) God at all. From this he realised that the religious beliefs of most
people are utterly contingent: you believe the religion you were brought up in if you are lucky, or
the one that threatens to kill you if you are not. But if this is the case, it seems impossible to make
a rational argument for any specific deity:
I do not consider anything that happens the people do to each other, in
any way can be laid at the
feet of a deity. Every one in the final analysis makes his own
decisions. A few years ago I
joined Alcoholics Anonymous were I became good friends with an attorney.
He his my wife me and m wife frequently got together for dinners and socials.
In a discussion of religion, he made the comment that to him
Christianity was a tool. A few
days later I asked him what did he mean by that. He said, (quote) "in
my business you have to
have trust. What better way is there, than to pretend to be Christian."
That spoke loud and clear tome. I learned later that he was tried for
fraud and found guilty His name and picture was plastered all over the
TV and news papers. After that, everything he earned he put in his in
wife's name. She became a rather well to do woman.
“There is ample evidence … that numerous races have existed and still exist, who have no idea
of one or more gods, and who have no words in their languages to express such an idea.”
At the time, he is still hesitant to draw any big conclusions, and add, that this question “is of course
wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this
has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed”
You can rest that their sense of right and wrong is not the same as
yours or mine.In a competition
for scarce food resources, I would not, nor would you I suspect would be that competitor.
But the seed of doubt was laid, this is one of the 2 issues that led to this fading belief in the (Christian)
deity, not his scientific work on species origins. The other key factor were the moral implications of
some Christian doctrine - he found the answers to the theodicy problem increasingly unsatisfactory,
and thought in particular that the conception of eternal punishment after death was not just implausible
but deeply immoral:
"‘I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides
of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world" and " ‘old argument from the existence
of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas …
the presence of much suffering agrees well with that all organic beings have been developed through
variation and natural selection’.
This is the hook for Ayala whom you totally misunderstand, as it was for the equally
religious Gray and Kingsley: Maybe natural selection was a way in which God can be exculpated
from suffering. Darwin wavers on this question and shifts positions over the years, hoping
initially that this problem could be solved, but as he got older increasingly failing to see a way - and in
1876, so long after he wrote the OoS, he eventually declared himself an agnostic (while rejecting
explicitly the label of atheist):
"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence
of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic
would be the most correct description of my state of mind"
The second point, and one of the few issues where he did become more outspoken, was the concept
of eternal punishment and hell. I need to find the quote, but in essence it was: how can anyone enjoy
heaven, when some of those who were is nearest and dearest while alive are at the same time
tortured by the same deity he is now hanging out with in paradise? It was only two or three sentences,
I think in a letter, but one of the very few directly critical statements by Darwin that I know of. It
did not address Paley specifically, though the afterlife and punishment there plays a role in his
version of utilitarianism.
Why did you ignore the trigonometry response?No, I more or less returned from where I was in my early youth. During >>>> College I went 180 degrees a decade or so I went another 1890. Total >>>> 360, a complete circle. Not that I think I was an atheist,I suspect you mean a 180 degree turn around. (Either that, or you've found a falsification for trigonometry).That's not my objective. I try to go where I _think_ the evidence takes me.
I still wonder: Why are you so persistent in *your* objective of ruling
out a designer from an interpretation of the universe?
with an open mind and hopefully without bias. During my life time I've
been on both sides of the fence. IOW I've made a 360 degree turn-around.
I remember questioning a fundamental Christian regarding a 7 day >>>>>> and the 6 thousand year old creation and I had my head handed back to >>>>>> me in a basket.
but I was a disbeliever.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 07:19:22 +0100, Martin HarranThe good, bad, and ugly three way showdown is underway exclusively on >talk.origins.
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous >>>> reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
That is utter hypocrisy when you don't hesitate to tell blatant lies
about other people like the lies you told Ron about me and abortion in
this very thread and have chosen to let stand even after they were
pointed out to you.
Ron has accepted that he was wrong in some of the things he said and
has apologized for it. You would do better to try to learn from him
rather than preaching to him.
[...]
Pot... kettle... black.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 20:25:40 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:Got your steel plate on?
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 07:19:22 +0100, Martin HarranThe good, bad, and ugly three way showdown is underway exclusively on
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous
reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
That is utter hypocrisy when you don't hesitate to tell blatant lies
about other people like the lies you told Ron about me and abortion in >>>> this very thread and have chosen to let stand even after they were
pointed out to you.
Ron has accepted that he was wrong in some of the things he said and
has apologized for it. You would do better to try to learn from him
rather than preaching to him.
[...]
Pot... kettle... black.
talk.origins.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 07:19:22 +0100, Martin HarranThe good, bad, and ugly three way showdown is underway exclusively on >talk.origins.
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous >>>> reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
That is utter hypocrisy when you don't hesitate to tell blatant lies
about other people like the lies you told Ron about me and abortion in
this very thread and have chosen to let stand even after they were
pointed out to you.
Ron has accepted that he was wrong in some of the things he said and
has apologized for it. You would do better to try to learn from him
rather than preaching to him.
[...]
Pot... kettle... black.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 12:36:00?AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You can speak for yourself, but not for others. Where there is no
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
DELETE MUCH
Note the word: "moral point," not "scientific point". Even when I was
closest to outright atheism -- and I got quite close -- I was extremely >>>> conservative about letting go of any moral principles that had been ingrained in me.
I can say the same for me. During my years at the local university, IMORE DELETIONS
began to question.
I never thought of myself as an atheist, but I did have serious doubts,
I did not
question evolution, I thought it was logical, rational and explained
lifes origin and changes..
This mindset lasted until I was challenged to read "Evolution a Theory
in Crisis",
By a Dr. Denton. So, I determined to do further reading and study.
Even though some of what I wrote was called a lie. Right or wrong I
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous >>>> reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
And yet, at least one of the regulars of talk.origins is a glaring exception,
having claimed that I am need of help for doing this.
believed everything
I wrote. I did not mean anything, I wrote regarding Darwin's motivation
(purpose) to
be an attack on the his character. However, I stepped out of the frying
pan into the fire.
My comment is about his bizarre take on atheism and the insinuation
that it would be accompanied by amorality. It's utter nonsense.
Penn Jillette of the Penn and Teller duo is oft quoted on this.
The story goes that as a public atheist he gets confronted by
a christian who asks, paraphrasing, without a belief in god
what's to stop me/you from raping and murdering all you want? >
The answer is, 'I already do rape and murder all I want. The amount
I want is zero.' Further, people who want to rape and murder but
only don't because Jesus said not to, and you'll get a cookie if you're
a good by scare me. They have no foundational morality.
common standard for morality, each person can decide
for himself his own morality. He can decide for himself what is
right or wrong. what is good and what is evil.
So, you can never know what to expect when dealing with
someone whose moral standard you cannot know about.
You can trust the wrong person.
Somebody frequently asserts that atheists are immoral and have
no compunction against lying. Such exists in the parts I deleted.
It's borderline insanity, not moralizing, but casting irrational
judgement.
And what determines what is an irrational judgement? When each
person has the right to decide for himself what is right or wrong,
By what standard of fight and wrong does a person decide. By his
standard of morality or yours. In different societies the moral standard
is not the same. What's wrong in India or china, is not wrong in the
US. In some countries plural marriage is not wrong, In other
countries parents choose the marriage partner for their daughter.
it's wrong for her to object and choose another man whom she loves. In
some primitive cultures, killing a member of another tribe when
competing for limited food resources is not wrong.
These repeated assertions that atheism is coupled to a lack
of morals is simply obnoxious. I urge you to avoid following
suit Ron. Your personal testimony suggests that you were
in fact an atheist for a long time.
Actually, I did not place a label on myself. I just had doubts and
disbelief in any and all religions. And I did some things then that I would >not do today. At the time I didn't take right and wrong into consideration >only concern was legal and illegal. Today I do.
For clarification, an atheist
is someone who lacks an affirmative belief in the existence
of a god. Atheism does not require one have an antagonistic
view of the possibility that god(s) exist. It doesn't mean that
one is against the very concept of the existence of god(s).
And it is not a rejection of all morality. It isn't a rejection of
values that make lying wrong. It is uncoupled from some
promise of being rewarded in an afterlife for being good during
this life.
You can have faith that God eeist or faith that God does not exist.
IOW you can believe or disbelieve, but you cannot know.
Please don't be suckered in by somebody who plays at
this invidious game about what it means to be an atheist.
It's ultimately just a cheap way to be nasty to others, and
that's a rather transparent hypocrisy.
It' no in my nature or character to accept anything without question.
OOPS! while I was putting the finishing touches on my reply to Daggett,
the blue announcement at the bottom of my screen flashed
for the post to which I am now replying, and I assumed it was an incoming post.
Oh, well, no harm done.
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:40:56 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 2:05:47 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:10:37 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:10:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:Is this a duplicate of the following YouTube film? the title is the same.
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:35:36?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak, >> describing the current status of his team's efforts to identify >> plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with a >> 30-minute Q&A with the audience.The original lecture was "The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer"
Some of the highlights of the lecture include demonstrations of how
lipid bilayers abiotically self-assemble, grow, and divide,
nonenzymatic RNA duplication, abiotic substrates for protein
synthesis, and functions of the first peptides.
The lecture suffers from multiple technical glitches. IMO the
information Szostak provides despite these glitches make viewing this
video worthwhile.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g>
https://www.youtube.com/@asuchemistry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLzyco3Q_Rg
The YouTube is the lecture slides.Your comment illustrates a limit of transcripts, which identified it as a "hiring lecture", which led me to imagine Szostack was doing an overly demanding job interview.
You seem familiar with the context of this lecture. I was surprised at the number of children in the audience and the naivete of many of the questions, suggesting something like the Royal Institute's Christmas lectures, in contrast to a presentation to Szostack's professional peers.There were 2 lectures. The YouTube posted was for the general audience. The professional audience was the following day.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
https://news.asu.edu/20230309-nobel-laureate-jack-szostak-deliver-distinguished-eyring-lecture-series-asuThis is just an announcement, not even a synopsis of the film.
The following statement touched off a burst of sarcasm by you, Burkhard:I have no idea why the professional audience lecture was not video taped of YouTube.
Perhaps they were concerned about how much ignorance Szostak revealed among the best
scientists as to how abiogenesis COULD have occurred. Perhaps the questions the professional
scientists asked might be even more embarrassing to Szostak.
What an erudite analysis, and an excellent example of seeing the "benefit of the doubt"Is this where the sarcasm stops?
in action used by one of the greatest minds on TO!
(you often tell us that that's what you are,Is this your idea of a joke that no one should take seriously?
and as you also often told us that you are the most honest person here,Is this an allusion to my frequent calling of myself a "goddamn moralizer"?
There are a number of people here whose complete honesty I have seen
no reason to doubt, and I have alluded to that fact on occasion.
One of them is someone whom you've gotten egg
on your face for vitriolic comments that turned out to be false: Ron Dean.
how could I not believe it?)Next, you revert to the kind of sarcasm that has earned for you the superlative, "Most condescendingly dishonest regular in talk.origins." [1]
I'm standing in awe, and someone like me can only try to learn from your example.Your sarcasm rides roughshod over my opening qualifier, "Perhaps" for the rest of the
I'm particularly impressed how you ruled our after careful fact checking and research
into the event all the more mundane explanations why the second lecture was not filmed, such as e.g.;
first sentence of what you quoted above, and of the second sentence.
Internet Vandals [2] like yourself typically have a terrible time with qualifying adjectives, adverbs,
phrases and clauses.
[1] I have posted such superlatives about 10 or so people. You dethroned the previous
holder of this description, who had held it for at least twice as long as you have so far.
All such superlatives are backed by extensive experience with the titleholders.
[2] This denotes a person who is highly destructive of meaningful communication
between people who sincerely disagree on some central issues.
- a general policy by the IT support that runs the university's youtube account to only ever post theA conjectured policy of which I knew nothing, and still don't, because of the lack
general public version the the Eyring lecture - just as they did in all the previous years (
if they posted any video at all that is0
of documentation, despite my efforts to get some support for it.
If you had bothered to look at the comments section of the
video that jillery linked in the OP,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g
you would have seen how short it is (17 posts in all) , and possibly have seen the last comment and reply:
[QUOTE:]
@iangould5218
@iangould5218
3 weeks ago
Hello, you should state that this video was taken without permission from the School of Molecular Sciences at Arizona State University Youtube Channel
1
@peternyikos8020
@peternyikos8020
2 weeks ago
Do you have any evidence for this claim of yours? How do you account for the fact that this video was not taken down?
[end of quote]
Can you succeed where iangould5218 failed? Or did your conjecture
come off the top of your head? [Notice how much nicer I am to you
than you were to Ron on the occasion alluded to above. That's NOT sarcasm.]
- the technical glitches that beset the recording of the firstYour shortage of faith in the abilities of the IT personnel at ASU
lecture were not resolved in time, so the decision was taking
not to record the technical lecture
over a 24 hour period is duly noted.
- the technical problems got worse/made recording impossible
- the lecture was held in a different room, not suitable for recording a hybrid lecture
- one or several member(s) of the audience refused to sign the data protection release form
- the lecture contained copyrighted material, such as a 3. party video clip illustratingSince you are a nonentity where biological and prebiotic issues are concerned,
a point, that made youtube posting too risky for the university' legal department
all you could do in your next paragraph was to tediously continue
your sarcasm, but you underestimated your ignorance at the end.
So that after careful research that allowed you to categorically rule out all these mundaneThe reality is much more mundane, as I told jillery elsethread:
and innocent explanations, you are of course totally right to speculate about the nefarious
reasons - as Sherlock Holmes used to say, if you have ruled out the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be true. Even if in this case it means that a Nobel
Laureate talking about his core field of research made a methodological plunder to
obvious that someone like you who has not spend a single hour of his life in a lab
doing abiogenesis research would immediately spot it!
[excerpt, my words from two separate posts:]
Szostak is about as good as they come in the field of OOL, and the way he admits
to how much we do NOT know, especially in the Q&A session, he is well worth listening to.
Note the words "the way" and "how much": not vague generalities like yours, but one specific example after another.
[end of excerpt]
All documentable from the film with the help of the transcript, but you can't be bothered to see how bent out of shape your sarcasm is, can you?
Now me, I've always admitted that I'm a layperson when it comes to biology, so what wouldThat's because their aims are often different from what you imagine.
I know. But I have spend quite a bit of time among scientists who also try to distinguish
between design and natural causes, and strangely enough they too would do all the things
you find objectionable below.
Now I will show a spin doctor like you how I actually give Szostak the benefit of the doubt:
Szostak's abandonment in 13:00 - 13:50 [see below] was, I surmise, done in order to come
up with RNA sequences that are not found in living organisms, but which
show what the percentage [3] of sequences are that are conducive to progress towards "life as we know it," beginning with the first free-living bacteria [prokaryotes].
The kind of "forced evolution" they carry out is infinitely better than to just
sit down and try to come up with such a ribozyme from scratch.
[3] extraordinarily small by everyday standards, but perhaps not for the millions of years
and the size of earth for making OOL a reality. However, it would take a century or two
to succeed at that. But they are taking the first baby steps, at least if my giving them
the right benefit of the doubt.
<snip of things to be dealt with later on this week>
I"m surprised no one in the audience of his lecture that WAS taped asked him about the following
anomaly. I'd be very disappointed if the professionals didn't pick up on it either.
At one point in the film, between the ca. 13:00 minute point and the ca. 13:50 point, Szostak
completely abandons the project of trying to re-create prebiotic conditions
or simulating something like natural selection. Instead, he talks about an unspecified number of "generations" of RNA molecules in the laboratory,
in which the human experimenters carefully select the mutants that are in the direction of
"molecules that do uh what we want okay."
The "what we want" is to bind an ATP molecule, but they are still working on
how to bind more tightly to this quite simple molecule.
Human selection like this was well known before Darwin came along and showed how SOME
of it could be done (much more slowly!) via natural selection.
But Szostak's method is like Intelligent Design not only because it is a human selection process,
but because there was a specific goal in mind. The idea of physical processes having a specific direction
was abandoned over a century before Szostak's experiment.
Do you know enough about Darwin's theory to see the importance of what I wrote next?
It doesn't seem like it -- you showed no sign of comprehending it in the part I snipped out.
After I pointed some of this out to Ron Dean on another thread, jillery figuratively threw
Charles Darwin under the bus by calling the distinction I was making between
human selection and natural selection "a PRATT."
My rebuttal to that can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0XgjzJpuiMA/m/mKMU6r1oBgAJ Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 2:01:00 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:,<snip>
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 12:36:00 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
DELETE MUCH
The answer is, 'I already do rape and murder all I want. The amountYou can speak for yourself, but not for others. Where there is no
I want is zero.' Further, people who want to rape and murder but
only don't because Jesus said not to, and you'll get a cookie if you're
a good by scare me. They have no foundational morality.
common standard for morality, each person can decide
for himself his own morality. He can decide for himself what is
right or wrong. what is good and what is evil.
So, you can never know what to expect when dealing with
someone whose moral standard you cannot know about.
You can trust the wrong person.
When Penn Jillette directly tells us he doesn't want to murder or rape
I believe him. I don't want to either. I know many non-believers, and
best I can tell, they don't want to either. It's simply inconsistent with general observation. There is not some general desire in humans for
many people to desire to harm each other. Such a desire is a pathology.
As you note, such pathologies can be culturally instilled, but the evidence suggests that they are not natural.
The point is that asserting that it is the authority of religious beliefs that makes this so is inconsistent with observation and introspection.
It is inconsistent with testimony if you've bothers to read what people
write about themselves.
So they guy who keeps asserting that atheists would have no compunction against lying is promoting an obvious falsehood. And he does it by
way of self-promotion that he is morally superior to people he has
many on-line disagreements with. It's transparent and juvenile.
Somebody frequently asserts that atheists are immoral and have
no compunction against lying. Such exists in the parts I deleted.
It's borderline insanity, not moralizing, but casting irrational
judgement.
And what determines what is an irrational judgement? When each
person has the right to decide for himself what is right or wrong,
By what standard of fight and wrong does a person decide. By his
standard of morality or yours. In different societies the moral standard
is not the same. What's wrong in India or china, is not wrong in the
US. In some countries plural marriage is not wrong, In other
countries parents choose the marriage partner for their daughter.
it's wrong for her to object and choose another man whom she loves. In
some primitive cultures, killing a member of another tribe when
competing for limited food resources is not wrong.
It's irrational when it is broadly inconsistent with observation.
And unless you've got some direct experience living in China or
India, associating with many locals outside of the sorts of interactions
with rich foreigners, be careful about what stories you believe.
Moral standards are culturally influenced, sure. But those who assert
that they come from religion or are to be presumed absent are lying.
These repeated assertions that atheism is coupled to a lack
of morals is simply obnoxious. I urge you to avoid following
suit Ron. Your personal testimony suggests that you were
in fact an atheist for a long time.
Actually, I did not place a label on myself. I just had doubts and
disbelief in any and all religions. And I did some things then that I would >> not do today. At the time I didn't take right and wrong into consideration >> only concern was legal and illegal. Today I do.
Whether or not you adopted a label, if you didn't believe, you were an atheist. My point is that some try to burden "atheist" with a connotation
of amoral. The one I'm thinking of is fast to claim that they don't
believe that, but then they turn around and repeatedly insinuate that
because so-and-so is an atheist they have to aversion to lying.
For clarification, an atheist
is someone who lacks an affirmative belief in the existence
of a god. Atheism does not require one have an antagonistic
view of the possibility that god(s) exist. It doesn't mean that
one is against the very concept of the existence of god(s).
And it is not a rejection of all morality. It isn't a rejection of
values that make lying wrong. It is uncoupled from some
promise of being rewarded in an afterlife for being good during
this life.
You can have faith that God exist or faith that God does not exist.
IOW you can believe or disbelieve, but you cannot know.
Knowing wasn't the point. And more to the point, you're confusing
something.
Not having a belief in god(s) is atheism.
That is distinct from having faith that god(s) do not exist.This is a play on words. In the final analysis
Do pause to think about that. Atheism is not an assertion that
there are not god(s). It is merely a lack of an affirmative belief.
In between a belief that there are god(s) and that there are no god(s)
is a vast landscape of accepting that you don't know, and perhaps
can't know. But shy of asserting that there are no god(s), there is the
lack of an affirmative belief. And that is atheism, the lack of an affirmative belief.
Please don't be suckered in by somebody who plays at
this invidious game about what it means to be an atheist.
It's ultimately just a cheap way to be nasty to others, and
that's a rather transparent hypocrisy.
It' no in my nature or character to accept anything without question.
There are aspects of your posting history that suggests you don't
go very deep into your questioning. In particular, your assertions
about what Darwin thought or expected did not seem to involve
a careful reading of his written works.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 20:25:40 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 07:19:22 +0100, Martin HarranThe good, bad, and ugly three way showdown is underway exclusively on
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous
reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
That is utter hypocrisy when you don't hesitate to tell blatant lies
about other people like the lies you told Ron about me and abortion in >>>> this very thread and have chosen to let stand even after they were
pointed out to you.
Ron has accepted that he was wrong in some of the things he said and
has apologized for it. You would do better to try to learn from him
rather than preaching to him.
[...]
Pot... kettle... black.
talk.origins.
Your willful blindness wrt source moots your opinion. Also, of the
three to which you allude, jillery is the odd-one out wrt
self-promotion. I suppose you can pretend you don't notice that
either.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 2:01:00 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:,<snip>
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 12:36:00 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
DELETE MUCH
The answer is, 'I already do rape and murder all I want. The amountYou can speak for yourself, but not for others. Where there is no
I want is zero.' Further, people who want to rape and murder but
only don't because Jesus said not to, and you'll get a cookie if you're >>> a good by scare me. They have no foundational morality.
common standard for morality, each person can decide
for himself his own morality. He can decide for himself what is
right or wrong. what is good and what is evil.
So, you can never know what to expect when dealing with
someone whose moral standard you cannot know about.
You can trust the wrong person.
When Penn Jillette directly tells us he doesn't want to murder or rape
I believe him. I don't want to either. I know many non-believers, and
best I can tell, they don't want to either. It's simply inconsistent with general observation. There is not some general desire in humans for
many people to desire to harm each other. Such a desire is a pathology.
As you note, such pathologies can be culturally instilled, but the evidence
suggests that they are not natural.
That, no doubt is true of these people, nevertheless, every day there
is rape and murder, to say nothing of the too frequent mass murders.
The point is that asserting that it is the authority of religious beliefs that makes this so is inconsistent with observation and introspection.
It is inconsistent with testimony if you've bothers to read what people write about themselves.
So they guy who keeps asserting that atheists would have no compunction against lying is promoting an obvious falsehood. And he does it by
way of self-promotion that he is morally superior to people he has
many on-line disagreements with. It's transparent and juvenile.
Somebody frequently asserts that atheists are immoral and have
no compunction against lying. Such exists in the parts I deleted.
It's borderline insanity, not moralizing, but casting irrational
judgement.
And what determines what is an irrational judgement? When each
person has the right to decide for himself what is right or wrong,
By what standard of fight and wrong does a person decide. By his
standard of morality or yours. In different societies the moral standard >> is not the same. What's wrong in India or china, is not wrong in the
US. In some countries plural marriage is not wrong, In other
countries parents choose the marriage partner for their daughter.
it's wrong for her to object and choose another man whom she loves. In
some primitive cultures, killing a member of another tribe when
competing for limited food resources is not wrong.
It's irrational when it is broadly inconsistent with observation.
And unless you've got some direct experience living in China or
India, associating with many locals outside of the sorts of interactions with rich foreigners, be careful about what stories you believe.
Do you think they have the same moral standard that common in the US?
In my job, i had to travel to Europe, Japan, India and other places so
from experience I know they aren't the same. In China I dared _not_
send messages out on my computer. In China you were closely
watched.
Moral standards are culturally influenced, sure. But those who assert
that they come from religion or are to be presumed absent are lying.
In some cases, I agree, but my mother was a devout Christian who tried
to do what she thought was right and this she taught to me and my brother and sisters.
These repeated assertions that atheism is coupled to a lack
of morals is simply obnoxious. I urge you to avoid following
suit Ron. Your personal testimony suggests that you were
in fact an atheist for a long time.
Actually, I did not place a label on myself. I just had doubts and
disbelief in any and all religions. And I did some things then that I would
not do today. At the time I didn't take right and wrong into consideration
only concern was legal and illegal. Today I do.
Whether or not you adopted a label, if you didn't believe, you were an atheist. My point is that some try to burden "atheist" with a connotation of amoral. The one I'm thinking of is fast to claim that they don't believe that, but then they turn around and repeatedly insinuate that because so-and-so is an atheist they have to aversion to lying.
I can telly this, When I was an "unbeliever" my concerns were different.
For clarification, an atheist
is someone who lacks an affirmative belief in the existence
of a god. Atheism does not require one have an antagonistic
view of the possibility that god(s) exist. It doesn't mean that
one is against the very concept of the existence of god(s).
And it is not a rejection of all morality. It isn't a rejection of
values that make lying wrong. It is uncoupled from some
promise of being rewarded in an afterlife for being good during
this life.
You can have faith that God exist or faith that God does not exist.
IOW you can believe or disbelieve, but you cannot know.
Knowing wasn't the point. And more to the point, you're confusing something.
Not having a belief in god(s) is atheism.
That is distinct from having faith that god(s) do not exist.This is a play on words. In the final analysis
Do pause to think about that. Atheism is not an assertion that
there are not god(s). It is merely a lack of an affirmative belief.
What you're saying , is not having a belief in god is atheism. Then this
can certainly mean there may be a god, atheist just don't believe in him.
In between a belief that there are god(s) and that there are no god(s)In other words, if there is a god atheist just don't believe in him/it.
is a vast landscape of accepting that you don't know, and perhaps
can't know. But shy of asserting that there are no god(s), there is the lack of an affirmative belief. And that is atheism, the lack of an affirmative belief.
Please don't be suckered in by somebody who plays at
this invidious game about what it means to be an atheist.
It's ultimately just a cheap way to be nasty to others, and
that's a rather transparent hypocrisy.
It' no in my nature or character to accept anything without question.
There are aspects of your posting history that suggests you don't
go very deep into your questioning. In particular, your assertions
about what Darwin thought or expected did not seem to involve
a careful reading of his written works.
You are right about that, I read Origin of Species years ago and more recently, some things about him, that But I found on the internet.
I agree, I mischaracterized Darwin's motive before he wrote the book "Species". But there is no acknowledgement, that based of results of
his introduction of random mutations and natural selection, I saw
this as ruling Paley's deity out of the picture. I acknowledged that
this was not his intent. But this was the result. So, based on this
I surmised it was his purpose. But I was mistaken for which I have apologized.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 20:25:40 +0000, *Hemidactylus*The fuck really?
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 07:19:22 +0100, Martin HarranThe good, bad, and ugly three way showdown is underway exclusively on
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous
reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
That is utter hypocrisy when you don't hesitate to tell blatant lies >>>>> about other people like the lies you told Ron about me and abortion in >>>>> this very thread and have chosen to let stand even after they were
pointed out to you.
Ron has accepted that he was wrong in some of the things he said and >>>>> has apologized for it. You would do better to try to learn from him
rather than preaching to him.
[...]
Pot... kettle... black.
talk.origins.
Your willful blindness wrt source moots your opinion. Also, of the
three to which you allude, jillery is the odd-one-out wrt
self-promotion. I suppose you can pretend you don't notice that
either.
The three of you bitch about each other incessantly
and
I’m the bad and ugly combined. I don’t even care that any of you bedfellows
will push back on me. Why should I? A joke really.
I doubt thinking someone believes as you because they sit in the same pew
is any better an indicator of trustworthiness than whether they are an atheist.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 01:35:36 +0000, *Hemidactylus* ><ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 20:25:40 +0000, *Hemidactylus*The fuck really?
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 07:19:22 +0100, Martin HarranThe good, bad, and ugly three way showdown is underway exclusively on
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous
reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians >>>>>>> how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
That is utter hypocrisy when you don't hesitate to tell blatant lies >>>>>> about other people like the lies you told Ron about me and abortion in >>>>>> this very thread and have chosen to let stand even after they were >>>>>> pointed out to you.
Ron has accepted that he was wrong in some of the things he said and >>>>>> has apologized for it. You would do better to try to learn from him >>>>>> rather than preaching to him.
[...]
Pot... kettle... black.
talk.origins.
Your willful blindness wrt source moots your opinion. Also, of the
three to which you allude, jillery is the odd-one-out wrt
self-promotion. I suppose you can pretend you don't notice that
either.
Yeah the fuck, really.
The three of you bitch about each other incessantly
And jillery is odd-one-out who doesn't pretend otherwise. Pretend you
don't notice that, too.
and
I? the bad and ugly combined. I don? even care that any of you bedfellows >>will push back on me. Why should I? A joke really.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 07:19:22 +0100, Martin HarranThe good, bad, and ugly three way showdown is underway exclusively on >talk.origins.
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous >>>> reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
That is utter hypocrisy when you don't hesitate to tell blatant lies
about other people like the lies you told Ron about me and abortion in
this very thread and have chosen to let stand even after they were
pointed out to you.
Ron has accepted that he was wrong in some of the things he said and
has apologized for it. You would do better to try to learn from him
rather than preaching to him.
[...]
Pot... kettle... black.
He expressed at various times, and with various degrees of conviction
- deist views where the creator is responsible for creating the laws of nature, but after that
left the universe to its own devices
- Apophatic views: there is a god or gods, but nothing can be said about them, only experienced
- similar to this, agnostic views: it is not possible to know (much) about god(s) and they may
not exist. It is in particular not possible to rationally argue for the truth of one religion
over the other, though it is possible to argue that some have better social effects than others.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 20:25:40 +0000, *Hemidactylus* ><ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 07:19:22 +0100, Martin HarranThe good, bad, and ugly three way showdown is underway exclusively on >>talk.origins.
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I call myself a "goddamn moralizer" in this godforsaken forum for numerous
reasons, one of which is that I keep reminding fellow Christians
how important Jesus's words to the rich young man, "Do not bear false witness,"
SHOULD be to them.
That is utter hypocrisy when you don't hesitate to tell blatant lies
about other people like the lies you told Ron about me and abortion in >>>> this very thread and have chosen to let stand even after they were
pointed out to you.
Ron has accepted that he was wrong in some of the things he said and
has apologized for it. You would do better to try to learn from him
rather than preaching to him.
[...]
Pot... kettle... black.
Not really, it's more of a long lasting two way shootout with me, like
Clint, really just an onlooker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ptpERFVeY
On 03/08/2023 00:18, Burkhard wrote:
He expressed at various times, and with various degrees of conviction
- deist views where the creator is responsible for creating the laws of nature, but after that
left the universe to its own devices
- Apophatic views: there is a god or gods, but nothing can be said about them, only experienced
- similar to this, agnostic views: it is not possible to know (much) about god(s) and they mayWould it make any sense to see the older Darwin as an ietsist?
not exist. It is in particular not possible to rationally argue for the truth of one religion
over the other, though it is possible to argue that some have better social effects than others.
--
alias Ernest Major
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:10:59 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
OOPS! while I was putting the finishing touches on my reply to Daggett, the blue announcement at the bottom of my screen flashed
for the post to which I am now replying, and I assumed it was an incoming post.
Oh, well, no harm done.
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:40:56 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 2:05:47 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:10:37 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:10:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:Is this a duplicate of the following YouTube film? the title is the same.
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:35:36?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak, >> describing the current status of his team's efforts to identify >> plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with aThe original lecture was "The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer"
30-minute Q&A with the audience.
Some of the highlights of the lecture include demonstrations of how
lipid bilayers abiotically self-assemble, grow, and divide,
nonenzymatic RNA duplication, abiotic substrates for protein
synthesis, and functions of the first peptides.
The lecture suffers from multiple technical glitches. IMO the >> information Szostak provides despite these glitches make viewing this
video worthwhile.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g>
https://www.youtube.com/@asuchemistry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLzyco3Q_Rg
The YouTube is the lecture slides.Your comment illustrates a limit of transcripts, which identified it
as a "hiring lecture", which led me to imagine Szostack was doing an
overly demanding job interview.
You seem familiar with the context of this lecture. I was surprisedThere were 2 lectures. The YouTube posted was for the general audience. The professional audience was the following day.
at the number of children in the audience and the naivete of many of
the questions, suggesting something like the Royal Institute's Christmas lectures, in contrast to a presentation to Szostack's professional peers.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
https://news.asu.edu/20230309-nobel-laureate-jack-szostak-deliver-distinguished-eyring-lecture-series-asuThis is just an announcement, not even a synopsis of the film.
I have no idea why the professional audience lecture was not video taped of YouTube.
The following statement touched off a burst of sarcasm by you, Burkhard:
Perhaps they were concerned about how much ignorance Szostak revealed among the best
scientists as to how abiogenesis COULD have occurred. Perhaps the questions the professional
scientists asked might be even more embarrassing to Szostak.
What an erudite analysis, and an excellent example of seeing the "benefit of the doubt"Is this where the sarcasm stops?
in action used by one of the greatest minds on TO!
no no, go on, not finished yet
(you often tell us that that's what you are,
Is this your idea of a joke that no one should take seriously?
both
and as you also often told us that you are the most honest person here,
Is this an allusion to my frequent calling of myself a "goddamn moralizer"?
give the man a cigar! Or rather, that among many other examples where you feel the need to tell everybody just what a paragon of virtue you are
There are a number of people here whose complete honesty I have seen
no reason to doubt, and I have alluded to that fact on occasion.
One of them is someone whom you've gotten egg
on your face for vitriolic comments that turned out to be false: Ron Dean.
So far you failed to show any mistake I made.
IIRC, you only whined a lot that I
wasn't sufficiently harsh to other people who had been mean, mean I say, to you,
And yet, here we are again, you engaging in the same character assassination, even though you know that these claims are factually wqromg. Do you intend to male IDlers/creationists look bad? Because you do a sterling job of achieving just that
Oh, and some pretty inane comments about German law and culture,
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:51:00 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:10:59 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:I've gotten to wondering, though: is it possible to spoof dates as successfully
OOPS! while I was putting the finishing touches on my reply to Daggett, the blue announcement at the bottom of my screen flashed
for the post to which I am now replying, and I assumed it was an incoming post.
Oh, well, no harm done.
as it is to spoof email addresses? I ask because I once got an email from
a colleague dated in the year 1973, more than a decade before he sent it. He explained
that if he made a specialized kind of mistake in his email, an automated command would
put it at the bottom of the recipient's inbox with that date.
Back in those days, my mailbox was much less cluttered with earlier email than it is now, and that is how I was able to find it in the first place, at the very bottom.
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:40:56 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 2:05:47 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:10:37 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:10:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:Is this a duplicate of the following YouTube film? the title is the same.
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:35:36?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >> The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak,
describing the current status of his team's efforts to identifyThe original lecture was "The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer"
plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with a
30-minute Q&A with the audience.
Some of the highlights of the lecture include demonstrations of how
lipid bilayers abiotically self-assemble, grow, and divide, >> nonenzymatic RNA duplication, abiotic substrates for protein >> synthesis, and functions of the first peptides.
The lecture suffers from multiple technical glitches. IMO the >> information Szostak provides despite these glitches make viewing this
video worthwhile.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g>
https://www.youtube.com/@asuchemistry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLzyco3Q_Rg
The YouTube is the lecture slides.Your comment illustrates a limit of transcripts, which identified it
as a "hiring lecture", which led me to imagine Szostack was doing an
overly demanding job interview.
You seem familiar with the context of this lecture. I was surprisedThere were 2 lectures. The YouTube posted was for the general audience. The professional audience was the following day.
at the number of children in the audience and the naivete of many of
the questions, suggesting something like the Royal Institute's Christmas lectures, in contrast to a presentation to Szostack's professional peers.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
https://news.asu.edu/20230309-nobel-laureate-jack-szostak-deliver-distinguished-eyring-lecture-series-asuThis is just an announcement, not even a synopsis of the film.
I have no idea why the professional audience lecture was not video taped of YouTube.
The following statement touched off a burst of sarcasm by you, Burkhard:
Perhaps they were concerned about how much ignorance Szostak revealed among the best
scientists as to how abiogenesis COULD have occurred. Perhaps the questions the professional
scientists asked might be even more embarrassing to Szostak.
What an erudite analysis, and an excellent example of seeing the "benefit of the doubt"Is this where the sarcasm stops?
in action used by one of the greatest minds on TO!
no no, go on, not finished yet
(you often tell us that that's what you are,
Is this your idea of a joke that no one should take seriously?
bothThanks for clarifying.
and as you also often told us that you are the most honest person here,
Is this an allusion to my frequent calling of myself a "goddamn moralizer"?
give the man a cigar! Or rather, that among many other examples where you feel the need to tell everybody just what a paragon of virtue you areMore of the same sarcasm, obviously.
I use the word "goddamn" for a reason, which is that most people
here act as though it were despicably rude for me to document
dishonesty, hypocrisy, harassment, etc. in a way that SHOWS it is one of those things.
This is a complete contrast to total lack of evidence used by the person who tried to get
DIG to ban me from talk.origins, and the way he got treated for
his opposite kind of rudeness. All he got from most people who replied to his flood
of vile, trumped-up charges against me was the "good cop" treatment, "Just ignore him."
You were an exception, except that I can't recall whether you told him
in direct reply that you think he should be the one who is banned.
There are a number of people here whose complete honesty I have seen
no reason to doubt, and I have alluded to that fact on occasion.
One of them is someone whom you've gotten egg
on your face for vitriolic comments that turned out to be false: Ron Dean.
So far you failed to show any mistake I made.The main "mistake" was to flat out accuse him of lying when, in fact,
he had just failed to realize that Paley had written two different
works with the same keywords in the title: one that was required reading
for Darwin, the other optional. I went through your whole vitriolic post here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0XgjzJpuiMA/m/VTRzF_sdBgAJ
Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
Jul 20, 2023, 9:50:46 PM
Have you been keeping up with the way he exonerated himself of deliberate lying?
Thanks perhaps to your admired jillery replying to it first, in her own inimitable way,
your reply to the linked post was a travesty that I won't have time to properly
deal with for several months.
Here is just one thing, for now. You missed the point in the one place where Martin Harran
addressed a tiny bit while snipping out the rest. He missed the point in a different way,
but that's another story.
I wanted to know whether *everyday* German had a concept equivalent
to "giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt." The word "guy" (statt e.g.,"person")
tipped off Martin, but not you.
You went into a long spiel about how the German legal system uses the concept,
but never said anything about common everyday speech. Here in the USA,
the concept comes naturally to most people, even though it may be "more honored in the breach
than in the observance," as Shakespeare put it in "Hamlet."
Care to address that issue now?
IIRC, you only whined a lot that IWrong in every detail. Here is what you are dishonestly and condescendingly spin-doctoring the bejesus out of in the last sentence:
wasn't sufficiently harsh to other people who had been mean, mean I say, to you,
[EXCERPT FROM NEAR THE END OF THE LINKED POST]
And yet, here we are again, you engaging in the same character assassination, even though you know that these claims are factually wqromg. Do you intend to male IDlers/creationists look bad? Because you do a sterling job of achieving just that
You lack a sense of proportion. I could document far worse behavior by Harshman
and jillery,
[END OF EXCERPT]
That was Ron Dean whom you accused, not me. Your "to you,"
is thus of the genre of one of Harshman's favorite formulae,
"It's all about you, isn't it?"
On this thread you can see just how fulsomely that formula applies to him. It's in the first half of the last reply he did to me on this very thread.
I haven't replied to that post yet, but I will reply either today or tomorrow.
Oh, and some pretty inane comments about German law and culture,See above about the one in the linked post. I await your reply to my last question.
Remainder deleted, with on-topic parts to be replied to within a week.
Peter Nyikos
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:51:00 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
.Is this an allusion to my frequent calling of myself a "goddamn moralizer"?
.give the man a cigar! Or rather, that among many other examples where you feel the need to tell everybody just what a paragon of virtue you are
More of the same sarcasm, obviously.
I use the word "goddamn" for a reason, which is that most people
here act as though it were despicably rude for me to document
dishonesty, hypocrisy, harassment, etc. in a way that SHOWS it is one of those things.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:01:01 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:51:00 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
.Is this an allusion to my frequent calling of myself a "goddamn moralizer"?
.give the man a cigar! Or rather, that among many other examples where you
feel the need to tell everybody just what a paragon of virtue you are
More of the same sarcasm, obviously.Half right, I suspect.
I use the word "goddamn" for a reason, which is that most peopleI should know better but I'm jumping in anyway.
here act as though it were despicably rude for me to document
dishonesty, hypocrisy, harassment, etc. in a way that SHOWS it is one of those things.
You misapprehend. It is not really that you __attempt__ to document where others are being dishonest. It's where you repeatedly claim to have succeeded
to people who honestly don't agree that you have.
Then, you take the fact that they don't agree that you succeeded in documenting
the dishonesty of others, as a mark that those who disagree on that point are
also dishonest. People recognize this as a house of cards. You are convinced,
they are not. Wash, rinse, repeat.
As a minor point, there are those who likely think the initial effort, to somehow
prove that somebody else is lying, is a misguided sideshow. But I expect that
such a feeling is at least in part predicated on having previous experience with the cycle indicated above. It almost never succeeds in convincing anyone other than the author of the accusations, and that author then compounds
the situation. Ultimately, a significant fraction of the accusations of dishonestly
seem linked to people who don't believe prior accusations of dishonestly were
either successfully or wisely prosecuted.
That you characterize this as your audience being amoral atheists just ices the cake.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 6:01:01?PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:51:00?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:10:59?PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:I've gotten to wondering, though: is it possible to spoof dates as successfully
OOPS! while I was putting the finishing touches on my reply to Daggett, >> > > the blue announcement at the bottom of my screen flashed
for the post to which I am now replying, and I assumed it was an incoming post.
Oh, well, no harm done.
as it is to spoof email addresses? I ask because I once got an email from >> a colleague dated in the year 1973, more than a decade before he sent it. He explained
that if he made a specialized kind of mistake in his email, an automated command would
put it at the bottom of the recipient's inbox with that date.
Back in those days, my mailbox was much less cluttered with earlier email >> than it is now, and that is how I was able to find it in the first place, at the very bottom.
Thanks for clarifying.On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:40:56?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 2:05:47?AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:10:37?PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote: >> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:10:36?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
Is this a duplicate of the following YouTube film? the title is the same.On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:11:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:35:36?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >> > > > > > > >> The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak,
describing the current status of his team's efforts to identifyThe original lecture was "The Origin of Life: Not as Hard as it Looks? Jack Szosta, Spring 2023 Eyring Lecturer"
plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with a
30-minute Q&A with the audience.
Some of the highlights of the lecture include demonstrations of how
lipid bilayers abiotically self-assemble, grow, and divide, >> > > > > > > >> nonenzymatic RNA duplication, abiotic substrates for protein >> > > > > > > >> synthesis, and functions of the first peptides.
The lecture suffers from multiple technical glitches. IMO the
information Szostak provides despite these glitches make viewing this
video worthwhile.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g>
https://www.youtube.com/@asuchemistry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLzyco3Q_Rg
This is just an announcement, not even a synopsis of the film.There were 2 lectures. The YouTube posted was for the general audience. The professional audience was the following day.Your comment illustrates a limit of transcripts, which identified it
The YouTube is the lecture slides.
as a "hiring lecture", which led me to imagine Szostack was doing an
overly demanding job interview.
You seem familiar with the context of this lecture. I was surprised
at the number of children in the audience and the naivete of many of
the questions, suggesting something like the Royal Institute's >> > > > > > > Christmas lectures, in contrast to a presentation to Szostack's >> > > > > > > professional peers.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
https://news.asu.edu/20230309-nobel-laureate-jack-szostak-deliver-distinguished-eyring-lecture-series-asu
I have no idea why the professional audience lecture was not video taped of YouTube.
The following statement touched off a burst of sarcasm by you, Burkhard:
Is this where the sarcasm stops?Perhaps they were concerned about how much ignorance Szostak revealed among the best
scientists as to how abiogenesis COULD have occurred. Perhaps the questions the professional
scientists asked might be even more embarrassing to Szostak.
What an erudite analysis, and an excellent example of seeing the "benefit of the doubt"
in action used by one of the greatest minds on TO!
no no, go on, not finished yet
(you often tell us that that's what you are,
Is this your idea of a joke that no one should take seriously?
both
More of the same sarcasm, obviously.and as you also often told us that you are the most honest person here,
Is this an allusion to my frequent calling of myself a "goddamn moralizer"?give the man a cigar! Or rather, that among many other examples where you >> > feel the need to tell everybody just what a paragon of virtue you are
yup
I use the word "goddamn" for a reason, which is that most people
here act as though it were despicably rude for me to document
dishonesty, hypocrisy, harassment, etc. in a way that SHOWS it is one of those things.
This is a complete contrast to total lack of evidence used by the person who tried to get
DIG to ban me from talk.origins, and the way he got treated for
his opposite kind of rudeness. All he got from most people who replied to his flood
of vile, trumped-up charges against me was the "good cop" treatment, "Just ignore him."
You were an exception, except that I can't recall whether you told him
in direct reply that you think he should be the one who is banned.
The main "mistake" was to flat out accuse him of lying when, in fact,There are a number of people here whose complete honesty I have seen
no reason to doubt, and I have alluded to that fact on occasion.
One of them is someone whom you've gotten egg
on your face for vitriolic comments that turned out to be false: Ron Dean.
So far you failed to show any mistake I made.
he had just failed to realize that Paley had written two different
works with the same keywords in the title: one that was required reading
for Darwin, the other optional. I went through your whole vitriolic post here:
You misread the post, as per usual. I accused him of lying because he had explicitly
accepted the evidence that Darwin's change in religious attitude and his research
in biology did not coincide just a few years ago, and that therefore his imputation
that Darwin's atheism motivated him to manipulate research data to achieve his
desired outcome was provably false.
Even though he accepted it at the time, he more or less verbatim posted the same claim,
with the same flawed evidence, again (and without any indication that he found anything
new that may have changed his mind). This is not the only case of this behaviour, I documented
it also for the "evo-devo" issue where he accepts at one point that his claims don't hold,
only to repeat them a few years later again, so there is a pattern.
His confusion about the two books was just a side issue for clarification.
Very much unlike you, before I accuse anyone of dishonesty I need strong evidence
that a) their claim is false and b) the person who makes the claim knows it to be false.
For the latter it is not enough that the person was shown strong evidence - a closed
mind can after all reject even very strong and compelling evidence. That >means it is almost never possible to accuse someone of lying on TO. This was one of the
exceptions, and my documentation was ways ahead of anything you ever provide >when accusing people of dishonesty.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0XgjzJpuiMA/m/VTRzF_sdBgAJ
Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
Jul 20, 2023, 9:50:46?PM
Have you been keeping up with the way he exonerated himself of deliberate lying?
Thanks perhaps to your admired jillery replying to it first, in her own inimitable way,
your reply to the linked post was a travesty that I won't have time to properly
deal with for several months.
Here is just one thing, for now. You missed the point in the one place where Martin Harran
addressed a tiny bit while snipping out the rest. He missed the point in a different way,
but that's another story.
I have no idea what any of the above means.
I wanted to know whether *everyday* German had a concept equivalent
to "giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt." The word "guy" (statt e.g.,"person")
tipped off Martin, but not you.
You went into a long spiel about how the German legal system uses the concept,
but never said anything about common everyday speech. Here in the USA,
the concept comes naturally to most people, even though it may be "more honored in the breach
than in the observance," as Shakespeare put it in "Hamlet."
First, the concept is a technical legal term, so if you use it, you should expect an answer along
these lines. Second, you assume without evidence that there is a big gap between
the acceptance of an idea in the legal system and public attitudes, which for democracies at
least is highly implausible.
Third, I have no intention to engage further with your US centric bigotry that ascribes
(without objective evidence of course) positive and negative character traits to entire
people. I guess I can only assume that you do this because you live in a former
slaveholder state where the attitude of charactering, classifying and denigrating people
because of their ancestry is second nature to everyone - or so I would argue if I had your
mindset, I guess. As I don't, treat it not as a statement of my actual belief, but an attempt
to hold a mirror up to show just how unacceptable your behaviour is - for all the good it will do
Care to address that issue now?
IIRC, you only whined a lot that IWrong in every detail. Here is what you are dishonestly and condescendingly >> spin-doctoring the bejesus out of in the last sentence:
wasn't sufficiently harsh to other people who had been mean, mean I say, to you,
[EXCERPT FROM NEAR THE END OF THE LINKED POST]
And yet, here we are again, you engaging in the same character assassination, even though you know that these claims are factually wqromg. Do you intend to male IDlers/creationists look bad? Because you do a sterling job of achieving just that
You lack a sense of proportion. I could document far worse behavior by Harshman
and jillery,
[END OF EXCERPT]
That was Ron Dean whom you accused, not me. Your "to you,"
is thus of the genre of one of Harshman's favorite formulae,
"It's all about you, isn't it?"
So? And your response was that there are other people who in your view do even worse than Ron
Just as I said
On this thread you can see just how fulsomely that formula applies to him. >> It's in the first half of the last reply he did to me on this very thread. >>
I haven't replied to that post yet, but I will reply either today or tomorrow.
Oh, and some pretty inane comments about German law and culture,See above about the one in the linked post. I await your reply to my last question.
Remainder deleted, with on-topic parts to be replied to within a week.
Peter Nyikos
In the century BC, an amateur Noah built an ark, and in 1912 AD,
professionals built the Titanic . . . Result: the amateur was luckier
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:45:55 AM UTC+1, Pro Plyd wrote:
jillery wrote:
this should answer all your dinosaur diet related questions. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-015-0047-2
Pro Plyd wrote:You finally admit it. Good.
Name some ->
There are none what so ever.
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:45:55?AM UTC+1, Pro Plyd wrote:
jillery wrote:
this should answer all your dinosaur diet related questions.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-015-0047-2
Hmmm. Doesn't say which wine goes good with sauropterygians.
Third, I have no intention to engage further with your US centric bigotry that ascribes
(without objective evidence of course) positive and negative character traits to entire
people. I guess I can only assume that you do this because you live in a former
slaveholder state [. . .]
On 8/3/23 10:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
[snip to an off-topic pet peeve]
Third, I have no intention to engage further with your US centric bigotry that ascribes
(without objective evidence of course) positive and negative character traits to entire
people. I guess I can only assume that you do this because you live in a former
slaveholder state [. . .]
I consider it inaccurate to refer to South Carolina (or any US state) as
a "former" slaveholder state. The 13h amendment, which people
abbreviate to say it repealed slavery, includes an exception for people >convicted of crime. Treating them as slaves is still legal, and still >routine. Nor is this a nitpick, since it explains why the US prison >population is far greater than that of any other country in the world,
and why those people are disproportionately black.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:01:01?PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:51:00?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
.Is this an allusion to my frequent calling of myself a "goddamn moralizer"?
.give the man a cigar! Or rather, that among many other examples where you >> > feel the need to tell everybody just what a paragon of virtue you are
More of the same sarcasm, obviously.
Half right, I suspect.
I use the word "goddamn" for a reason, which is that most people
here act as though it were despicably rude for me to document
dishonesty, hypocrisy, harassment, etc. in a way that SHOWS it is one of those things.
I should know better but I'm jumping in anyway.
You misapprehend. It is not really that you __attempt__ to document where >others are being dishonest. It's where you repeatedly claim to have succeeded >to people who honestly don't agree that you have.
Then, you take the fact that they don't agree that you succeeded in documenting
the dishonesty of others, as a mark that those who disagree on that point are >also dishonest.
People recognize this as a house of cards. You are convinced,
they are not. Wash, rinse, repeat.
As a minor point, there are those who likely think the initial effort, to somehow
prove that somebody else is lying, is a misguided sideshow. But I expect that >such a feeling is at least in part predicated on having previous experience >with the cycle indicated above. It almost never succeeds in convincing
anyone other than the author of the accusations, and that author then compounds
the situation. Ultimately, a significant fraction of the accusations of dishonestly
seem linked to people who don't believe prior accusations of dishonestly were >either successfully or wisely prosecuted.
That you characterize this as your audience being amoral atheists just ices the cake.
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 08:01:28 -0700, Mark Isaak ><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 8/3/23 10:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
[snip to an off-topic pet peeve]
Third, I have no intention to engage further with your US centric bigotry that ascribes
(without objective evidence of course) positive and negative character traits to entire
people. I guess I can only assume that you do this because you live in a former
slaveholder state [. . .]
I consider it inaccurate to refer to South Carolina (or any US state) as
a "former" slaveholder state. The 13h amendment, which people
abbreviate to say it repealed slavery, includes an exception for people >>convicted of crime. Treating them as slaves is still legal, and still >>routine. Nor is this a nitpick, since it explains why the US prison >>population is far greater than that of any other country in the world,
and why those people are disproportionately black.
Hasn't the concept of 'slaveholder' now been dispelled as these were
really people imparting skills that would be to the benefit of these >so-called slaves in later life?
this should answer all your dinosaur diet related questions.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-015-0047-2
Hmmm. Doesn't say which wine goes good with sauropterygians.
One event happened...
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:45:55 AM UTC+1, Pro Plyd wrote:
jillery wrote:
this should answer all your dinosaur diet related questions. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-015-0047-2
Hmmm. Doesn't say which wine goes good with sauropterygians.
On 7/24/23 2:38 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to be so late with this, John. As you probably know, I've been intensely busy on the thread, Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/23 3:18 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
who, when confronted with
evidence of transitional forms,
... under the broad idea of the word "transitional forms" whereby
a platypus is somehow "transitional" between mammals and
living reptiles? Harshman did this a long while ago.
demand evidence of transitional forms
for those transitional forms. It's easy to dismiss what is known by >>>> pointing to what is unknown.
You are taking refuge in a huge generality. Try arguing this specific case:So you take a passing comment that doesn't even concern me as an
It is easy to dismiss ideas of "transitional" forms that still
leave huge gaps, like the best candidate for ancestry of full-fledged >>> pterosaurs being a lizardlike reptile that shows no signs of developing gliding
membranes, let alone wings, and whose forelimbs were much shorter than its hindlimbs.
opportunity to rant about how dumb I am?
What's gotten into you, John? Lately you've been turning one on-topic issue after another into a purely personal one, and an intense one
at that, simply because we are in disagreement over some statement involving on-topic matters.
I would say that you're doing that. It's not that we are in
disagreement, per se. It's that you introduce attacks on me into random topics.
Now you've taken that dysfunctional behavior to a new depth
by taking umbrage over a factual statement that you not only
do not disagree with, you *confirm* it below!
Your language says that it's a bad, in fact ignorant, thing to do. Is
that sort of characterization happening below the level of consciousness
for you?
I was just letting jillery know how loosely the word
"transitional" is used these days. And what better authority to cite than you, who are the default person for most t.o. regulars to go to for information
on systematics?
So where do you get this stuff about "dumb"? Have you forgotten
what semantics is all about?
No. Connotation here is all. That wasn't a simple statement of fact. It
was an attack.
Of course a platypus is a
transitional form, in exactly the sense paleontologists mean the term.
Could you please point us to a published source where a paleontologist uses the
following definition?
It displays a combination of traits intermediate between the "reptilian" >> and "mammalian" conditions. That is, it retains some primitive traits
long since transformed in other mammal lineages.
Can you point us to a published source where a paleontologist uses any other?
If transitional forms had to be ancestral, there could be none
known, since we can't recognize ancestors. Is Acanthostega ancestral to anything? Is Archaeopteryx? No way to know, and yet we consider them transitional. Most known maniraptorans postdate Archaeopteryx, yet they
too are considered transitional forms. The age of the fossil is not important, and it doesn't even have to be a fossil.
I'm sure jillery appreciates the way you took the attention off
the challenge I gave her way up there.
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:05:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/24/23 2:38 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to be so late with this, John. As you probably know, I've been
intensely busy on the thread, Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/23 3:18 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
who, when confronted with
evidence of transitional forms,
... under the broad idea of the word "transitional forms" whereby
a platypus is somehow "transitional" between mammals and
living reptiles? Harshman did this a long while ago.
demand evidence of transitional forms
for those transitional forms. It's easy to dismiss what is known by >>>>>> pointing to what is unknown.
You are taking refuge in a huge generality. Try arguing this specific case:So you take a passing comment that doesn't even concern me as an
It is easy to dismiss ideas of "transitional" forms that still
leave huge gaps, like the best candidate for ancestry of full-fledged >>>>> pterosaurs being a lizardlike reptile that shows no signs of developing gliding
membranes, let alone wings, and whose forelimbs were much shorter than its hindlimbs.
opportunity to rant about how dumb I am?
What's gotten into you, John? Lately you've been turning one on-topic
issue after another into a purely personal one, and an intense one
at that, simply because we are in disagreement over some statement
involving on-topic matters.
I would say that you're doing that. It's not that we are in
disagreement, per se. It's that you introduce attacks on me into random
topics.
Now you've taken that dysfunctional behavior to a new depth
by taking umbrage over a factual statement that you not only
do not disagree with, you *confirm* it below!
Your language says that it's a bad, in fact ignorant, thing to do. Is
that sort of characterization happening below the level of consciousness
for you?
I was just letting jillery know how loosely the word
"transitional" is used these days. And what better authority to cite than >>> you, who are the default person for most t.o. regulars to go to for information
on systematics?
So where do you get this stuff about "dumb"? Have you forgotten
what semantics is all about?
No. Connotation here is all. That wasn't a simple statement of fact. It
was an attack.
It's obvious now: you were just being smart-alecky everywhere above.
You even admitted to being a smart alec in sci.bio.paleontology
last month.
I'm sure jillery appreciates the way you took the attention off
the challenge I gave her way up there.
Of course a platypus is a
transitional form, in exactly the sense paleontologists mean the term.
Here is how you defined it below:
Could you please point us to a published source where a paleontologist uses the
following definition?
Repeated from below:
It displays a combination of traits intermediate between the "reptilian" >>>> and "mammalian" conditions. That is, it retains some primitive traits
long since transformed in other mammal lineages.
You ducked this question:
Can you point us to a published source where a paleontologist uses any
other?
YES!!
It took a long time before it finally occurred to me that a famous quotation uses a very different definition:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and
nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,
not the evidence of fossils.
--Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," _Natural History_,
vol. 86(5) (May 1987): pp. 12-16, at p. 14
Reprinted in _The Panda's Thumb_, pp. 181-182.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
By YOUR definition, the strata are full of transitional fossils, so you
have inadvertently consigned Stephen J. Gould to the ranks of non-paleontologists.
Now tell me: was all that smart-alecky garbage about connotations designed
to distract me from thinking about your question? It almost worked.
If transitional forms had to be ancestral, there could be none
known, since we can't recognize ancestors. Is Acanthostega ancestral to
anything? Is Archaeopteryx? No way to know, and yet we consider them
transitional. Most known maniraptorans postdate Archaeopteryx, yet they
too are considered transitional forms. The age of the fossil is not
important, and it doesn't even have to be a fossil.
I leave it to you to tell everyone whether one of your fellow cladophiles posed this line of argument to Gould, and if not, why not.
On 8/7/23 6:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:05:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/24/23 2:38 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to be so late with this, John. As you probably know, I've been
intensely busy on the thread, Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 7/14/23 3:18 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
who, when confronted with
evidence of transitional forms,
... under the broad idea of the word "transitional forms" whereby >>>>> a platypus is somehow "transitional" between mammals and
living reptiles? Harshman did this a long while ago.
demand evidence of transitional forms
for those transitional forms. It's easy to dismiss what is known by >>>>>> pointing to what is unknown.
You are taking refuge in a huge generality. Try arguing this specific case:So you take a passing comment that doesn't even concern me as an
It is easy to dismiss ideas of "transitional" forms that still
leave huge gaps, like the best candidate for ancestry of full-fledged >>>>> pterosaurs being a lizardlike reptile that shows no signs of developing gliding
membranes, let alone wings, and whose forelimbs were much shorter than its hindlimbs.
opportunity to rant about how dumb I am?
What's gotten into you, John? Lately you've been turning one on-topic >>> issue after another into a purely personal one, and an intense one
at that, simply because we are in disagreement over some statement
involving on-topic matters.
I would say that you're doing that. It's not that we are in
disagreement, per se. It's that you introduce attacks on me into random >> topics.
Now you've taken that dysfunctional behavior to a new depth
by taking umbrage over a factual statement that you not only
do not disagree with, you *confirm* it below!
Your language says that it's a bad, in fact ignorant, thing to do. Is
that sort of characterization happening below the level of consciousness >> for you?
I was just letting jillery know how loosely the word
"transitional" is used these days. And what better authority to cite than
you, who are the default person for most t.o. regulars to go to for information
on systematics?
So where do you get this stuff about "dumb"? Have you forgotten
what semantics is all about?
No. Connotation here is all. That wasn't a simple statement of fact. It >> was an attack.
It's obvious now: you were just being smart-alecky everywhere above.
You even admitted to being a smart alec in sci.bio.paleontology
last month.
I'm sure jillery appreciates the way you took the attention off
the challenge I gave her way up there.
I'm going to point to this as evidence of your inability to detect humor
or to untangle humorous and serious aspects of a post or even a single sentence.
On 8/7/23 6:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:05:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/24/23 2:38 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/23 6:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:05:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/24/23 2:38 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
Of course a platypus is a
transitional form, in exactly the sense paleontologists mean the term.
Could you please point us to a published source where a paleontologist uses the
following definition?
Repeated from below:
It displays a combination of traits intermediate between the "reptilian"
and "mammalian" conditions. That is, it retains some primitive traits >>>> long since transformed in other mammal lineages.
You ducked this question:
Can you point us to a published source where a paleontologist uses any
other?
YES!!
No, as it happens. You are misreading.
It took a long time before it finally occurred to me that a famous quotation
uses a very different definition:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and
nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,
not the evidence of fossils.
--Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," _Natural History_,
vol. 86(5) (May 1987): pp. 12-16, at p. 14
Reprinted in _The Panda's Thumb_, pp. 181-182. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
By YOUR definition, the strata are full of transitional fossils, so you have inadvertently consigned Stephen J. Gould to the ranks of non-paleontologists.
That's pathetic.
Gould is talking about the fine transitions between species.
As you presumably know,
he later complained that creationists
were using his words in the same way you try to here,
and he responded
by stating that transitions between higher groups were abundant.
If transitional forms had to be ancestral, there could be none
known, since we can't recognize ancestors. Is Acanthostega ancestral to >> anything? Is Archaeopteryx? No way to know, and yet we consider them
transitional. Most known maniraptorans postdate Archaeopteryx, yet they >> too are considered transitional forms. The age of the fossil is not
important, and it doesn't even have to be a fossil.
I leave it to you to tell everyone whether one of your fellow cladophiles posed this line of argument to Gould, and if not, why not.
I have no idea. But I suppose asking the question means you don't have
to think about what I said.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:26:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/7/23 6:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:05:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/24/23 2:38 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to be so late with this, John. As you probably know, I've been >>>>> intensely busy on the thread, Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 7/14/23 3:18 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
who, when confronted with
evidence of transitional forms,
... under the broad idea of the word "transitional forms" whereby >>>>>>> a platypus is somehow "transitional" between mammals and
living reptiles? Harshman did this a long while ago.
demand evidence of transitional forms
for those transitional forms. It's easy to dismiss what is known by >>>>>>>> pointing to what is unknown.
You are taking refuge in a huge generality. Try arguing this specific case:So you take a passing comment that doesn't even concern me as an
It is easy to dismiss ideas of "transitional" forms that still
leave huge gaps, like the best candidate for ancestry of full-fledged >>>>>>> pterosaurs being a lizardlike reptile that shows no signs of developing gliding
membranes, let alone wings, and whose forelimbs were much shorter than its hindlimbs.
opportunity to rant about how dumb I am?
What's gotten into you, John? Lately you've been turning one on-topic >>>>> issue after another into a purely personal one, and an intense one
at that, simply because we are in disagreement over some statement
involving on-topic matters.
I would say that you're doing that. It's not that we are in
disagreement, per se. It's that you introduce attacks on me into random >>>> topics.
Now you've taken that dysfunctional behavior to a new depth
by taking umbrage over a factual statement that you not only
do not disagree with, you *confirm* it below!
Your language says that it's a bad, in fact ignorant, thing to do. Is
that sort of characterization happening below the level of consciousness >>>> for you?
I was just letting jillery know how loosely the word
"transitional" is used these days. And what better authority to cite than >>>>> you, who are the default person for most t.o. regulars to go to for information
on systematics?
So where do you get this stuff about "dumb"? Have you forgotten
what semantics is all about?
No. Connotation here is all. That wasn't a simple statement of fact. It >>>> was an attack.
It's obvious now: you were just being smart-alecky everywhere above.
You even admitted to being a smart alec in sci.bio.paleontology
last month.
And below, you show your amazing degree of chutzpah by ignoring
the sequel of that admission, with the climax here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/cdqVyJHLShc/m/tZ-PydubAAAJ Re: Attack of the mammals
Aug 2, 2023, 6:12:11 PM
I'm sure jillery appreciates the way you took the attention off
the challenge I gave her way up there.
You next revert to a decade-old scam of yours, about which
you were caught telling a whopper of a lie in the linked post.
In your pathetic reply to the same linked post, you reverted to the
role of an unfairly maligned person who only wanted to get back to
on-topic discussion.
Now you let us see just how much on-topic discussion REALLY means to you:
I'm going to point to this as evidence of your inability to detect humor
or to untangle humorous and serious aspects of a post or even a single
sentence.
Baloney. Every last bit of what you had written above earlier,
was you being smart-alecky.
One of several reasons why I describe you as being "The most cunningly dishonest person in talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology"
is that your comments run the entire spectrum from obvious jokes
to shameless lies, with a gradualism that Darwin had hoped for evolution to follow.
In the linked post, you were caught red-handed in a shameless lie about your decade-old scam.
The topic shifted abruptly here, so I will do a separate reply for it,
to be done shortly after I see that this one has posted.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:26:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/7/23 6:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:05:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/24/23 2:38 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:26:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/7/23 6:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 6:05:51 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/24/23 2:38 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Picking up where I left off in the preceding post:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
Of course a platypus is aCould you please point us to a published source where a paleontologist uses the
transitional form, in exactly the sense paleontologists mean the term. >>>
following definition?
Repeated from below:
It displays a combination of traits intermediate between the "reptilian" >>>>>> and "mammalian" conditions. That is, it retains some primitive traits >>>>>> long since transformed in other mammal lineages.
You ducked this question:
Can you point us to a published source where a paleontologist uses any >>>> other?
YES!!
No, as it happens. You are misreading.
The part I quoted [see below] perfectly fits a use of the word "transitional."
You are actually talking here about an alleged context, which
is impossible to misread, because you didn't give one.
It took a long time before it finally occurred to me that a famous quotation
uses a very different definition:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and
nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,
not the evidence of fossils.
--Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," _Natural History_,
vol. 86(5) (May 1987): pp. 12-16, at p. 14
Reprinted in _The Panda's Thumb_, pp. 181-182.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
By YOUR definition, the strata are full of transitional fossils, so you
have inadvertently consigned Stephen J. Gould to the ranks of non-paleontologists.
That's pathetic.
Under-supported gratuitous put-down noted.
Gould is talking about the fine transitions between species.
Is that supposed to be true because YOU say so, with nothing said about the context?
Here are the two sentences IMMEDIATELY before the one that starts the quote:
"We do not see slow evolutionary change in the fossil record because we study only one step in thousands. Change seems to be abrupt because the intermediate steps are missing."
There is one "exception that proves the rule" where there are many times fewer
than a thousand fine transitions between successive species in the fossil record.
This is the horse family, the topic of Kathleen Hunt's excellent FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
But there is hardly any other family with such fine fossil gradations.
It is more common to see thousands of steps missing between It is more common to see thousands of steps missing between
one kind of animal and something closely resembling a possible ancestor.
Two examples are bats and pterosaurs, with nothing known between
expert fliers and any possible fully terrestrial ancestors.
As you presumably know,
I know nothing like what you claim next, prevaricator:
he later complained that creationists
were using his words in the same way you try to here,
I accuse you of misrepresenting what creationists claim.
Let's see whether you plead not guilty, and give a credible defense.
and he responded
by stating that transitions between higher groups were abundant.
I'd like to see a direct quote, with a source whose context I can
read for myself. As I indicated above, your handwaving away
of contexts is highly suspicious.
<snip of irrelevant polemical interlude>
If transitional forms had to be ancestral, there could be none
known, since we can't recognize ancestors. Is Acanthostega ancestral to >>>> anything? Is Archaeopteryx? No way to know, and yet we consider them
transitional. Most known maniraptorans postdate Archaeopteryx, yet they >>>> too are considered transitional forms. The age of the fossil is not
important, and it doesn't even have to be a fossil.
I leave it to you to tell everyone whether one of your fellow cladophiles >>> posed this line of argument to Gould, and if not, why not.
I have no idea. But I suppose asking the question means you don't have
to think about what I said.
I've thought about everything you've said on this thread, but what you
said above starts with a perennial claim of yours that throws Kathleen Hunt's claims of direct ancestry in her FAQ under the bus, along with my talk about "prime ancestor candidates".
But you left out your usual "proof": your cladophile way is "objective".
Like hell it is.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:10:59 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[...]
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:40:56 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 2:05:47 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:10:36 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:35:36?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
[...]The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak, >> describing the current status of his team's efforts to identify >> plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with a
30-minute Q&A with the audience.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U841Zrd4C5g>
I was surprised at the number of children in the audience and the naivete of many of
the questions, suggesting something like the Royal Institute's Christmas lectures, in contrast to a presentation to Szostack's professional peers.
you are of course totally right to speculate about the nefarious reasons
- as Sherlock Holmes used to say, if you have ruled out the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be true. Even if in this case it means that a Nobel
Laureate talking about his core field of research made a methodological plunder to
obvious that someone like you who has not spend a single hour of his life in a lab
doing abiogenesis research would immediately spot it!
The reality is much more mundane, as I told jillery elsethread:
[excerpt, my words from two separate posts:]
Szostak is about as good as they come in the field of OOL, and the way he admits
to how much we do NOT know, especially in the Q&A session, he is well worth listening to.
Note the words "the way" and "how much": not vague generalities like yours,
but one specific example after another.
[end of excerpt]
All documentable from the film with the help of the transcript.
And my point was not
how he acknowledges the gaps in our knowledge, but your accusation of misleading
experiment design.
Now me, I've always admitted that I'm a layperson when it comes to biology, so what would
I know. But I have spend quite a bit of time among scientists who also try to distinguish
between design and natural causes, and strangely enough they too would do all the things
you find objectionable below.
That's because their aims are often different from what you imagine.
Now I will show a spin doctor like you how I actually give Szostak the benefit of the doubt:
Szostak's abandonment in 13:00 - 13:50 [see below] was, I surmise, done in order to come
up with RNA sequences that are not found in living organisms, but which show what the percentage [3] of sequences are that are conducive to progress
towards "life as we know it," beginning with the first free-living bacteria [prokaryotes].
The kind of "forced evolution" they carry out is infinitely better than to just
sit down and try to come up with such a ribozyme from scratch.
[3] extraordinarily small by everyday standards, but perhaps not for the millions of years
and the size of earth for making OOL a reality. However, it would take a century or two
to succeed at that. But they are taking the first baby steps, at least if my giving them
the right benefit of the doubt.
still no idea what you mean,
My point was your claim that he made basic mistakes in
experimental design.
<snip of things to be dealt with later on this week>
I"m surprised no one in the audience of his lecture that WAS taped asked him about the following
anomaly. I'd be very disappointed if the professionals didn't pick up on it either.
At one point in the film, between the ca. 13:00 minute point and the ca. 13:50 point, Szostak
completely abandons the project of trying to re-create prebiotic conditions
or simulating something like natural selection. Instead, he talks about
an unspecified number of "generations" of RNA molecules in the laboratory,
in which the human experimenters carefully select the mutants that are in the direction of
"molecules that do uh what we want okay."
The "what we want" is to bind an ATP molecule, but they are still working on
how to bind more tightly to this quite simple molecule.
Human selection like this was well known before Darwin came along and showed how SOME
of it could be done (much more slowly!) via natural selection.
But Szostak's method is like Intelligent Design not only because it is a human selection process,
but because there was a specific goal in mind. The idea of physical processes having a specific direction
was abandoned over a century before Szostak's experiment.
Do you know enough about Darwin's theory to see the importance of what I wrote next?
Do you think Szostak knows enough about Darwin to anticipate this objection?
And do you think that a forensic arson investigator does not know that gusts of wind are not
send by Huracan to set houses of evildoers on fire, and still reconstruct sometimes a
fire by using ventilators that direct the wind just so that mock house is set on fire (e.g.
by a candle that tipps over?) to mirror as closely as possible the outcome of the real fire?
It doesn't seem like it -- you showed no sign of comprehending it in the part I snipped out.
You mean where I gave reasons why it doesn't matter for the purpose of the experiment that
evolution is not goal driven, and that in reconstruction of past events with known outcome,
we can frequently behave "as if" nature had the eventual outcome as goal, and nonetheless, if
done properly and carefully, get interesting results? You know that simply by snipping it in one post,
it does not go away and everyone can look up what I wrote elsethread?
After I pointed some of this out to Ron Dean on another thread, jillery figuratively threw
Charles Darwin under the bus by calling the distinction I was making between
human selection and natural selection "a PRATT."
My rebuttal to that can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0XgjzJpuiMA/m/mKMU6r1oBgAJ Re: EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN NATURE?
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:35:36?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak,
describing the current status of his team's efforts to identify
plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with a >> 30-minute Q&A with the audience.
Some of the highlights of the lecture include demonstrations of how >> lipid bilayers abiotically self-assemble, grow, and divide,
nonenzymatic RNA duplication, abiotic substrates for protein
synthesis, and functions of the first peptides.
Now me, I've always admitted that I'm a layperson when it comes to biology, so what would
I know. But I have spend quite a bit of time among scientists who also try to distinguish
between design and natural causes, and strangely enough they too would do all the things
you find objectionable below. They must be all doing it wrong then. So for instance in an
arson investigation, the initial question would be if the fire was the result of an accident or
planned. We'd try to recreate the scene as best as we can in, and quite intentionally with
varying degrees of correspondence to the hypothesised initial conditions. If e.g. the test is
if two adjacent materials would have allowed the fire to spread, ignoring for the moment
that it would have rained on the day makes the reconstruction easier, and still gives valuable
information if it shows no transfer was possible. The asymmetry between falsification
and confirmation sees to that.
A second reason is that the initial conditions are also only ever hypothesised, based
e.g. on witness statements or the weather report. These could be wrong or misleading.
So finding "a" reconstruction of a natural pathway is valuable, even if it only holds for
conditions that contradict the hypothesised initial conditions. Same I'd say with
abiogenesis: If we find a pathway from molecules to life, but one that requires conditions
other than those we think held when life was first formed on earth, can mean one of
several things:
- this is not how life originated on earth
- life did originate this way, but our theory about the "when" was wrong, it happened at
another time when other conditions held
- life did originate in this way, and at this time - we were simply wrong in our theories about
early earth.
Same issue with the use of "artificial selection" In any reconstruction, we try to achieve a known
goal - in our case a fire that creates a pattern that we can then compare with the pattern at the
crime scene. There is nothing paradoxical or untoward about it - when reconstructing a single historical
event under laboratory conditions, inevitably we know and direct it towards a predefined endpoint. The
only thing needed is to document all the design choices that went into the experiment, and then
if necessary carry out follow up tests to see if they can be removed.
So we'll nudge e.g. a candle towards the curtain, to see if the pattern from the burning curtain matches what
we found on the scene. If not then the "wind blew over a candle" hypothesis is falsified. If yes, then and only then
do we have to check if the candle could have fallen over by itself, or needed someone to push it the way we
did in the experiment. And if we find the human interference is necessary, then that tells us a lot
about the perpetrator/designer, what they did, when and how (here: threw a candle at the curtain)
All of this is pretty straightforward experimental design - and all experiments are after all designed.
So it seems to me that what Szostak does is not just perfectly legit, it is what any putative "ID scientists"
should do too, to see where exactly, how and in what way.with what tools the designer interfered. Strangely
enough, not a single one seems to care.
jillery wrote:*******************************
Since you two claim to know of examples, please cite any instanceNot worth my time,
where either of you think "troll" was used in a way that is
inconsistent with your cited definition.
*******************************
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A thread about banning, paradoxically about stopping
discussion of banning
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:31:17 -0700
Message-ID: <kgam9ilopukset84rt730pd99a0fqhie1a@4ax.com>
jillery wrote:*******************************
Since you two claim to know of examples, please cite any instanceNot worth my time,
where either of you think "troll" was used in a way that is
inconsistent with your cited definition.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 01:54:04 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
*******************************Why don't you get a life?
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A thread about banning, paradoxically about stopping >>discussion of banning
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:31:17 -0700
Message-ID: <kgam9ilopukset84rt730pd99a0fqhie1a@4ax.com>
jillery wrote:*******************************
Since you two claim to know of examples, please cite any instanceNot worth my time,
where either of you think "troll" was used in a way that is >>>>inconsistent with your cited definition.
(Predicted response: "You first.")
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 08:09:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 01:54:04 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
*******************************Why don't you get a life?
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A thread about banning, paradoxically about stopping >>>discussion of banning
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:31:17 -0700
Message-ID: <kgam9ilopukset84rt730pd99a0fqhie1a@4ax.com>
jillery wrote:*******************************
Since you two claim to know of examples, please cite any instance >>>>>where either of you think "troll" was used in a way that is >>>>>inconsistent with your cited definition.Not worth my time,
(Predicted response: "You first.")
Predicted reaction: you can't/won't follow your own advice.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:35:36?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
The following is a link to a 55-minute lecture by Jack Szostak,
describing the current status of his team's efforts to identify
plausible processes of abiogenesis. He follows his lecture with a
30-minute Q&A with the audience.
Some of the highlights of the lecture include demonstrations of how >> lipid bilayers abiotically self-assemble, grow, and divide,
nonenzymatic RNA duplication, abiotic substrates for protein
synthesis, and functions of the first peptides.
Now me, I've always admitted that I'm a layperson when it comes to biology, so what would
I know. But I have spend quite a bit of time among scientists who also try to distinguish
between design and natural causes, and strangely enough they too would do all the things
you find objectionable below.
They must be all doing it wrong then. So for instance in an
arson investigation, the initial question would be if the fire was the result of an accident or
planned. We'd try to recreate the scene as best as we can in, and quite intentionally with
varying degrees of correspondence to the hypothesised initial conditions.
If e.g. the test is
if two adjacent materials would have allowed the fire to spread, ignoring for the moment
that it would have rained on the day makes the reconstruction easier, and still gives valuable
information if it shows no transfer was possible. The asymmetry between falsification
and confirmation sees to that.
A second reason is that the initial conditions are also only ever hypothesised, based
e.g. on witness statements or the weather report. These could be wrong or misleading.
So finding "a" reconstruction of a natural pathway is valuable, even if it only holds for
conditions that contradict the hypothesised initial conditions. Same I'd say with
abiogenesis: If we find a pathway from molecules to life,
but one that requires conditions
other than those we think held when life was first formed on earth,
can mean one of
several things:
- this is not how life originated on earth
- life did originate this way, but our theory about the "when" was wrong, it happened at
another time when other conditions held
- life did originate in this way, and at this time - we were simply wrong in our theories about
early earth.
Same issue with the use of "artificial selection" In any reconstruction, we try to achieve a known
goal - in our case a fire that creates a pattern that we can then compare with the pattern at the
crime scene. There is nothing paradoxical or untoward about it - when reconstructing a single historical
event under laboratory conditions, inevitably we know and direct it towards a predefined endpoint. The
only thing needed is to document all the design choices that went into the experiment, and then
if necessary carry out follow up tests to see if they can be removed.
So we'll nudge e.g. a candle towards the curtain, to see if the pattern from the burning curtain matches what
we found on the scene. If not then the "wind blew over a candle" hypothesis is falsified. If yes, then and only then
do we have to check if the candle could have fallen over by itself, or needed someone to push it the way we
did in the experiment. And if we find the human interference is necessary, then that tells us a lot
about the perpetrator/designer, what they did, when and how (here: threw a candle at the curtain)
All of this is pretty straightforward experimental design - and all experiments are after all designed.
So it seems to me that what Szostak does is not just perfectly legit, it is what any putative "ID scientists"
should do too, to see where exactly, how and in what way. with what tools the designer interfered.
Strangely
enough, not a single one seems to care.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:55:50 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 08:09:32 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Ah, 6/7 words to say the same thing as 2! Well played!
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 01:54:04 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
*******************************Why don't you get a life?
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A thread about banning, paradoxically about stopping >>>>discussion of banning
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:31:17 -0700
Message-ID: <kgam9ilopukset84rt730pd99a0fqhie1a@4ax.com>
jillery wrote:*******************************
Since you two claim to know of examples, please cite any instance >>>>>>where either of you think "troll" was used in a way that is >>>>>>inconsistent with your cited definition.Not worth my time,
(Predicted response: "You first.")
Predicted reaction: you can't/won't follow your own advice.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 15:07:02 -0600, Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:45:55?AM UTC+1, Pro Plyd wrote:
jillery wrote:
this should answer all your dinosaur diet related questions.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-015-0047-2
Hmmm. Doesn't say which wine goes good with sauropterygians.
Good catch. Also, would it have to be kosher wine?
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:11:01 PM UTC+1, Pro Plyd wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:45:55 AM UTC+1, Pro Plyd wrote:Hmmm. Doesn't say which wine goes good with sauropterygians.
jillery wrote:
this should answer all your dinosaur diet related questions.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-015-0047-2
Serve beer, for pity's sake, everything else would add insult to injury. The event
that did it for the dinosaurs also caused changes in the grape family.
Here the scientific study https://academic.oup.com/aob/article-abstract/130/7/965/6772997?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
here the fun version https://botany.one/2022/11/to-make-a-fine-wine-you-need-to-kill-some-dinosaurs/
Not
And
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no knowledge at all?
#2
===
You also focus on PE by Gould and Eldredge. Again, why do you chooset
these two scientists out of the many who have researched evolution, especially when Gould and Eldredge specifically stated that their
findings did not undermine the ToE?
On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 18:31:42 +0100, the following appearedI apologize, I have to bide my time, because of my employment,
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveRe: #1: I addressed this in a response to a post by Bill
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no
knowledge at all?
#2
===
You also focus on PE by Gould and Eldredge. Again, why do you chooset
these two scientists out of the many who have researched evolution,
especially when Gould and Eldredge specifically stated that their
findings did not undermine the ToE?
Rogers to Ron about a week ago. Neither Rogers nor Ron saw
fit to respond. My comment at that time:
"I suspect that most denialists view the ToE as a religious
belief, and as such if the original prophet can be shown to
be in error the religion is disproven. And I further
suspect, based on the history of the debate, that you will
never persuade them otherwise; they simply ignore the
inconvenient-for-them facts."
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 00:39:26 -0400, "Ron.Dean"
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read. What seems to be happening
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no
knowledge at all?
is ts the fossil record does not bode well with what Darwin and other
evolutionist predicted, so what seems to happening the fossil record is
being played down. And evidence to support evolution is being addressed
in fields fields other than paleontology.
You haven't actually addressed my question so I'll rephrase it - why
is what someone thought 150 years ago important? Is there any other
field of science or technology where you would put so much importance
on what people thought 150 years ago?
Based on their books, it appeared to me that they thought they had
#2
===
You also focus on PE by Gould and Eldredge. Again, why do you chooset
these two scientists out of the many who have researched evolution,
especially when Gould and Eldredge specifically stated that their
findings did not undermine the ToE?
embarked on a quest of searching, finding and presenting newly
discovered data; data that had been overlooked or passed over as "no
data", by scientist while searching for evidence to support evolution.
...."stasis is data" - Gould. Both scientist, Eldredge and Gould
in their excavations discovered that most new species appeared abruptly
in the strata with no precursors in lower strata and remained is stasis
for the duration of their time on the planet. This is what thees two
scientist saw and they refereed to other scientist who saw the same, but
was less inclined publish.
Again you have not answered my question - why o you regard these two scientists as particularly important, especially when they explicitly
said their findings did not undermine the ToE?
And again, like Darwin, things have moved on. Gould and Eldredge
published over 50 years ago and scientists have come up with
explanations about their findings that you seem to ignore.
Gould credits Eldridge with recognizing what was happening and called
this Punctuated equilibrium. As dedicated evolution they thought this
could be reconciled with standard evolution theory. Punctuated
is identified as Peripheral Isoluation. Evolution occurred when a
portion of a population became isolated by a river, or mountain
ange or som geological condition where the new species rapidly
evolved.
Over the past few years I become aware of something in biology
that I, frankly, don't know what to make of it. Trying to be
open minded and understanding, how this 'new' science impacts
my version of ID or my understanding of evolution, at this time,
I'm at an impasse.
It might help if you read some of the links given by other posters
here who, whatever their religious views or lack of , are experts in
these areas.
If this "new science of developmental evolution in biology" celled "The
New Science of EVo Devo" for short and the third field of evolutionary
biology, after the second field of evolution Neo Darwinism.
I've read two books on the subject; and several articles. One book by
a founder of this new science, Dr.Walter J. Gehring. entitled "Master
Control Genes in Development and Evolution". And another entitled, "The
New Science of Evo Devo with a sub title..." by a leading scientist
and expert in the field, Dr. Sean B Carroll.
Both those scientists totally reject Intelligent Design; does that not
bother you?
For generations scientist knew virtually nothing about how a fertilized
cell knows when to decide, when to separated into sections and how to
layout the bodies of animals all animals on the animal kingdom, where to
place the body parts, limbs, organs, hearts, kidneys, eyes, ears
organs etc. etc etc.
This is where these Master Control Genes called Homeboy genes or Hox
genes ,for short comes into play.
I think it's safe to say that all the regulars here, especially those
who have been responding to you, are well acquainted with evo-devo and
that it *supplements* the ToE, it does not *replace* it - if you think
it does replace it then your understanding of it is very poor.
MORE LATER
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 18:31:42 +0100, the following appearedI apologize, I have to bide my time, because of my employment,
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveRe: #1: I addressed this in a response to a post by Bill
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no
knowledge at all?
#2
===
You also focus on PE by Gould and Eldredge. Again, why do you chooset
these two scientists out of the many who have researched evolution,
especially when Gould and Eldredge specifically stated that their
findings did not undermine the ToE?
Rogers to Ron about a week ago. Neither Rogers nor Ron saw
fit to respond. My comment at that time:
"I suspect that most denialists view the ToE as a religious
belief, and as such if the original prophet can be shown to
be in error the religion is disproven. And I further
suspect, based on the history of the debate, that you will
never persuade them otherwise; they simply ignore the
inconvenient-for-them facts."
and health issues. I was forced into retirement because of heart
problems. But I just got my old job back, but as a contractor, with
no benefits. However, I'm seeing an increase in income.
Martin Harlan wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 00:39:26 -0400, "Ron.Dean"
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read. What seems to be happening
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no
knowledge at all?
is ts the fossil record does not bode well with what Darwin and other
evolutionist predicted, so what seems to happening the fossil record is
being played down. And evidence to support evolution is being addressed
in fields fields other than paleontology.
You haven't actually addressed my question so I'll rephrase it - why
is what someone thought 150 years ago important? Is there any other
field of science or technology where you would put so much importance
on what people thought 150 years ago?
Based on their books, it appeared to me that they thought they had
#2
===
You also focus on PE by Gould and Eldredge. Again, why do you chooset
these two scientists out of the many who have researched evolution,
especially when Gould and Eldredge specifically stated that their
findings did not undermine the ToE?
embarked on a quest of searching, finding and presenting newly
discovered data; data that had been overlooked or passed over as "no
data", by scientist while searching for evidence to support evolution.
...."stasis is data" - Gould. Both scientist, Eldredge and Gould
in their excavations discovered that most new species appeared abruptly
in the strata with no precursors in lower strata and remained is stasis
for the duration of their time on the planet. This is what thees two
scientist saw and they refereed to other scientist who saw the same, but >>> was less inclined publish.
Again you have not answered my question - why o you regard these two
scientists as particularly important, especially when they explicitly
said their findings did not undermine the ToE?
I felt they were more open minded to what the real fossil record showed.
That was the beginning of their publishing . Gould passed away in 2002.
And again, like Darwin, things have moved on. Gould and Eldredge
published over 50 years ago and scientists have come up with
explanations about their findings that you seem to ignore.
What specifically are you in reference to. Are you saying they have been >disproved or explained away? If so how?
Gould credits Eldridge with recognizing what was happening and called
this Punctuated equilibrium. As dedicated evolution they thought this
could be reconciled with standard evolution theory. Punctuated
is identified as Peripheral Isoluation. Evolution occurred when a
portion of a population became isolated by a river, or mountain
ange or som geological condition where the new species rapidly
evolved.
I know, but their appearance was first observed in the earth's strata.
Only theory positions that the new species had to arise through
random mutations and natural selection. But their origins are
_unobserved_. So, theory comes into play for an explanation.
They had to have evolved somewhere else! Consequently, evolution
stands confirmed.
In many cases I have. Time permitting.
Over the past few years I become aware of something in biology
that I, frankly, don't know what to make of it. Trying to be
open minded and understanding, how this 'new' science impacts
my version of ID or my understanding of evolution, at this time,
I'm at an impasse.
It might help if you read some of the links given by other posters
here who, whatever their religious views or lack of , are experts in
these areas.
No, why should it? I realize each has his own paradigms.
If this "new science of developmental evolution in biology" celled "The
New Science of EVo Devo" for short and the third field of evolutionary
biology, after the second field of evolution Neo Darwinism.
I've read two books on the subject; and several articles. One book by
a founder of this new science, Dr.Walter J. Gehring. entitled "Master
Control Genes in Development and Evolution". And another entitled, "The >>> New Science of Evo Devo with a sub title..." by a leading scientist
and expert in the field, Dr. Sean B Carroll.
Both those scientists totally reject Intelligent Design; does that not
bother you?
For generations scientist knew virtually nothing about how a fertilized
cell knows when to decide, when to separated into sections and how to
layout the bodies of animals all animals on the animal kingdom, where to >>> place the body parts, limbs, organs, hearts, kidneys, eyes, ears
organs etc. etc etc.
This is where these Master Control Genes called Homeboy genes or Hox
genes ,for short comes into play.
I think it's safe to say that all the regulars here, especially those
who have been responding to you, are well acquainted with evo-devo and
that it *supplements* the ToE, it does not *replace* it - if you think
it does replace it then your understanding of it is very poor.
Nothing replaces TOE it's. It might be wrong, but there is no way to >demonstrate the fact. TOE evolution is so fluid, malleable and so flexible >that it can absorb any contrary discovery - stasis for example, living >fossils
is another. Not to mention that evolution falls short where the origins of >the Cambrian phyla is concerned. Of course there are excuses, soft bodies >preditors, scavenger, failure to fossilize.
MORE LATER
Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no
knowledge at all?
I doubt there's anything anyone could say that would change your nind.
I have not always been a supporter of ID. About 15 years ago I had an >awaking. I accepted evolution with out question. Do you ever question
what you've read or been told? If so, exactly what and how did you resolve >your questioning(s)
ht
It's never been my argument that G & E changed their dedication to
#2
===
You also focus on PE by Gould and Eldredge. Again, why do you chooset
these two scientists out of the many who have researched evolution,
especially when Gould and Eldredge specifically stated that their
findings did not undermine the ToE?
evolution.
They were honestly trying to bridge evolution and what is observed by
the fossil
record.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 21:32:03 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 18:31:42 +0100, the following appearedI apologize, I have to bide my time, because of my employment,
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveRe: #1: I addressed this in a response to a post by Bill
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no
knowledge at all?
#2
===
You also focus on PE by Gould and Eldredge. Again, why do you chooset
these two scientists out of the many who have researched evolution,
especially when Gould and Eldredge specifically stated that their
findings did not undermine the ToE?
Rogers to Ron about a week ago. Neither Rogers nor Ron saw
fit to respond. My comment at that time:
"I suspect that most denialists view the ToE as a religious
belief, and as such if the original prophet can be shown to
be in error the religion is disproven. And I further
suspect, based on the history of the debate, that you will
never persuade them otherwise; they simply ignore the
inconvenient-for-them facts."
and health issues. I was forced into retirement because of heart
problems. But I just got my old job back, but as a contractor, with
no benefits. However, I'm seeing an increase in income.
Congratulations. Now what does that have to do with my
comment, to which you replied, albeit over three months
later, during which time you've made dozens of posts?
There's another one, reposted today in the "Tour's 60 day
challenge" thread; care to respond to it, preferably before
February?
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 07:31:10 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 21:32:03 -0400, the following appearedNothing, as what you suspect can be partially true.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:Congratulations. Now what does that have to do with my
On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 18:31:42 +0100, the following appearedI apologize, I have to bide my time, because of my employment,
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveRe: #1: I addressed this in a response to a post by Bill
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no
knowledge at all?
#2
===
You also focus on PE by Gould and Eldredge. Again, why do you chooset
these two scientists out of the many who have researched evolution,
especially when Gould and Eldredge specifically stated that their
findings did not undermine the ToE?
Rogers to Ron about a week ago. Neither Rogers nor Ron saw
fit to respond. My comment at that time:
"I suspect that most denialists view the ToE as a religious
belief, and as such if the original prophet can be shown to
be in error the religion is disproven. And I further
suspect, based on the history of the debate, that you will
never persuade them otherwise; they simply ignore the
inconvenient-for-them facts."
and health issues. I was forced into retirement because of heart
problems. But I just got my old job back, but as a contractor, with
no benefits. However, I'm seeing an increase in income.
comment, to which you replied, albeit over three months
later, during which time you've made dozens of posts?
Texts written about biology by likes of Mendel, Paley, Lamarck
or Darwin are understandable for majority of evolution denialists.
So they can reason about those texts. As it is often just ideas
and speculations or denial of those it feels close enough to
philosophy (that religion is) and so about picking sides between
gentlemen 150-200 years ago (each of whom were wrong to some
extent).
Meanwhile texts written by more modern biologists have more
math in those but often undecipherable jargon about complex
statistics, population genetics and nano-mechanics. So there
"G & E were honestly trying to bridge evolution" with some
gibberish for denialist. Denialist did not understand it (and so
it wasn't convincing) also it was science not philosophy so did
not match their expectations. Only thing they understood was
early sentence from abstract that introduced "problem" studied.
Oh, so there is unsettled problem. So therefore controversy.
There's another one, reposted today in the "Tour's 60 dayYou will get similar answer if any.
challenge" thread; care to respond to it, preferably before
February?
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your interpretation.
When 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. Trying toWhat seems to be happening is ts the fossil record does not bode well
with what Darwin and other evolutionist predicted, so what seems to
happening the fossil record is being played down. And evidence to
support evolution is being addressed
in fields fields other than paleontology.
Well, Eldredge and Gould say that patterns in the fossil record agree
with what Darwin's writings would lead one to expect, and other paleontologists largely agree (with the fossil pattern and Darwin's
account of it, not with *everything* Eldredge and Gould said). New (to
us) fossil species are being discovered about every other day, and only
very rarely does one create a hoopla. And since scientists are in the business of uncovering and exposing new patterns whenever possible, I
would guess that it is simply not possible *not* to fit all those new
fossils in with expectations of evolution.
But a clever creationist can always find something to disagree with.
But what about origins, on this score evolution has a very poor record.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your
interpretation.
And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to? I look
at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be the
root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In the
words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties
we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil.
no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the world
view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is no
good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any moral code regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what makes us superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol Pot.
Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did nothing
wrong
within the societies they resided in.
What seems to be happening is ts the fossil record does not bode well
with what Darwin and other evolutionist predicted, so what seems to
happening the fossil record is being played down. And evidence to
support evolution is being addressed
in fields fields other than paleontology.
Well, Eldredge and Gould say that patterns in the fossil record agree
with what Darwin's writings would lead one to expect, and other
paleontologists largely agree (with the fossil pattern and Darwin's
account of it, not with *everything* Eldredge and Gould said). New
(to us) fossil species are being discovered about every other day, and
only very rarely does one create a hoopla. And since scientists are
in the business of uncovering and exposing new patterns whenever
possible, I would guess that it is simply not possible *not* to fit
all those new fossils in with expectations of evolution.
But a clever creationist can always find something to disagree with.
But what about origins, on this score evolution has a very poor record. When 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. Trying to establish origin and especially descendants is a stab in the dark. Most appear abruptly remain in stasis during their tenure on earth then disappear. Most! Of the few that survived we _observe_ living fossils.We do _not_observe_ any actual evolutionary change in the fossil
record. So, what is offered as evidence of evolutionary change is nothing more than an assumption, based upon evolutionary theory. In my opinion, evolution is the greatest disaster and the greatest fraud to ever be perpetrated upon the human race!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving >>> aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus >>> on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no >>> knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your interpretation.
And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to? I look
at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be the
root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In the
words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties
we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil.
no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the world
view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is no
good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any moral code regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what makes us superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol Pot.
Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did nothing
wrong
within the societies they resided in.
What seems to be happening is ts the fossil record does not bode well
with what Darwin and other evolutionist predicted, so what seems to
happening the fossil record is being played down. And evidence to
support evolution is being addressed
in fields fields other than paleontology.
Well, Eldredge and Gould say that patterns in the fossil record agree
with what Darwin's writings would lead one to expect, and other paleontologists largely agree (with the fossil pattern and Darwin's account of it, not with *everything* Eldredge and Gould said). New (to us) fossil species are being discovered about every other day, and only very rarely does one create a hoopla. And since scientists are in the business of uncovering and exposing new patterns whenever possible, I would guess that it is simply not possible *not* to fit all those new fossils in with expectations of evolution.
But a clever creationist can always find something to disagree with.We do _not_observe_ any actual evolutionary change in the fossil
But what about origins, on this score evolution has a very poor record. When 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. Trying to establish origin and especially descendants is a stab in the dark. Most appear abruptly remain in stasis during their tenure on earth then disappear. Most! Of the few that survived we _observe_ living fossils.
record. So, what is offered as evidence of evolutionary change is nothing more than an assumption, based upon evolutionary theory. In my opinion, evolution is the greatest disaster and the greatest fraud to ever be perpetrated upon the human race!
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:26:11 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have >>> become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these twoMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving >>> aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus >>> on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no >>> knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your interpretation.
And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to? I look
at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties
we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the world
view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what makes us superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
The lack of God does not imply the lack of morality. Your own natural.
sense of right and wrong might be so feeble that without belief in God
to keep you in check you would go on a rape, murder and genocide spree,
but I assure you that most people are not like that, including most atheists.
You cannot conceive of morality independent of belief in God, but that
does not mean that everybody else has the same problem.
What seems to be happening is ts the fossil record does not bode well >> with what Darwin and other evolutionist predicted, so what seems to
happening the fossil record is being played down. And evidence to
support evolution is being addressed
in fields fields other than paleontology.
Well, Eldredge and Gould say that patterns in the fossil record agree with what Darwin's writings would lead one to expect, and other paleontologists largely agree (with the fossil pattern and Darwin's account of it, not with *everything* Eldredge and Gould said). New (to us) fossil species are being discovered about every other day, and only very rarely does one create a hoopla. And since scientists are in the business of uncovering and exposing new patterns whenever possible, I would guess that it is simply not possible *not* to fit all those new fossils in with expectations of evolution.
But a clever creationist can always find something to disagree with.We do _not_observe_ any actual evolutionary change in the fossil
But what about origins, on this score evolution has a very poor record. When 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. Trying to establish origin and especially descendants is a stab in the dark. Most appear abruptly remain in stasis during their tenure on earth then disappear. Most! Of the few that survived we _observe_ living fossils.
record. So, what is offered as evidence of evolutionary change is nothing more than an assumption, based upon evolutionary theory. In my opinion, evolution is the greatest disaster and the greatest fraud to ever be perpetrated upon the human race!
Do you seriously think that science has stood still in this area for
15 years?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your
interpretation.
And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be the
root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In the
words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties
we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no evil.
no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the world
view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is no
good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any moral code regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what makes us superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol Pot.
Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did nothing
wrong
within the societies they resided in.
Nothing replaces TOE it's. It might be wrong, but there is no way to demonstrate the fact. TOE evolution is so fluid, malleable and so flexible that it can absorb any contrary discovery - stasis for example, living fossils
is another. Not to mention that evolution falls short where the origins of the Cambrian phyla is concerned. Of course there are excuses, soft bodies preditors, scavenger, failure to fossilize.
On 10/16/23 7:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
Nothing replaces TOE it's. It might be wrong, but there is no way to
demonstrate the fact. TOE evolution is so fluid, malleable and so
flexible
that it can absorb any contrary discovery - stasis for example, living
fossils
is another. Not to mention that evolution falls short where the
origins of
the Cambrian phyla is concerned. Of course there are excuses, soft bodies
preditors, scavenger, failure to fossilize.
You might reflect on the fact that Darwin's original theory of evolution *was* falsified. Darwin's idea of blended inheritance was quickly seen
as inadequate to allow evolution to proceed. The idea of genetics,
however, quickly made that problem moot. You probably consider that
"being so fluid, malleable, and flexible." But it's not simple
malleability -- quite the opposite; evolution incorporated genetics not simply because it could, but because the evidence forced it to.
As for evolution falling short regarding Cambrian phyla, nobody told
that to the people studying evolution. What falls short are, first, the quantity and quality of fossils, and second, taxonomic naming
conventions. There are no difficulties for evolution regarding the Cambrian. There are unknowns up the wazoo, but that's what science is
all about.
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have >>>>> become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these twoMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving >>>>> aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus >>>>> on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no >>>>> knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your
interpretation.
;
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of evolution would
not be steady, and that there would likely be periods of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be
the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In the
words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties
we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no
evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the world
view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is
no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any moral
code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what
makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol Pot.
Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did nothing
wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems.
Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction
of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we
have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect
of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half
hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." This is
the world view of some people, and there is no reason to think Jefferson
was alone in this. There is no good or evil -- only priest-made laws.
How could a person coerced in their idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape evil? Murder? The Bible finds
occasion for them. What makes us superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we don't get to think about ethics? What
about Hitler who murdered millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings?
If the rules of your morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
Note that the above paragraph has nothing to do with intelligent design,
just as yours has nothing to do with evolution.
You might also want to read the first couple of chapters of Joshua
Greene's _Moral Tribes_, in which he explains quite clearly and
succinctly how and why morality likely evolved to have the properties it does.
Mark Isaak wrote:....
On 10/16/23 7:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
Nothing replaces TOE it's. It might be wrong, but there is no way to
demonstrate the fact. TOE evolution is so fluid, malleable and so
flexible
that it can absorb any contrary discovery - stasis for example, living
fossils
is another. Not to mention that evolution falls short where the
origins of
the Cambrian phyla is concerned. Of course there are excuses, soft bodies >> preditors, scavenger, failure to fossilize.
You might reflect on the fact that Darwin's original theory of evolution *was* falsified. Darwin's idea of blended inheritance was quickly seen
as inadequate to allow evolution to proceed. The idea of genetics, however, quickly made that problem moot. You probably consider that "being so fluid, malleable, and flexible." But it's not simple malleability -- quite the opposite; evolution incorporated genetics not simply because it could, but because the evidence forced it to.
As for evolution falling short regarding Cambrian phyla, nobody told
that to the people studying evolution. What falls short are, first, the quantity and quality of fossils, and second, taxonomic naming
conventions. There are no difficulties for evolution regarding the Cambrian. There are unknowns up the wazoo, but that's what science is
all about.
True, but the absence of fossils back to common ancestry, should falsify evolution.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have >>>>> become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these twoMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving >>>>> aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus >>>>> on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no >>>>> knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your
interpretation.
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of evolution would
not be steady, and that there would likely be periods of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be
the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In the
words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties
we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no
evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the world
view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is
no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any moral
code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what
makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol Pot.
Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did nothing
wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction
of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we
have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect
of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." This is
the world view of some people, and there is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good or evil -- only priest-made laws.
How could a person coerced in their idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape evil? Murder? The Bible finds
occasion for them. What makes us superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings?
If the rules of your morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Note that the above paragraph has nothing to do with intelligent design, just as yours has nothing to do with evolution.
You might also want to read the first couple of chapters of Joshua Greene's _Moral Tribes_, in which he explains quite clearly and
succinctly how and why morality likely evolved to have the properties it does.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/16/23 7:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:True, but the absence of fossils back to common ancestry, should falsify >evolution.
[...]
Nothing replaces TOE it's. It might be wrong, but there is no way to
demonstrate the fact. TOE evolution is so fluid, malleable and so
flexible
that it can absorb any contrary discovery - stasis for example, living
fossils
is another. Not to mention that evolution falls short where the
origins of
the Cambrian phyla is concerned. Of course there are excuses, soft bodies >>> preditors, scavenger, failure to fossilize.
You might reflect on the fact that Darwin's original theory of evolution
*was* falsified. Darwin's idea of blended inheritance was quickly seen
as inadequate to allow evolution to proceed. The idea of genetics,
however, quickly made that problem moot. You probably consider that
"being so fluid, malleable, and flexible." But it's not simple
malleability -- quite the opposite; evolution incorporated genetics not
simply because it could, but because the evidence forced it to.
As for evolution falling short regarding Cambrian phyla, nobody told
that to the people studying evolution. What falls short are, first, the >> quantity and quality of fossils, and second, taxonomic naming
conventions. There are no difficulties for evolution regarding the
Cambrian. There are unknowns up the wazoo, but that's what science is
all about.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/16/23 7:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:True, but the absence of fossils back to common ancestry, should falsify evolution.
[...]
Nothing replaces TOE it's. It might be wrong, but there is no way to
demonstrate the fact. TOE evolution is so fluid, malleable and so
flexible
that it can absorb any contrary discovery - stasis for example,
living fossils
is another. Not to mention that evolution falls short where the
origins of
the Cambrian phyla is concerned. Of course there are excuses, soft
bodies
preditors, scavenger, failure to fossilize.
You might reflect on the fact that Darwin's original theory of
evolution *was* falsified. Darwin's idea of blended inheritance was
quickly seen as inadequate to allow evolution to proceed. The idea of
genetics, however, quickly made that problem moot. You probably
consider that "being so fluid, malleable, and flexible." But it's not
simple malleability -- quite the opposite; evolution incorporated
genetics not simply because it could, but because the evidence forced
it to.
As for evolution falling short regarding Cambrian phyla, nobody told
that to the people studying evolution. What falls short are, first,
the quantity and quality of fossils, and second, taxonomic naming
conventions. There are no difficulties for evolution regarding the
Cambrian. There are unknowns up the wazoo, but that's what science is
all about.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have >>>>>> become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these twoMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving >>>>>> aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus >>>>>> on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no >>>>>> knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your
interpretation.
;
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods
of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you
would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be
the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In the
words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no
evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the world
view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is
no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any
moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what
makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol Pot.
Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did
nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems.
Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction
of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we
have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the
effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other
half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
This is the world view of some people, and there is no reason to think
Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good or evil -- only
priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their idea of moral
behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape evil? Murder?
The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us superior or better
or have rights that other animals are denied if we don't get to think
about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered millions, or the
Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your morality include
those as good things, along with slavery and myriad other
persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind
pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 17:45:39 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/16/23 7:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:True, but the absence of fossils back to common ancestry, should falsify
[...]
Nothing replaces TOE it's. It might be wrong, but there is no way to
demonstrate the fact. TOE evolution is so fluid, malleable and so
flexible
that it can absorb any contrary discovery - stasis for example, living >>>> fossils
is another. Not to mention that evolution falls short where the
origins of
the Cambrian phyla is concerned. Of course there are excuses, soft bodies >>>> preditors, scavenger, failure to fossilize.
You might reflect on the fact that Darwin's original theory of evolution >>> *was* falsified. Darwin's idea of blended inheritance was quickly seen >>> as inadequate to allow evolution to proceed. The idea of genetics,
however, quickly made that problem moot. You probably consider that
"being so fluid, malleable, and flexible." But it's not simple
malleability -- quite the opposite; evolution incorporated genetics not
simply because it could, but because the evidence forced it to.
As for evolution falling short regarding Cambrian phyla, nobody told
that to the people studying evolution. What falls short are, first, the >>> quantity and quality of fossils, and second, taxonomic naming
conventions. There are no difficulties for evolution regarding the
Cambrian. There are unknowns up the wazoo, but that's what science is
all about.
evolution.
Your comment above illustrates your conflation of natural laws and
human nature. Do you really think the universe must conform to how
you think it "should" work? Isn't that supposed to be God's job?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have >>>>>>> become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these twoMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record.
Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you
focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he
had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your
interpretation.
;
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods
of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you
would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be
the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In
the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no
evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the
world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is
no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any
moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what
makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol
Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did
nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems.
Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world
fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there
is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good
or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their
idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape
evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we
don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered
millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your
morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad
other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
;
pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have >>>>>>> become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>> specific points.MY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record.
Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your
interpretation.
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods
of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you
would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be
the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In
the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no
evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the
world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is >>>> no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any
moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder? >>>> We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what
makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol
Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did
nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems.
Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world
fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there
is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good
or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their
idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape
evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we
don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered
millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your
morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad
other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have >>>>>>> become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>> specific points.MY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your
interpretation.
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods >>> of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you
would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In
the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no
evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the
world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is >>>> no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any
moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder? >>>> We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what
makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol
Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did
nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems. >>> Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world
fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there >>> is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good
or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their >>> idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape
evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we >>> don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered
millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your
morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad
other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 17:45:39 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/16/23 7:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:True, but the absence of fossils back to common ancestry, should falsify >> evolution.
[...]
Nothing replaces TOE it's. It might be wrong, but there is no way to >>>> demonstrate the fact. TOE evolution is so fluid, malleable and so
flexible
that it can absorb any contrary discovery - stasis for example, living >>>> fossils
is another. Not to mention that evolution falls short where the
origins of
the Cambrian phyla is concerned. Of course there are excuses, soft bodies
preditors, scavenger, failure to fossilize.
You might reflect on the fact that Darwin's original theory of evolution >>> *was* falsified. Darwin's idea of blended inheritance was quickly seen >>> as inadequate to allow evolution to proceed. The idea of genetics,
however, quickly made that problem moot. You probably consider that
"being so fluid, malleable, and flexible." But it's not simple
malleability -- quite the opposite; evolution incorporated genetics not >>> simply because it could, but because the evidence forced it to.
As for evolution falling short regarding Cambrian phyla, nobody told
that to the people studying evolution. What falls short are, first, the >>> quantity and quality of fossils, and second, taxonomic naming
conventions. There are no difficulties for evolution regarding the
Cambrian. There are unknowns up the wazoo, but that's what science is >>> all about.
Your comment above illustrates your conflation of natural laws and
human nature. Do you really think the universe must conform to how
you think it "should" work? Isn't that supposed to be God's job?
Who knows which god's responsibility is this?
I do not know this gods. I believe there was a designer that set things
in motion, then "walked away" or died. Nothing is forever!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
;Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind
pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
On 10/19/23 8:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
;Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind
pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
Reality does not matter at all to you. Why is that the most important message you want to communicate?
True, but the absence of fossils back to common ancestry, should falsify evolution.
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have >>>>>>> become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these twoMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. Leaving >>>>>>> aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you focus >>>>>>> on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been
superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he had no >>>>>>> knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your
interpretation.
;
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods
of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you
would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be
the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In the >>>> words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no
evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the world >>>> view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is
no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any
moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what
makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol Pot. >>>> Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did
nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems.
Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction
of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we
have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the
effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other
half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
This is the world view of some people, and there is no reason to think
Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good or evil -- only
priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their idea of moral
behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape evil? Murder?
The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us superior or better
or have rights that other animals are denied if we don't get to think
about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered millions, or the
Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your morality include
those as good things, along with slavery and myriad other
persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 17:45:39 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/16/23 7:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:True, but the absence of fossils back to common ancestry, should falsify >>> evolution.
[...]
Nothing replaces TOE it's. It might be wrong, but there is no way to >>>>> demonstrate the fact. TOE evolution is so fluid, malleable and so
flexible
that it can absorb any contrary discovery - stasis for example, living >>>>> fossils
is another. Not to mention that evolution falls short where the
origins of
the Cambrian phyla is concerned. Of course there are excuses, soft bodies >>>>> preditors, scavenger, failure to fossilize.
You might reflect on the fact that Darwin's original theory of evolution >>>> *was* falsified. Darwin's idea of blended inheritance was quickly seen >>>> as inadequate to allow evolution to proceed. The idea of genetics,
however, quickly made that problem moot. You probably consider that
"being so fluid, malleable, and flexible." But it's not simple
malleability -- quite the opposite; evolution incorporated genetics not >>>> simply because it could, but because the evidence forced it to.
As for evolution falling short regarding Cambrian phyla, nobody told
that to the people studying evolution. What falls short are, first, the >>>> quantity and quality of fossils, and second, taxonomic naming
conventions. There are no difficulties for evolution regarding the
Cambrian. There are unknowns up the wazoo, but that's what science is >>>> all about.
Your comment above illustrates your conflation of natural laws and
human nature. Do you really think the universe must conform to how
you think it "should" work? Isn't that supposed to be God's job?
Who knows which god's responsibility is this?
I do not know this gods. I believe there was a designer that set things
in motion, then "walked away" or died. Nothing is forever!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 8:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What upset me was how Richard Dawkins described the universe we live in.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
;Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
Reality does not matter at all to you. Why is that the most important
message you want to communicate?
What I was hoping for was the disaffirmation and rejection of his words.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 8:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
Reality does not matter at all to you. Why is that the most important message you want to communicate?
What upset me was how Richard Dawkins described the universe we live in. What I was hoping for was the disaffirmation and rejection of his words.
Mark Isaak wrote:I think Dawkins words about the indifference of the universe are entirely correct. Still, just because the universe does not care abut us does not mean that we cannot care about one another.
On 10/19/23 8:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
Reality does not matter at all to you. Why is that the most important message you want to communicate?
What upset me was how Richard Dawkins described the universe we live in. What I was hoping for was the disaffirmation and rejection of his words.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:I think Dawkins words about the indifference of the universe are entirely correct. Still, just because the universe does not care abut us does not
On 10/19/23 8:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What upset me was how Richard Dawkins described the universe we live in.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
Reality does not matter at all to you. Why is that the most important
message you want to communicate?
What I was hoping for was the disaffirmation and rejection of his words.
mean that we cannot care about one another.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 8:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What upset me was how Richard Dawkins described the universe we live in.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
;Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
Reality does not matter at all to you. Why is that the most important
message you want to communicate?
What I was hoping for was the disaffirmation and rejection of his words.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 8:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What upset me was how Richard Dawkins described the universe we live in.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
;Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
Reality does not matter at all to you. Why is that the most important
message you want to communicate?
What I was hoping for was the disaffirmation and rejection of his words.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:>
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:>
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the otherMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
threads have
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>>> specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>>> interpretation.
And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods >>>>>> of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the
world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is >>>>>>> no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape
murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did
nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems. >>>>>> Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world
fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there >>>>>> is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their >>>>>> idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we >>>>>> don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered
millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your
morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no
God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we
live in,
I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue
with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:>
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:>
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have >>>>>>>>> become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>> specific points.MY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your
interpretation.
And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods >>>>> of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you
would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In
the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the
world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is >>>>>> no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any
moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder? >>>>>> We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what
makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied?
What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol
Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did
nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems. >>>>> Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world
fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there >>>>> is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their >>>>> idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape
evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we >>>>> don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered
millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your
morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind
pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>> specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>> interpretation.
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods >>>>> of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the >>>>>> world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is >>>>>> no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder? >>>>>> We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did
nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems. >>>>> Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. >>>>> What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world
fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there >>>>> is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their >>>>> idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we >>>>> don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered
millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your >>>>> morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we
live in,
I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue
with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
broger...@gmail.com wrote:Why are you upset with what Dawkins wrote about the universe? Do you expect that the universe should care about you? Of course the universe doesn't care, but that does not stop us from caring about one another.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>> specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>> interpretation.
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods >>>>> of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the >>>>>> world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is >>>>>> no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder? >>>>>> We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did
nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems. >>>>> Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. >>>>> What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world
fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there >>>>> is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their >>>>> idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we >>>>> don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered
millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your >>>>> morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we
live in,
I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue
with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:21:14 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:Why are you upset with what Dawkins wrote about the universe? Do you expect that the universe should care about you? Of course the universe doesn't care, but that does not stop us from caring about one another.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Mark Isaak wrote:The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to? >>>>>>>
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>>>> specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>>>> interpretation.
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods >>>>>>> of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the >>>>>>>> world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is >>>>>>>> no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder? >>>>>>>> We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did >>>>>>>> nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems. >>>>>>> Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. >>>>>>> What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world >>>>>>> fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there >>>>>>> is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their >>>>>>> idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we >>>>>>> don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered
millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your >>>>>>> morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
live in,
I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue
with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:21:14 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:for it's own evolution, it's own existence and for life. So, people are
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Mark Isaak wrote:The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to? >>>>>>>
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>>>> specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>>>> interpretation.
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods >>>>>>> of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the >>>>>>>> world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is >>>>>>>> no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder? >>>>>>>> We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did >>>>>>>> nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems. >>>>>>> Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. >>>>>>> What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world >>>>>>> fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there >>>>>>> is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their >>>>>>> idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we >>>>>>> don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered
millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your >>>>>>> morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
live in,
I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue
with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
The universe doesn't care. People care. That upsets you?
I believe the anthropic principle. I believe the universe was fine tuned for
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:21:14 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Mark Isaak wrote:I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Mark Isaak wrote:The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to >>>>>>> Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of >>>>>>> evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to? >>>>>>>
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>>>> specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>>>> interpretation.
of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the >>>>>>>> properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the >>>>>>>> world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is
no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did >>>>>>>> nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I >>>>>>> consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems.
Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, >>>>>>> imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. >>>>>>> What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world >>>>>>> fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there
is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their
idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us >>>>>>> superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we
don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered >>>>>>> millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your >>>>>>> morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write. >>>>>
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
live in,
I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue >> with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
The universe doesn't care. People care. That upsets you?
I believe the anthropic principle. I believe the universe was fine tuned forfor it's own evolution, it's own existence and for life. So, people are
part of the
universe; and so, people are concerned and care about our planet, our enviromemt
our nation and hopefully each other.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 8:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What upset me was how Richard Dawkins described the universe we live in.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
;Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
Reality does not matter at all to you. Why is that the most important
message you want to communicate?
What I was hoping for was the disaffirmation and rejection of his words.
On 10/20/23 7:31 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 8:44 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What upset me was how Richard Dawkins described the universe we live in.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
Reality does not matter at all to you. Why is that the most important
message you want to communicate?
What I was hoping for was the disaffirmation and rejection of his words.
How's this, then: Dawkins overspoke. The vast majority of the universe
does not care for you or for anyone else. The vast majority of the
universe, however, is not the *whole* universe. There are parts of it, namely some people, who *do* care.
Is that enough to make you happy? I hope so, or you will never be happy.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to?
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other threads have >>>>>>>>>> become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>>> specific points.MY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>>> interpretation.
The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of
evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be periods >>>>>> of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the
world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. There is >>>>>>> no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape murder? >>>>>>> We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did
nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I
consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world problems. >>>>>> Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world
fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and there >>>>>> is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in their >>>>>> idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied if we >>>>>> don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered
millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your
morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no
God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we live in, I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue
with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
On 2023-10-20 20:16:29 +0000, Ron Dean said:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Mark Isaak wrote:The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to? >>>>>>>
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the otherMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
threads have
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>>>> specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>>>> interpretation.
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of >>>>>>> evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be
periods
of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the >>>>>>>> world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this.
There is
no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape
murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did >>>>>>>> nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I >>>>>>> consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world
problems.
Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. >>>>>>> What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world >>>>>>> fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and
there
is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in
their
idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us >>>>>>> superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied
if we
don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered >>>>>>> millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your >>>>>>> morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write.
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no
God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
;
live in,
I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue
with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
Well of course. He wrote something sensible and true. You are just
waving your hands around.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:[mercy snip akin to book banning]
We humans are part of the universe.
Well of course. He wrote something sensible and true. You are just
waving your hands around.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:.......
On 2023-10-20 20:16:29 +0000, Ron Dean said:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Mark Isaak wrote:I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Mark Isaak wrote:The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to >>>>>>> Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of >>>>>>> evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be >>>>>>> periods
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to? >>>>>>>
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other >>>>>>>>>>> threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>>>> specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>>>> interpretation.
of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the >>>>>>>> properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the >>>>>>>> world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. >>>>>>>> There is
no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape >>>>>>>> murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did >>>>>>>> nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I >>>>>>> consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world
problems.
Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, >>>>>>> imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. >>>>>>> What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world >>>>>>> fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and >>>>>>> there
is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in >>>>>>> their
idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us >>>>>>> superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied >>>>>>> if we
don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered >>>>>>> millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your >>>>>>> morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write. >>>>>
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no
God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
live in,
I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue >> with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
Well of course. He wrote something sensible and true. You are just
waving your hands around.
We humans are part of the universe.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-20 20:16:29 +0000, Ron Dean said:We humans are part of the universe.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Mark Isaak wrote:The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to? >>>>>>>>
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other >>>>>>>>>>>> threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>>>>> specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>>>>> interpretation.
Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of >>>>>>>> evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be
periods
of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the
properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the >>>>>>>>> world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this.
There is
no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape >>>>>>>>> murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did >>>>>>>>> nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I >>>>>>>> consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world
problems.
Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, >>>>>>>> imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. >>>>>>>> What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world >>>>>>>> fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and >>>>>>>> there
is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in >>>>>>>> their
idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us >>>>>>>> superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied >>>>>>>> if we
don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered >>>>>>>> millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your >>>>>>>> morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write. >>>>>>
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no
God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
live in,
I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue
with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
Well of course. He wrote something sensible and true. You are just
waving your hands around.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:the overwhelming majority of the universe is completely indifferent to us - that's pretty clearly what he meant. There is certainly some comfort in thinking of one's self as part of the whole universe. And the particular tiny bit of the universe in which
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:.......
On 2023-10-20 20:16:29 +0000, Ron Dean said:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:>
On 10/19/23 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I understand. Good and evil does not exist!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/17/23 8:23 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, this happened, but since there is no right and wrong, only blind >>>>>>>> pitiless indifference. Do you have a problem with any of this?
Mark Isaak wrote:The interpretation that punctuated equilibrium is contrary to >>>>>>>>> Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwin wrote that the rate of >>>>>>>>> evolution would not be steady, and that there would likely be >>>>>>>>> periods
On 7/4/23 9:39 PM, Ron.Dean wrote:And exactly what interpretation, of mine, are you referring to? >>>>>>>>>
On 7/4/23 1:31 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
I'm starting a new thread on this because IMO the other >>>>>>>>>>>>> threads haveMY interpretation? I just go by what I read.
become excessively long and I'd like you to focus on these two >>>>>>>>>>>>> specific points.
#1
===
You keep referring to Darwin's attitude to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Leaving
aside whether or not your interpretation is correct, why do you >>>>>>>>>>>>> focus
on what someone thought 150 years ago when his ideas have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> superseded by our vastly increased knowledge of areas where he >>>>>>>>>>>>> had no
knowledge at all?
Obviously not, because what (you say) you read contradicts your >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation.
of stasis. If you were basing your ideas on Darwin's attitude, you >>>>>>>>> would never bring up punctuated equilibrium as a problem.
I look at evolution,
as a whole, not just what Darwin wrote. I consider evolution to be >>>>>>>>>> the root cause
of much of the world problems. Because it undermines morality, In >>>>>>>>>> the words of
Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the >>>>>>>>>> properties we should
expect if at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, no good no >>>>>>>>>> evil. no right no
wrong nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." If this is the >>>>>>>>>> world view of some
people, and there no reason to think Dawkins is alone this. >>>>>>>>>> There is
no good or
evil only man made laws. How could a person who doesn't have any >>>>>>>>>> moral code
regarding good and evil, what is evil. Is stealing evil. rape >>>>>>>>>> murder?
We descended from animals therefore we are animals ourselfs, what >>>>>>>>>> makes us
superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied? >>>>>>>>>> What about Stalin who murdered millions of people are Mao or Pol >>>>>>>>>> Pot. Since,
there is no morality, no good no evil nothing these people did >>>>>>>>>> nothing wrong
within the societies they resided in.
I look on religion, as a whole, not just what the Bible says. I >>>>>>>>> consider religion to be the root cause of much of the world
problems.
Because it undermines morality. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, >>>>>>>>> "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, >>>>>>>>> imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. >>>>>>>>> What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world >>>>>>>>> fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error >>>>>>>>> all over the earth." This is the world view of some people, and >>>>>>>>> there
is no reason to think Jefferson was alone in this. There is no good >>>>>>>>> or evil -- only priest-made laws. How could a person coerced in >>>>>>>>> their
idea of moral behavior decide for themselves what is evil. Is rape >>>>>>>>> evil? Murder? The Bible finds occasion for them. What makes us >>>>>>>>> superior or better or have rights that other animals are denied >>>>>>>>> if we
don't get to think about ethics? What about Hitler who murdered >>>>>>>>> millions, or the Crusades or witch burnings? If the rules of your >>>>>>>>> morality include those as good things, along with slavery and myriad >>>>>>>>> other persecutions, then what is left to be bad?
In this thread, I seem to have a problem with everything you write. >>>>>>>
You keep ignoring the question. Why do you think that if there is no >>>>> God, there is no such thing as right and wrong?
I keep referring to what Richard Dawkins said, about the universe we
live in,
I was upset by what he wrote. I was hoping for someone would take issue >>>> with what he said. But instead they took issue with me!
Well of course. He wrote something sensible and true. You are just
waving your hands around.
We humans are part of the universe.
Of course we are. If you took the Dawkins quote to mean that no small part of the universe can care or have meaning or judge things to be right or wrong, then I think you misinterpret Dawkins' quote, which was about the universe as a whole. Certainly
I certainly understand, though. You've had a couple of recent health scares; you are not a teenage any more. Thoughts of mortality and what is meaningful in life are likely to be on your mind quite a bit, so Dawkins' focus on the indifference of mostof the universe rather than on the care and meaning found in your friends and loved ones (who certainly are a part, though a tiny one, of the universe) may not be pleasant to hear.
On Mon, 15 May 2023 07:28:16 -0400, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
wrote:
On May 15, 2023, jillery wrote
(in article<drg36i9i21nvejnfstkca9695qcj90hmp1@4ax.com>):
Unless you clicked on the link, you don't know what you're talking
about.
it’s a scam link. There’s no doubt. At least one idiot has triggered it. >> He said that it didn’t work... and a few hours later complained that his >> machine was ‘acting funny’.
But, by all means, click on it yourself and see what happens. Me, I’ll be >> over here with a bowl of popcorn.
I don't click on links on a whim or on a dare. Knowing a link is a
scam is different from being cautious.
On 15 May 2023 at 13:45:39 BST, "jillery"<69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2023 07:28:16 -0400, WolfFan<akwolffan@zoho.com>
wrote:
On May 15, 2023, jillery wrote
(in article<drg36i9i21nvejnfstkca9695qcj90hmp1@4ax.com>):
Unless you clicked on the link, you don't know what you're talking about.
it’s a scam link. There’s no doubt. At least one idiot has triggered it.
He said that it didn’t work... and a few hours later complained that his
machine was ‘acting funny’.
But, by all means, click on it yourself and see what happens. Me, I’ll be
over here with a bowl of popcorn.
I don't click on links on a whim or on a dare. Knowing a link is a
scam is different from being cautious.
What is the worst thing that can happen if one is using an Apple computer?
On 15 May 2023 at 13:45:39 BST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2023 07:28:16 -0400, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
wrote:
On May 15, 2023, jillery wrote
(in article<drg36i9i21nvejnfstkca9695qcj90hmp1@4ax.com>):
Unless you clicked on the link, you don't know what you're talking
about.
it’s a scam link. There’s no doubt. At least one idiot has triggered it.
He said that it didn’t work... and a few hours later complained that his >>> machine was ‘acting funny’.
But, by all means, click on it yourself and see what happens. Me, I’ll be >>> over here with a bowl of popcorn.
I don't click on links on a whim or on a dare. Knowing a link is a
scam is different from being cautious.
What is the worst thing that can happen if one is using an Apple computer?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 376 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 53:46:30 |
| Calls: | 8,041 |
| Files: | 13,037 |
| Messages: | 5,832,018 |