Re: But is it science?

From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
Date: Thu Sep 21 2000 - 00:10:34 EDT

  • Next message: FMAJ1019@aol.com: "Re: `intelligent natural forces' (was filter)"

    In a message dated 9/20/2000 10:42:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
    Bertvan@aol.com writes:

    << ID opponents keeps insisting, "But we don't need design. A naturalistic >>

    Actually ID opponents keep insisting: Please show us a reliable indicator of
    design that can exclude natural selection as the designing agent.

    << explanation *could* exist." True, but would it be science? Science fiction
    writers have been dreaming up similar stories for a century now. In fact,
    the twentieth century might come to be known as the "science fiction
    century". Darwinism, the idea that nature is the result of chance events
    molded by natural selection, included some good stories. Such as the one
    about how a wolf-like creature turned into a whale in a mere 10 million years.
    >>

    You should really check out the 'story' and tell us what parts you do not
    like. James Acker has done an excellent job reviewing a book on this issue:

    The Emergence of Whales: Evolutionary Patterns in the Origins of the
    Cetacea" (Advances in Vertebrate Paleontology) edited by J.G.M. Thewissen. P
    lenum Press, ISBN 0306458535.

    Final thoughts
    http://x64.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=651920148

    Chapter 1
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=598820879

    Chapter 2
    http://x73.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=603930156

    Chapter 3
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=607622168

    Chapter 4
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=610256319

    Chapter 5
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=615027307

    Chapter 6
    http://x73.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=622189367

    Chapter 7
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=625089976

    Chapter 8
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=626834703

    Chapter 9
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=630400907

    Chapter 10
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=632802532

    Chapter 11
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=635494245

    Chapter 12
    http://x73.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=638115493

    Chapter 13
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=640997978

    Chapter 14
    http://x73.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=645560607

    Chapter 15
    http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=649188575

    Chapter 16
    http://x69.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=650605356

    <<
    Some of the changes would have included:
    (1) Complete loss of body hair
    (2) Transformation of a protruding nose into a blowhole
    (3) Migration of the blowhole to the top of the head
    (4) Loss of toes/claws/hooves
    (5) Forelimbs transforming gradually from wolf-like legs into pectoral fins
    (6) Massive increase in body size
    (7) Transformation of a wolf-like tail into a powerful fluke that propels a
    whale through (and out of) the water by vertical undulations
    (8) Development of echolocation
    (9) Ability of young to nurse under water
    (10) Increase in brain size
    (11) Near complete loss of hind limbs
    (12) etc‰¥Ï (for example, possible modifications to the eye to allow for vision
    during continuous exposure to water, baleen for filter feeding - if present
    in the first whales, ‰¥Ï)

    http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000320.html
    (See post by DNAunion 9-19-2000)

    All of these changes *might* be explained by some implausible "chance events
    plus natural selection" scenario. However, any story of how it might have
    >>

    Nothing implausible about these chance events.

    h<< appened is pure science fiction. When scientists return to actually doing
    >>

    You seem to forget that the story is supported by evidence.

    s<< cience, they will seek out the details of biology, micro biology, bio
    chemistry etc., which can be verified, and leave everyone to their own
    speculations about how it might have happened. I would not try to discourage
    >>

    Read the book I'd suggest and tell us what's wrong with it.

    t<< hose who feel it can all be explained by chance events plus natural
    selection. The details of how they do science will remain exactly the same
    as scientists who suspect something deeper, such as design. However,
    scientists who suspect design probably won't dismiss anything in nature as
    "junk".
    >>

    They'll dismiss it as "design". So far design has not been shown to be
    superior to the "I don't know" argument.
    It unlikely will be.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 00:10:50 EDT