RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:46:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Evolution does not predict that they should be found and is perfectly content if they are not. The key word here is "were."


That's a lie.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:47:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
But no one was content, hence the effort that paleontologists put forth in finding them, and with success.


Darwin was content. There was a lack of intermediary fossils during his time (and there still is now) and he said that geological factors were responsible and that there may always be a lack of intermediaries.

quote:


They also use the theory of evolution to inform their searches, again with success.


They can search for fossils without evolution.

quote:


Your world must be a very scary place with scientists showing you to be wrong each and every day.


When they show me abiogenesis and molecule to man evolution (independent design, and I don't mean human development), then I'll worry. Until then, they have nothing. ID makes predictions, UCD does not.

It's not that I'm worried, it's that there just isn't sufficient evidence for UCD. Plus, if you add the dishonest nature of the secular community (ie: how they discriminate against those that may question naturalistic philosophies like UCD), I'm even more inclined to think that the evidence is much more lacking than they would like us to believe.

As I am happy to admit, I believe that the Bible is true regardless of the evidence. I just happen to think that the evidence does not support UCD.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:49:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
That's a lie.


I already gave quotes from Darwin showing otherwise. Stop dishonestly calling other people dishonest.

"were" and "are" are two different things. "Were" is unfalsifiable. What "is" is something that evolution makes no predictions about, it merely accommodates it.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:51:55 PM)

quote:


Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.


The point here is that, in cases that alleged transitions exist, that's cool with evolution. If they don't, that's also cool with evolution (because they were allegedly lost due to geological factors or whatever). Evolution predicts nothing, it just accommodates what's there. It makes postdictions and claims they are predictions (or they have different evolutionists making opposing predictions such that they cover the scope of possibilities and then they point to whoever is right at the time. IE: Some evolutionists predicted that dinosaurs had feathers, others said they didn't. Those that turn out to be right get remembered and evolutionists point to them and say, "See, evolution predicts this").



Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:56:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
But no one was content, hence the effort that paleontologists put forth in finding them, and with success.


You mean like Piltdown Man?

quote:


Your world must be a very scary place with scientists showing you to be wrong each and every day.


Given that the secular community is dishonest (ie: they censor criticisms and opposing views of naturalistic philosophies while funding their naturalistic philosophies with tax dollars), I really have nothing to worry about. I see no reason to take something that must resort to dishonesty to maintain itself seriously.

The position that students should be brainwashed with naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) at the expense of taxpayers while criticisms and opposing views should be censored is a dishonest position. I see no reason to take the secular community seriously when they take a dishonest position. The fact that they take a dishonest position supports their overall dishonesty and makes it difficult for me to take them seriously on the subject.



hellohellohi -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 5:00:45 PM)

Perhaps what you are bothered by bettawrekonize is the appearance that whenever a flaw seems to have appeared in the coherence of or evidence for evolution, a name, such as punctuated equilibirum, is supplied to cover it, giving evolutionists a word to rest on.

However follish this may appear -- I believe it is science -- I think these suspicious words are rather good places from which to launch inquiry. The fact that it generates questions in you rmind is reflective of that. Really anything which you can testably doubt or question os game for science.

On the other hand, I prefer not to doubt nor to test the existence of a Creator. It seems an ever-present open "possibility" from an epistemological or what-have-you point of view -- that is, I don't think it can be scientifically investigated. What questions would we ask? What would such science look like? Perhaps I have a poor imagination, but I am not sure. Perhaps along the lines: "If I was the Creator, I would put this do-hicky-thing here and this one here," with an experiment proceeding to see if it is so. Of course, that would not all support the inital question -- but, I can anticipate, perhaps the same can be said for the sweeping claims of evolution. Still, I see evolution asking MORE questions then ID -- would ID ask HOW God put teh do-hicky-things there?

Thanks in advance for your response.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 5:02:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Perhaps what you are bothered by bettawrekonize is the appearance that whenever a flaw seems to have appeared in the coherence of or evidence for evolution, a name, such as punctuated equilibirum, is supplied to cover it, giving evolutionists a word to rest on.


Intelligent design is falsifiable, UCD is not.

Aside from that, they don't have to label ID and creationism and criticisms of evolution "science" just so long as those that are exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are also exposed to the strongest criticisms and opposing views and just as long as researchers that question UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are not dishonestly discriminated against by the NSF (and others) when it comes to (tax funded) research grants (and they are dishonestly discriminated against). Creationist and ID scientists should also be allowed direct access to examine the fossils themselves (just like evolutionists are). Doing such would reduce the chances of frauds (ie: piltdown man, which was accepted as fact for like 40+ years before it was discovered to be a fraud. Given the dishonest nature of the secular community and the amount of frauds that were exposed in the past, I would say that there is a good possibility that many other alleged findings are fraudulent as well. Allowing Creationists and ID advocates direct access to the research that finds and examines these fossils would reduce the chances of fraud. After all, if the secular community has nothing to hide, then there is no reason not to allow ID advocates and Creationists access to such research. Currently, scientists that question naturalistic philosophies are dishonestly discriminated against and this needs to stop).



hellohellohi -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 5:07:46 PM)

I don't care about falsifiability. Thanks to gluadys I have learned that Karl Popper started the fad over that word. It's okay but I don't think it goes deep enough, or perhaps it is rather too specific.

I think testable is a better word that also expresses what Popper was getting at.

I also admit that what science says isn't necessarily true. Still, I would rather let science be science rather than what ID is -- I consider it to be narrative device, but it does not appear to generate questions in the same way that systematic DOUBT does. I tbelieve doubt is definitive of science.

I hope you will notice that such a formulation may semantically, at least, strip science of some of its gusto.

I think curiosity may also play a role in science. But as far as the articulation of science -- any and all questions must be asked in order to acheive a RELATIVELY adequate NARRATIVE of observations. I agree that ID is a valid narrative; however, it does not ask ANY and ALL questions.

Or can it?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 5:10:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
I agree that ID is a valid narrative; however, it does not ask ANY and ALL questions.

Or can it?


So what if it doesn't ask any and all questions. It asks some questions and we should not exclude it. UCD doesn't ask any and all questions. "Why is the sky blue" for example, is a question that UCD does not ask.

I didn't say that we should exclude UCD and other naturalistic philosophies, just that we should not exclude ID and Creationism and criticisms of evolution. If they want to teach astrology, they should also welcome criticisms and opposing views. Likewise, if they want to teach UCD and other naturalistic philosophies, they should also welcome criticisms and opposing views. Teachers should not lose their jobs for exposing students to something just because it may threaten naturalism.

quote:


I think testable is a better word that also expresses what Popper was getting at.


How can we test something that's unfalsifiable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
I tbelieve doubt is definitive of science.


Many people doubt ID.



Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 5:39:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Darwin was content. There was a lack of intermediary fossils during his time (and there still is now) and he said that geological factors were responsible and that there may always be a lack of intermediaries.


There will always be a lack of intermediates for every single species to species transition. This does not mean that anyone is content with the fossils we have now, or even in Darwin's time. Do you really think that paleontologists are on vacation when they just happen to stumble on fossils?

[quotean search for fossils without evolution.

You can also search for lost hikers without dogs, but using dogs makes it a lot easier. Using evolution to find specific transitions makes finding those fossils a lot easier such as in the case of Tiktaalik rosae.

quote:

When they show me abiogenesis and molecule to man evolution (independent design, and I don't mean human development), then I'll worry. Until then, they have nothing.


They have intermediates between humans and their common ancestors with chimps which is more than enough to crash your house of cards to the ground. Your position is scientifically and morally bankrupt.

quote:

ID makes predictions, UCD does not.


I guess creationists only follow 9 of the commandments.

quote:

Plus, if you add the dishonest nature of the secular community (ie: how they discriminate against those that may question naturalistic philosophies like UCD), I'm even more inclined to think that the evidence is much more lacking than they would like us to believe.


More lies.



Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 5:46:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
You mean like Piltdown Man?


What about Piltdown Man? Are you now saying that every intermediate that is found is a hoax? Seriously? Is that the only argument you have left? Is creationism that pathetic?

quote:

I see no reason to take something that must resort to dishonesty to maintain itself seriously.


Then you are done here. Bye.

quote:

The position that students should be brainwashed with naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) at the expense of taxpayers while criticisms and opposing views should be censored is a dishonest position.


Religious beliefs are not criticisms of a scientific theory. Again, your position is bankrupt.

quote:

I see no reason to take the secular community seriously when they take a dishonest position. The fact that they take a dishonest position supports their overall dishonesty and makes it difficult for me to take them seriously on the subject.


Your dishonesty in every post is all I need to show the bankruptcy of ID and creationism.



hellohellohi -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 6:07:49 PM)

Fair enough,

However, I meant that science asks any and all questions. What kind of questions does ID ask? Please help me think of some.

Falsification is odd to speak of because when one is using specific instances as the test, there is the possibility of waiting for infinity for EITHER falsification or CONFIRMATION. There is nothing special about negating a premise. Any proposition can be phrased either negatively or positively -- and thus confirmation or falsification becomes a matter of indifference.

For instance, take the case of the observation "It rains some gray days." Let's say someone was asking someone to accept this who could not yet personally confirm it: That is, imagine we are awaiting some gray days. Confirmation will come quite quickly. However, one can imagine that it will take all time for falsification -- that is, observation of ALL gray days. However, one could always say that the proposition "It rains no gray days" was quickly falsified!! That's why I say falsification or confirmation SOUNDS profound but is a matter of complete indifference as far as logic is concerned.

Of course, science is more interested in causation, or some would say (rather than the rather indefinite observation above). However, what lies between the example of confirming single instances and generalizing to things that would be falsifiable only at infinity is statistics. That is, science obviously uses statistics to investigate CORRELATION which is not the same as causation at all.


Personally, I would rather throw out all forms of "narrative" from science and just let it ask questions. I was annoyed by the eagerness to spin stories and write popular books by evolutionists before I had an opinion on Christianity. However, I still think evolution is quite plausible. ID is plausible as well, but... as I said, I would rather science be defined solely as systematic doubt and inquiry. As I said, I don't feel that inquiry is behind ID.

Please help me think of questions that ID would ask. I am pleased by the questions that evolution asks -- even if they are loaded questions based on lies! As long as people are asking questions, though, I can ask THEM questions, and perhaps we will learn something -- even find new depths to the glory of God's complex creation! I don't hear many question coming from the ID camp, but a lot of argument about the philosophy of science and other "meta-questions."

I think science should deal with the physically observable -- that is, the nameable, understood as that property possessed by objects as contrasted to the nameability of people. I think God is nameable only in the way that a person is.

Further, and related to this, I believe science is limited to the QUANTIFIABLE. i don't think it can investigate questions of quality -- these are the type that make even a perfect physical description of a person irrelevant to the subjective task of relating to or even naming a person.

To say that God is objectively observable to the Universe is of course simultaneous with saying that nothing in the Universe has existence apart from that imparted by the Creator. While it is fine to claim that a Creator is behind everything, science would then become the investigation and naming of all Creation. This naming, I believe, could extend to the processes involved in the unfolding of Creation. Doesn't life develop through a process? Why not species? If there is no procession involved in speciation, then why does it appear so?


Basically, though, I am not interested in the answers that science provides but rather the questions it generates. That is why I think Karl Popper was misguided in suggesting falsifiability as a sufficient criterion for science.



tony.nz -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 6:43:17 PM)

As a non scientist, I find these debates amusing. From what I understand of the original article, there are two types of modern fish. Those whose eyes are directly attached to the brain by cartilage, and those that dont, having alternatively a system of muscles which control eye movement. It is proposed that the 400 million year old fossils of this extinct fish, had a hybrid system.

As a result of this, we have people calling each other liars, depending on their point of view as to whether this supports evolutionary theory, or not. And, clearly you could say that it is an example of a living thing that was part evolved from one system, to another. So, you could say it supports evolutionary theory. However, equally, you could ask why there are no fish species currently in this mid-point of evolution. And you could also ask, so what? If the 21st century is characterised by the development of fully electric cars, would the Prius then be evidence of natural development from gasoline powered cars? Or a design development? My point is, it can also be seen as an example of incredible diversity in design.



hellohellohi -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 6:45:27 PM)

good points to my mind tony.nz



Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 6:50:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tony.nz

As a non scientist, I find these debates amusing. From what I understand of the original article, there are two types of modern fish. Those whose eyes are directly attached to the brain by cartilage, and those that dont, having alternatively a system of muscles which control eye movement. It is proposed that the 400 million year old fossils of this extinct fish, had a hybrid system.


The modern fish are chondrichthyes (cartilagenous fish) and agnathans (jawless fish like the lamprey). The intermediate between the most basal jawless fish and jawed modern fish are placoderms. As it turns out, they have recently discovered well preserved placoderms that have an intermediate eye, a hybrid as you put it.

quote:

As a result of this, we have people calling each other liars, depending on their point of view as to whether this supports evolutionary theory, or not. And, clearly you could say that it is an example of a living thing that was part evolved from one system, to another. So, you could say it supports evolutionary theory. However, equally, you could ask why there are no fish species currently in this mid-point of evolution. And you could also ask, so what? If the 21st century is characterised by the development of fully electric cars, would the Prius then be evidence of natural development from gasoline powered cars? Or a design development? My point is, it can also be seen as an example of incredible diversity in design.


If evolution did occur then this is the type of intermediate that we would expect to find, is it not?

Betta claims that evolution does not predict intermediates, which is laughable given the fact that creationists site a supposed lack of transitionals as evidence against the theory. Now that transitionals are being found by the handful it suddenly isn't evidence for evolution anymore. How convenient.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 7:58:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
However, I meant that science asks any and all questions. What kind of questions does ID ask? Please help me think of some.


Is there evidence to suggest that we were intelligently designed? Can we infer a designer?

quote:


Falsification is odd to speak of because when one is using specific instances as the test, there is the possibility of waiting for infinity for EITHER falsification or CONFIRMATION. There is nothing special about negating a premise. Any proposition can be phrased either negatively or positively -- and thus confirmation or falsification becomes a matter of indifference.


If I were to say, black swans don't exist, that's a falsifiable statement. There is the possibility of waiting forever to falsify it, but until we find a black swan, the statement that black swans don't exist is a scientific one.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 8:04:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
What about Piltdown Man? Are you now saying that every intermediate that is found is a hoax? Seriously? Is that the only argument you have left? Is creationism that pathetic?


No, that is not my argument (as you know). You're just making things up again. My argument (as you know) is that Creationists and ID advocates should be included in the research process and they shouldn't be dishonestly discriminated against.

quote:


Religious beliefs are not criticisms of a scientific theory. Again, your position is bankrupt.


ID is scientific and UCD is a naturalistic philosophy that tries to persuade others of the naturalistic religion. Science welcomes criticisms and opposing views. If UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are as scientifically sound as you claim they are then there is no reason for you to promote the suppression of criticisms and opposing views from students.

quote:


Your dishonesty in every post is all I need to show the bankruptcy of ID and creationism.


My position is one of academic freedom and open inquiry. Academic freedom and open inquiry is an honest position. Your position is one of academic suppression and closed inquiry. If your position were really as scientific and reasonable as you think it is, there would be no reason for you to fear academic freedom and open inquiry.



tony.nz -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 8:08:24 PM)

Well, clearly evolution requires the existence of intermediates. What I understand Betta as saying is the evolutionists were comfortable with the lack of evidence for intermediates. The question then becomes whether the "new" intermediates are evidence with ehich creationists' are comfortable with.

The problem is, there are basically two types of creationists, I am not sure who has evolved from who. [:D]
The YEC position is that the evidence of scripture supercedes any natural evidence, and their interpretation of scripture is that it says creation is 6000 years old. As a result, they do not accept even the basis of radiometric dating.

The OEC position is that the scripture was never meant to be interpreted in that manner, and they accept the scientific dating of the natural world. However, while accepting to some extent micro-evolution, they generally do not accept evolution from one species or type to another, believing that God supernaturally intervened in the process of creation of the variety of living beings. In their case, your intermediates become evidence of diversity in design, biological similarities in fossils not evidence of common descent, rather evidence of common design.

So, by throwing a few old fish bones at us as "evidence" of evolution, you are preaching to the converted, ie, those who already accept evolution. Frankly, none of the various positions are falsifiable, in my opinion. You cannot disprove evolution, because each dfiscovery of a variety of old bones becomes "transitional", if different from what has been found before. Similarly, creationsits will also naturally interpret it in accordance with their world views.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 8:31:36 PM)

My main point here is that scientists should be allowed academic freedom without suffering dishonest discrimination. The position of the secular community is that the notion that naturalism is true should be funded with tax dollars while any considerations to the contrary should be censored from public schools and scientists that question naturalism should be dishonestly discriminated against. If naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) really are as reasonable as people hold them to be, then there should be no reason that public schools should censor consideration into the possibility that naturalism is false and they shouldn't censor consideration into something that may contradict naturalism because, if naturalism and naturalistic philosophies (ie: UCD) are as sound as naturalists claim they are, they should be able to adequately defend themselves in the face of criticisms and opposing views. The fact that so many naturalists take the dishonest position that anything that may contradict naturalism should be censored suggests that naturalism is an indefendable position. If UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are to be considered in public schools, so should criticisms and opposing views (like ID and Creationism), and those who are required to be exposed to naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) should likewise be required to be exposed to criticisms and opposing views. Scientists shouldn't be discriminated against by tax funded organizations (ie: the NSF) just because their research may question naturalism or they may question naturalism. Teachers shouldn't lose their jobs for questioning naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) or exposing students to opposing views.



ianz -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 9:54:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

...

Again, being compatible with and accepting are two different things.
OK fair enough. Let's change the theme to compatible then. How can ID be compatible with both YEC and evolution?

quote:


How can ID be compatible with a theory requiring one ancestor (evolution-lite) AND compatible with one requiring multiple common ancestors (YEC), not to mention the variance from 4.5 billion down to 6,000 years for the variations to occur?


because ID says nothing about either. Again, being compatible with and accepting are not the same thing. For example, theism (and atheism) is compatible with the notion that the sun goes around the Earth but it's also compatible with the notion that the Earth goes around the Sun.
quote:

That's a poor example though because in both cases, the Earth and the Sun appear to be revolving around one another. But you're arguing that ID is compatible with two explanations for our origin which are diametrically opposed. It says nothing about what goes around what. ID says nothing about the age of the earth. Again, I don't see why you're having problems with such a simple concept.
Because ID cannot be compatible with both a 6,000 year old Earth with many common ancestors AND compatible with evolution per se. One involves evolution over a very long period of time and one involves micro-evolution (if you will, but no species change) over a very very short period. They are different.

Regards, Ian

Edit: fixed quote markers



ianz -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 10:05:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

quote:

ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
The question to me is still open, how do we know radiometric dating is accurate to the extent that we could positively say that something is 400 mil years old. Isn't that extreme in the least.


Why is it extreme? That is just 10% of the actual age of the earth and about 3% of the age of the Universe. That isn't extreme at all. We also know that radiometric dating is accurate because it can be correlated to non-radiometric dating methods, it cross-correlates between different isotope pairs, and the assumptions upon which radiometric dating rests have been tested every which way. If the assumptions are wrong then nuclear power plants will either blow up or become inert at a drop of a hat. If the assumptions are good enough to build nuclear power plants near populations then why aren't they good enough to date things with?
Another point worth making: it's often posed as an argument that the decay rates can't be known to have been constant, and therefore dating methods cannot be trusted to be accurate. However to get from a date of 4.5 billion years calculated assuming a constant rate of decay, to a date of 6,000 years assuming a variable rate, we would have to assume that the rate of decay had increased by a factor of at least ~750,000, before it dramatically slowed to give us the constant rate we observe today. That's one heck of an assumption.

PS Sorry for my pointless response to the satanist 'joke'. It just got under my skin.



Godhead -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 10:17:02 PM)

Micro evolution only proves the resilience of bacteria, not evolution in any way. Also Bacteria is easy to manipulate, for example, they add a gene to certain bacteria to make it produce an enzyme that helps produce a more durable rubber. They can easily add a gene to bacteria to make it eat some chemical, or anything else for that matter. Micro evolution can easily be faked. On the other hand, bacteria has to be resilient for our eco system needs micro –organisms to survive. Bacteria is resilient simply because God made them that way. They are essential to all life on Earth. Micro – evolution is in no way proof that all live evolved from single celled animals. Only proof that God is all wise and powerful. Remember it is evolutionist trying to get everything to fit their theory, they are just projecting their interpretation on the facts available.



gluadys -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 10:31:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
How do hypotheses about why fossil remains of intermediate species are rare translate into being "content" with a lack of intermediates. Both Darwin and Gould welcomed every discovery of an intermediate. Neither would accept the idea that there were no intermediates. Only that they could be difficult to find in the fossil record. This difficulty was, if anything, a source of discontent, not contentment.


You're missing the point. Neither of them predict that we should find intermediates and were perfectly content if we didn't find them. If there are intermediates, that's cool with them, but if there aren't, that's also cool with them. Darwin admit that there was a lack of intermediates and he was content with it (and he even said that it would be no problem for evolution if there continues to be a lack of intermediates). Evolution does not predict anything in this regard either, if this alleged intermediary weren't found, that's cool with evolution.



Well, it is certainly true that there is plenty of evidence for evolution without the fossil record.

Evolution does predict the existence of intermediates. I would agree that it does not predict which intermediates will be found and which will remain undiscovered. It does predict, however that there are intermediates there to be discovered. Given two species, X and Y, evolution can also predict to some extent what characteristics to expect in an intermediate if found.



hellohellohi -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/4/2008 9:47:24 AM)

quote:

Is there evidence to suggest that we were intelligently designed? Can we infer a designer?


These are indeed phrased in the form of a question -- but can you design an experiment around them? They are questions directed at me -- instead, we need to think of questions directed at the natural world.

Is there evidence? Yes, I suppose so. Can we infer? Yes, in a weak sense. Can we deduce? No, I am not aware of a syllogism to do this.

You see, science has a hard time simply jumping from proximal causation to distal. Is God the ultimate cause of the universe? Yeah, I think this is sensible to say in a way. However, what if proximal, reductionist chains of causation are apparent on the "micro" scale? Then we ought to investigate them.

Is the TOE also an example of too hastily jumping from reductionist and very valid investigations of the proximal causes and mechanisms behind change in generations and other biological phenomena to distal causation and trends? Yes, perhaps. I think it is fair to make that case. You see, I am not fully trying to denigrate your thinking, but criticize it where it seems appropriate, sure.



SavedToo -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/5/2008 5:52:30 PM)

quote:


jawed ancestors of modern fish whose bodies were protected by thick bony armour.


Ah, hold on a second. How can an evolutionist with Dr. keep dishing up this slop?

Everyone knows that it's phsically imposible for life of have evolved in the ocean. Why? Way way to much water. Chance peptide formation requries the absence of water because it will short out it's formation.

Was the dear. Dr. asleep during his first year of chemistry?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI