From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Oct 14 2003 - 21:46:19 EDT
Brian Harper wrote:
> At 08:34 AM 10/14/2003 -0400, Walter Hicks
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Don Winterstein wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > The fact of evolution is easy to falsify in principle: Just
>> > find a bunch of fossils
>> > grossly out of sequence in undisturbed formations. For
>> > example, find homo
>> > sapiens skeletons in undisturbed Carboniferous limestone.
>> > Evolution emphatically
>> > predicts such things do not exist, so to falsify it, just find
>> > them. YECs in fact
>> > have claimed to have made finds of this sort (e.g., human
>> > footprints alongside
>> > dinosaur tracks), but none have stood up under
>> > scrutiny.
>> >
>> Actually, the "fact" of evolution was not my
>> question. That is a lot of the difficulty of
>> working with evolution. The same term is used
>> for the theory and fact (or data). But you
>> raise a good point. The flood catastrophe
>> folks have to go through a lot of convoluted
>> reasoning to get around the sequence.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Proposed mechanisms of evolution are a different story.
>> > Support for these comes
>> > from plausibility arguments, and such arguments aren't
>> > falsifiable. You either
>> > believe them or you don't. Nevertheless, they are widely
>> > accepted because they
>> > are the best natural mechanisms we know
>> > of.
>> >
>> That is the basic issue raised by Johnson
>> ===> namely, that he doesn't think that
>> "natural mechanisms" are at work. One does not
>> address his concerns or arguments by saying
>> that this is "the best natural mechanisms we
>> know of". It can only be addressed by making
>> predictions and demonstrating that they work
>> and that those alone are sufficient to
>> demonstrate that evolution of species can
>> happen.
>>
>> I believe from all of the avoidance I see,
>> that one cannot do the above and, therefore,
>> there is no valid theory for the evolution of
>> species. When (or if) there ever is, people
>> will stop dancing around the question IMO.
>
> Walt,
>
> I hope you can understand that it is really
> difficult to find any sympathy for this. You
> previously mentioned that you don't have a
> textbook on evolutionary biology, relying
> instead on lecture notes on the web.
(Also the talkorigins as was suggested.)
This is a really great turn around , Brian.
Because Philip Johnson hasn't seen any proof of
your theories, I am supposed to read a book? What
then? Do I call up good old Phil and tell him I
think he is wrong? Why don't you do it if all that
one has to do is read a book that you obviously
have already read?
> Despite that you want to come to the sweeping
> conclusion that "...there is no valid theory for
> the evolution of species". Based on what,
> avoidance? This is simply ad-hominem.
I am reminded of the story of the man in a
balloon:
Balloon: "Hello down there"
Ground: "Hello up there"
Balloon: "Can you tell me where I am"
Ground: "Sure, you are in a balloon"
Balloon: "You must be a physicist"
Ground: "Yes, how did you know?"
Balloon: "Because you give me facts but don't give
me any help"
Ground: "And you must be an evolutionist"
Balloon: "Yes, how did know?"
Ground: "Because this started out as your problem
and now it is mine."
>
>
> A few more comments. Newton's universal law was
> accepted despite the fact that Newton did not
> feign to even so much as suggest a mechanism. It
> is not possible to show, to the same degree of
> rigor you suggest above, that the behavior of a
> real double pendulum is caused by gravity. There
> are many examples I could give along these
> lines. Here is another. There is no theory of
> plasticity that can correctly predict large
> scale plastic deformation in metals under
> complex loading conditions.
Correct and nobody pretends that there is one.
So would you have me believe that there is one for
evolution, or you trying to say that there is not
a theory that that works for evolution? Which is
your claim? I can settle for either answer.
Will I get an answer?
Probably not :)
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 14 2003 - 21:46:38 EDT