"Stephen E. Jones" writes
in message <200004222331.HAA23315@popserver-02.iinet.net.au>:
> Reflectorites
>
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:33:19 -0700, Tedd Hadley wrote:
>
> [...]
>
<snip>
> TH>Could it be that [arguing about quotes and quote context] is
> > what you want? Such a game is certainly a lot easier to appear
> >to win then specifically talking about details, issues and
> >evidence and actually defending arguments raised...
>
> Tedd obviously hasn't been around long enough to know me. He
> would find that I am happy to debate *anything*: "details, issues
> and evidence and actually defending arguments raised...", and
> even "out-of-context quotes."!
Good. So what happened to the details, issues and evidence
you deleted from this post?
> I think even my worst enemies
> on this Reflector would reluctantly vouch for the fact that in
> these last 5-6 years, I have shirked *nothing*. Frankly I could
> not live with my conscience if I did.
>
> Besides, it is *Tedd* who is playing this "out-of-context" quote
> "game", in order that we cannot get around to discussing "details,
> issues and evidence and actually defending arguments raised...".
No, I included details, issues and evidence in this very post.
You deleted them. It appears to me that you are seizing on this
quote issue as an excuse to avoid discussing anything more
substantial.
<snip>
Here is the part of my post you deleted:
> TH>... the claim of variety would be falsified
> >if we found only the same life forms over a variety of conditions.
>
> If Tedd concedes that it is "obvious" that "Darwinism would not be
> falsified if we found another Earth-like planet with no life...on
> it", then I rest my case.
No, obvious that Darwinism would not be falsified if we found another
Earth-like planet ... etc. I supplied what I believe would be
falsification in the paragraph above.
> See above. On Tedd's own admission, Darwinism cannot even predict
> that there would be any life at all!
No, if there is a good supply of imperfectly replicating molecules,
natural selection can act on them to produce levels of complexity
logically limited only by time and energy supply. I would
argue that complexity is a prediction of the laws of physics
and Darwinism is merely one combination of those.
<snip>
> >SJ>My prediction is that by the early 21st century the Darwinists
> >>will be unable to continue preventing the critical discussion
> >>of Darwinism's many problems in science classes.
>
> TH>That's not much of a prediction unless you identify which of
> >Darwinism's "many problems" you think aren't being discussed
> >today. Can you supply specifics?
>
> I have just cited two to Tedd, namely the origin of sex, which Dawkins said
> was "probably the most baffling topic in modern evolutionary theory"
No, this topic is being discussed today. It's certainly not being
hidden.
> But here is another. There is little or no empirical scientific
> evidence for positive natural selection:
"Little" is subjective, given that it is not clear what kinds
of examples one would expect given observed mutation rates.
If natural selection is the main driving force of evolution,
what evidence should exist for it? "No" is, of course, incorrect
as I show below.
> "Despite its biological importance, positive selection is seldom
> observed at work in nature. A few well-known, and constantly
> cited examples are industrial melanism in moths (Kettlewell,
> 1955, 1956, 1958), DDT resistance in insects and antibiotic
> resistance in bacteria." (Kimura M., "The Neutral Theory of
> Molecular Evolution," 1990, p.118)
>
> And even that constantly cited evidence is shaky. Kettlewell's
> "industrial melanism in moths" has been largely discredited,
Perhaps you could supply details how this is not an example of
natural selection? I should warn you in advance that I've
read Donald Frack's article posted to this list last April.
> and Spetner has pointed out that "resistance in insects and
> antibiotic resistance in bacteria" is caused by a *loss* of
> genetic information!
Not always. Compensatory mutations and reverse mutations are
known to occur. See "Reducing antibiotic resistance." Schrag.
Nature Vol 381 9 May 1996. If a mutation can occur that
improves the fitness of a bacteria in the *absence* of the
antibiotic, Spetner's whole thesis has been derailed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 25 2000 - 14:54:51 EDT