From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Yet another ignoramus on the rampage
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:11:52 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)

Followups are directed to talk.origins, where they belong.  And Dave, if
you're not interested in following through, then keep your mouth shut next
time.

In article <1992Aug18.002908.20040@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, dave@cs (Dave Schaumann) writes:
>In article <4756@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron (Larry Smith) writes:
>>And Dawkins goes to great lengths to (a) point out those forms and (b) explain
>>why the fossil record cannot be trusted to provide a complete explanation.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>"The fossil record cannot be trusted to provide a complete explanation"??!!!

That's right.

>Dang.  I guess I must be way behind the times when it comes to the scientific
>method.  I thought it went "you form a hypothesis to fit the facts; if the
>facts don't fit the hypothesis, you toss the hypothesis and not the facts".

No, you're just completely ignorant regarding what is claimed.  Making
fun of something you have no absolutely no knowledge of is pretty stupid,
which is why I made the recommendation above.  For one thing, what "facts"
are you referring to that don't fit evolution?

Regarding your behind the times: evolution is at the core of all parts of
biology.  It is the universal underlying theme behind our understanding
of cells, animals, sex, viruses, genetics, ecology, population, disease,
and so on and so on.

>But I guess certain hypothesis are above reproach, right?

Nope.  But it helps to have _something_ to reproach with.  Something
more substantial than hot air and stale jokes and encrusted brains.

>							    'Cause if
>Darwin was wrong, and evolution is a house of cards... well, that really
>only leaves one possibility, doesn't it?.  And if you're philisophically
>opposed to that possibility on a fundamental level...

And if pigs had wings they could fly, but who cares?  Empty profundities
are cheap.  If there's something mistaken about evolution, please, fill
us in and spare us the song and dance.

>The fossil record *is* an unbiased record of passed events.

This is simply false.  The record is strongly biased in favor of nothing
being preserved.  If conditions are right, teeth, bones, shells and other
hard materials might be preserved.  If conditions are extremely lucky,
soft parts can also be preserved.  Shallow waters are generally better
at preservation than deep seas or land.

By the way, the best evidence for evolution in Darwin's day was morpho-
logical similarities.  Today it's molecular similarities.  The fossil
record is needed to know various historical details of evolution, and
it has been a glorious and triumphant verification, but arguing about
it on general principles is missing much of the point of evolution.  In
particular, the fossil record cannot be trusted to provide a complete
explanation.

>							      It may not
>be easily understandable, but if it doesn't fit your theories, you
>might consiider checking up on them, instead of blaming the rocks for
>not supporting your pet theory.

So?  Where do the rocks not support our "pet theory"?

By the way, I noticed you did not respond to the corrections regarding
your entropy disproves evolution gibberish.  Is that because you realized
that you don't know what you are talking about, or what?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)