From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:57:17 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug25.223154.1867@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) writes:
>From: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham)
>Subject: re: Gardner on Evolution
>Date: 25 Aug 92 22:31:54 GMT


>                                          
>In article <1992Aug25.160114.12277@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>  writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.211221.4008@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham)  writes:
>>> In article <SLEATOR.92Aug24092613@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU> news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System) writes:
>>
>>> When has evolution ever been observed in "repeated observations 
>>> and experiments"?!  Never!  NEVER!  
>> 
>>       see below.
>>
>>> 
>>> Definition time:  there are two parts of evolution. 
>>> 
>>> Micro-evolution:  The survival of the fittest.  An organism with
>>>                   a characteristic which gives it an advantage will
>>>                   survive.
>>> 
>>> Macro-evolution:  The process by which new structures are produced,
>>>                   resulting in an increase in complexity.
>>
>>       well, you left out the population aspect of both, but this is a
>>passable simplification.

>?? Please fill me in.  What do you mean by "population aspect"?  If
>you mean greater population gives an advantage, I would include that 
>in survival of the fittest.

>>
>>> 
>>> The first has never been contested, and is easily verifiable.
>>> 
>>> The second is where the entire "unified" theory breaks down, and
>>> is the crux of evolution.  This is the part that has never been
>>> verified or proven.  
>>
>>       Two points:
>>
>>
>>       1) Let's assume that you are right.  Macroevolution is bogus.  Just
>>because one theory is incorrect does not mean that another is right.  You
>>cannot "prove" strict creationism simply by proving that a theory (one that
>>is still being formulated/debated about) is false or incomplete.

>If you will notice, I said "Evolution, like creation, is not a verifiable
>fact."  I simply took exception with a dogmatic statement about the FACT
>of evolution, something you cannot do with either, and calling people
>disagreeing "ignorant creationists."

>>       2) The vertebrate fossil record is quite complete, and it shows
>>a great deal that macroevolution is based upon.  embryology is a another one. 
>>How does one explain that all vetebrates at one time all have:
>>
>>       - a hollow notochord
>>       - gill slits
>>       - a two chambered heart
>>       - a tail
>>
>>       either as adults ( less complex -- not less evolved) or as embryos (
>>more complex or terrestrial vertebrates) More complex critters lose the
>>notochord, tail, and slits, and modify the heart as development continues.
>>

>This is interesting because this theory (embryology) has been discredited
>since the late 60's even by secular evolutionists.  This is because 
>similarities to structures in more primitve animals is merely
>superficial and has no root in genetics, the real determinant,

>>       Mere coincidence?  How does a view of the universe that eliminates
>>macroevolution explain these and other similarities between organisms if they
>>did not evolve from common ancestors?
>>

>This is the root of the issue.  A person who rules out supernaturalistic
>origins must settle for evolution, because there is no other conceivable
>naturalistic solution.  Even when evolution violates fundamental 
>naturalistic, verifiable laws such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 
>(i.e. closed systems tend to move toward disorder, or randomness, or 
>unusable forms of energy, depending on application), it still must be
>accepted because the only alternative is a supernaturalistic 
>explanantion, no matter its scope.  The profound transition from
>evolution to creation is not scientific, but _philosophical_.

>>=====================================================.

Karl Popper, the british philosopher of science, has described the science 
of evolution as "a metaphysical research program."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1037 alt.rush-limbaugh:4000 alt.activism.d:2927