Re: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Again this is a spurious distinction. What you dismiss as "a supposed
historical scenario" can be - if sufficiently well supported by evidence &
confirmation of its implications - an understanding of what has happened in
some historical situation which we didn't have before. I.e., it is
"something new" in the same sense that physics has given us something "new"
with explanations of particle behavior in terms of the standard model, e.g.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>; "Iain Strachan"
<igd.strachan@gmail.com>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:43 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according
to Terry

Forensic science uses the results of experimental science to establish a
supposed historical scenario. The only example I know where something new
comes out of forensic science is the notion of profiling.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: George Murphy [GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:55 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Iain Strachan; Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according
to Terry

For starters, I think that your characterization of forensic science is
wrong. Forensic scientists do not simply "suppose a scenario." They
collect physical evidence from a scene and from it, using theories with some
degree of support, try to reconstruct events.

More broadly, the whole attempt to distinguish sharply "experimental" from
"historical," "forensic" &c science is wrong. Of course there are
differences but they are differences of degree, not clear-cut qualitative
distinctions.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>; "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according
to Terry

> Many of us have often said that evolutionary theory is more akin to
> forensic science than to experimental science. Recall that for all the
> data that was presented in the O.J. Simpson trial, the jury did reach the
> wrong verdict. This may also be the case for those investigating the past
> with regard to the question of origins. In forensic science, one supposes
> a scenario and attempts to prove it with extant physical data. People have
> to recognize the true nature of evolutionary theory and stop comparing it
> to theories that are used in the experimental sciences.
>
> Moorad
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> Iain Strachan [igd.strachan@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 1:43 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according
> to Terry
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>> Moorad said:
>> "For one, we can make all sorts of predictions in our theory of
>> gravitation and test them experimentally, witness Apollo 11, whereas the
>> same cannot be said of evolution."
>>
>> I think this is false. We can test evolutionary theory. A
>> macroevolutionary hypothesis is that man descended from an apelike
>> creature. Can it be disproven? Yes. Rather than running experiments,
>> instead data is collected. Genomic studies. Data falls in line with
>> evolutionary theory, and helps define/refine evolutionary theory. Data
>> also disproves creation of human by fiat or any kind of sudden,
>> non-descent (YEC/OEC idea of human creation).
>
>
> No it doesn't. Or at least your favoured chromosome fusion example
> doesn't. Now before you have a go at me about what I believe, I'll
> state right at the start that I believe in the reasonable hypothesis
> that apes and humans are descended from an ape-like ancestor that had
> 48 chromosomes. I imagine it's possible to date (using genetic drift)
> the time in history when the fusion occurred and that will verify it
> was before humans came along. But I believe in long time-scales;
> YEC's don't.
>
> However, as we have seen from Dennis's explanation and the quote from
> Darryl Falk, it seems the chromosome fusion is no big deal - it is a
> microevolutionary step in itself that doesn't change the genetic
> material. A heterozygous 47 chromosome (23+24) individual can mate
> perfectly well with a 48 or a 46, and meiotic drive ensures the 46
> individuals eventually take over the population.
>
> Hence, a YEC could well argue that man and apes were created
> separately, and the humans originally had 48 chromosomes.
>
> You'll need a lot more than evidence of a chromosome fusion to
> disprove that assertion.
>
> Iain
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>=

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 21 18:11:47 2009