|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2005 : 17:04:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
anyway don't feel to bad about the P.E. thing, modern textbooks are doing their darndest to assert there is nothing to it, or macro-evolutionary theory in general. So unless you have read an works by someone who actually thinks P.E. is interesting, it is unlikely to be represented accurately.
I have read neither Dawkins nor Gould, so I cannot comment on their opinions on P.E. My books in Astrobiology was written by Armand Delsemme, who's expertise lies in a different field. My knowledge of P.E. comes from other debaters (whom I argued against) who at the times seemed quite informed about it, coupled with my own understanding of evolutionary theory.
So what is so special about P.E. that I don't get?
Species stays the same until something happens that cause massive speciation. What is responsible for these speciation? HYBRID probably believes it's caused by aliens from an other galaxy. A theist will obviously suggest God.
How sudden is a punctuation? What evidence is there that a punctuation is sudden as in 10'000 years? 100'000 or a million years?
Like I mentioned before, given the accuracy of radiometric dating, the margin for error in dating are measured in million years.
The only other means for searching for punctuation is examining strata, evidence for a short punctuation can only be found in one instance: the Iridium-Rich strata. The recovery time of the ecological system from the disaster that is considered to be source of the Iridium-rich layer is still long.
My conclusion is that never was a "short" punctuation, other in a geological time scale sense. At least a few million years time-span.
During such a period massive changes in the ecology putting much selective pressure on organisms will absolutely cause changes. There isn't really need for massive changes globally, only locally, where species compete and evolve faster because of high pressure, until something happens allowing these new more competitive species to spread globally and take over the business. In such a case, we will have the illusion of a punctuation, since the changes were actually local under a much longer time: the rate of change was much lower than global fossils would indicate.
Finding evidence for such "islands" will not be easy, indeed I would consider it a stoke of luck because they should be relatively few and far apart, both geographically and historically. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
larry_boy
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 11:46:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
So what is so special about P.E. that I don't get?
Species stays the same until something happens that cause massive speciation.
That is what is so cool about P.E., traditionally, it has been assumed that evolutionary trends are the result of unfit organisms replacing fit organisms at the organismal level. This sort of phenomenon would lead to anagenisis, or the transformation of a species into something more fit to live in a particular environment. P.E. asserts that one organism within a spices almost never has a selective advantage over most other members in that species, or, as was the case with the pepper moths, if they do, it is only for a transient period of time, and, on average a species is the same from its birth until its death. This amounts to a limited agreement with the proposition that species don't change by natural selection, with one small caveat, that natural selection my act to change a species for the first 100,000 years or so of its life. After that small window in time, N.S. only acts in a stabalizing mode, and does not directionally select for any traits. The number 100,000 comes from the fact that fossils can be dated relative to each other to within 100,000 years or so because that is the thickness of a single bedding plane in rock, even if they cannot be dated that accurately relative to now.
The real phenomenon in macro-evolution would then not be the gradual ratcheting up of fitness that Darwin envisioned, but instead the diversification of organisms, or speciation. If trends arise in evolution, it is not because organism A was more fit than any of it's close relatives, but because SPECIES A was more fit than SPECIES B, with which it can't exchange alleles in any case. So, macro-evolution is not a logical extrapolation of micro-evolution, as you will probably find it defined in the glossary of any biology text book, and evolutionist assert all the time to creationist, but instead, is an entirely different sort of game that plays out primarily on the species level. Now, I am not saying that this is correct, but this is the extremely radical claim made by Gould and friends, and not just that the rate of evolution changes. Clearly there is a lot more to it than that. Gould in fact says, that P.E. validate a macro-evolutionary theory which is separate from micro-evolutionary theories (which is what Darwinian N.S. is, coupled with a claim that micro-evolution can be extrapolated to account for all evolutionary phenomenon. A modern Darwin might say that evolution is just a series of fixations of alleles within a species to make that species more fit.)
quote:
What is responsible for these speciation? HYBRID probably believes it's caused by aliens from an other galaxy. A theist will obviously suggest God.
That is a wonderful question. It is such a wonderful question that no one really knows a satisfactory answer, IMHO. There have of course been dozens of answers. Darwin originally claimed that speciation was not actively 'caused' by anything, but was the passive result that results whenever organism are reproductively isolate but 'random' events. Darwin eventually became unsatisfied with this answer, and proposed a more complex resolution that do not fully recall/comprehend.
Modern evolutoinist now allow for active selection of mechanisms to isolate populations and prevent outbreading depression, because of compelling evidence.
quote:
How sudden is a punctuation? What evidence is there that a punctuation is sudden as in 10'000 years? 100'000 or a million years?
Like I mentioned before, given the accuracy of radiometric dating, the margin for error in dating are measured in million years.
The only other means for searching for punctuation is examining strata, evidence for a short punctuation can only be found in one instance: the Iridium-Rich strata.
right, but dating of punctuations does not need to be in years before now, but only in the ability to resolve which fossil came first, which is more accurate then radio-metric dating.
quote:
The recovery time of the ecological system from the disaster that is considered to be source of the Iridium-rich layer is still long.
My conclusion is that never was a "short" punctuation, other [than?] in a geological time scale sense. At least a few million years time-span.
while you are half right, it can be resolved to shorter than a few million years. Down to a minimum of 10,000 or so.
quote:
During such a period massive changes in the ecology putting much selective pressure on organisms will absolutely cause changes.
interestingly, most species that survive a catastrophic change, such as an ice age, are morphologically unchanged, and the new ecology seems to arise from these unchanged organisms, and not from organism which quickly adapt to the environment then diversify, though that is obviously a more difficult question to resolve than even the P.E. debate. At any rate, an interpretation that evolution is driven by catastrophic events (which I understand you are not asserting) is radically different than what Darwin was saying. (since he didn't think there were any catastrophic events.)
quote:
There isn't really need for massive changes globally, only locally, where species compete and evolve faster because of high pressure, until something happens allowing these new more competitive species to spread globally and take over the business.
Now, it is not clear from what you are saying, and you deserve a better responce than this, but I think you may have some confusion as to which level selection is opperating one. At anyrate, I also have another post to work on, and I hope that will further adress this observation.
quote:
In such a case, we will have the illusion of a punctuation, since the changes were actually local under a much longer time: the rate of change was much lower than global fossils would indicate.
Finding evidence for such "islands" will not be easy, indeed I would consider it a stoke of luck because they should be relatively few and far apart, both geographically and historically.
But, Gould asserts that the fossil record is an accurate record of what actually happened, so he would disagree with your contention, though I will allow it is an entirely rational assertion. OK, now, laundry and on to Dave W.
Edit to add: Clear |
| Edited by - larry_boy on 07/22/2005 12:15:09 |
|
|
|
larry_boy
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 13:00:28 [Permalink]
|
| Ah, ok, sorry, I may have been slightly confused as to what points were being made because the people who were responding to my responces, were not the poeple to whom my responses were originally directed. Sorry about that. Anyway, if no one is contradicting the P.E. is actually the asertion that Species are morphologically stable from their aperance untill their eventual extinction and that, therefore, morphological change is concentrated at events of branching speciation, then we can move on. |
| Edited by - larry_boy on 07/22/2005 13:02:09 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 13:51:53 [Permalink]
|
With each exchange in this discussion it seems like larry_boy is willing to accept there are only minor discrepancies with the details of the current theory of evolution. It appears he's willing to accept that the science of evolution has a huge body of evidence to support the basic theory. But it also seems like he's pretty darn sure all that evidence is still not enough to outweigh what he obviously holds as a more valid theory. Magic.
I think pretty soon he'll staunchly claim some mythical being waved its mighty hand and magically made the heavens, the earth, and all the little critters. And I'm pretty sure he'll contend that it is more reasonable to believe that foolishness than it is to accept a theory with massive quantities evidence to support it. I expect him to suggest, with nothing more than feeble anecdotal support found in an ancient anthology, that a supernatural being caused the miraculous creation of life as we know it. I expect him to assert that should make more sense than this hugely supported theory of evolution, the essence of which continues to hold up strong under the scrutiny of the finest minds ever to wrestle with a concept.
Come on larry_boy, when are you going to come right out and say what you've been alluding to this whole time? Your god, of the six billion existing ideas of god, your very own god was the thing that created all this wonderment called life. You've been picking away at details of the theory of evolution with some apparent intent to discredit the entire theory. It seems you favor a silly notion that life as we know it suddenly came into being as a result of your god's mystical powers. If you have a better idea about how it all works, lay it on us. And don't forget to bring a bucket load of evidence. We, the intellectually capable people, probably won't accept passages from the written version of your favorite myth as support for any theory. 
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 16:07:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
With each exchange in this discussion it seems like larry_boy is willing to accept there are only minor discrepancies with the details of the current theory of evolution. It appears he's willing to accept that the science of evolution has a huge body of evidence to support the basic theory. But it also seems like he's pretty darn sure all that evidence is still not enough to outweigh what he obviously holds as a more valid theory. Magic.
I think pretty soon he'll staunchly claim some mythical being waved its mighty hand and magically made the heavens, the earth, and all the little critters. And I'm pretty sure he'll contend that it is more reasonable to believe that foolishness than it is to accept a theory with massive quantities evidence to support it. I expect him to suggest, with nothing more than feeble anecdotal support found in an ancient anthology, that a supernatural being caused the miraculous creation of life as we know it. I expect him to assert that should make more sense than this hugely supported theory of evolution, the essence of which continues to hold up strong under the scrutiny of the finest minds ever to wrestle with a concept.
Come on larry_boy, when are you going to come right out and say what you've been alluding to this whole time? Your god, of the six billion existing ideas of god, your very own god was the thing that created all this wonderment called life. You've been picking away at details of the theory of evolution with some apparent intent to discredit the entire theory. It seems you favor a silly notion that life as we know it suddenly came into being as a result of your god's mystical powers. If you have a better idea about how it all works, lay it on us. And don't forget to bring a bucket load of evidence. We, the intellectually capable people, probably won't accept passages from the written version of your favorite myth as support for any theory.
When I read the title, "A rational argument about evolution." my first thought was, "Yea, right..." But it seems to really be one. At least so far. That is, aside from the one comment that new species just pop into existance. And so far, larry_boy only seems to be challenging the minor details, not trying to discredit the entire theory.
But why think that Larry is doing this because he believes his god is the one behind it all? Has he ever suggested that? I have yet to see any reason to assume it, and I think it is quite cynical to think that if you object against evolution, it must be because you think your god did it.
I sure as hell have been learning a lot from this thread. So let's just hear him out. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 16:34:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
Anyway, if no one is contradicting the P.E. is actually the asertion that Species are morphologically stable from their aperance untill their eventual extinction and that, therefore, morphological change is concentrated at events of branching speciation, then we can move on.
I'm not convinced of this.
As long as P.E. needs a supernatural creation of the new species that appear, I'm not going to buy it.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 18:51:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
That is what is so cool about P.E., traditionally, it has been assumed that evolutionary trends are the result of unfit organisms replacing fit organisms at the organismal level. This sort of phenomenon would lead to anagenisis, or the transformation of a species into something more fit to live in a particular environment. P.E. asserts that one organism within a spices almost never has a selective advantage over most other members in that species, or, as was the case with the pepper moths, if they do, it is only for a transient period of time, and, on average a species is the same from its birth until its death. This amounts to a limited agreement with the proposition that species don't change by natural selection, with one small caveat, that natural selection my act to change a species for the first 100,000 years or so of its life. After that small window in time, N.S. only acts in a stabalizing mode, and does not directionally select for any traits.
Unfortunately, it is your definition of "anagenesis" as somehow not being evolution that is at fault, here. Pepper moths are a clear-cut example of "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time," the classic definition of evolution. That they changed back just reflects the undoing of the industrial revolution's damage - it was another instance of evolution.
Pepper moths did not speciate, but they demonstrate a clear example of evolution, anyway.quote:
The real phenomenon in macro-evolution would then not be the gradual ratcheting up of fitness that Darwin envisioned, but instead the diversification of organisms, or speciation.
Few people give a hoot about what Darwin invisioned anymore. Strict "Darwinism" has been dead for over 100 years.quote:
If trends arise in evolution, it is not because organism A was more fit than any of it's close relatives, but because SPECIES A was more fit than SPECIES B, with which it can't exchange alleles in any case.
Exactly right.quote:
So, macro-evolution is not a logical extrapolation of micro-evolution, as you will probably find it defined in the glossary of any biology text book, and evolutionist assert all the time to creationist, but instead, is an entirely different sort of game that plays out primarily on the species level.
Exactly wrong.
Every single macro-evolutionary event requires micro-evolution. If species A splits into two groups, then both will remain species A until micro-evolutionary changes act on one (or both) groups to the point that they will be called different "species" by cladists. The London Subway mosquito, for example.
And I just recently provided a link (and snippet) from a page which defined macroevolution. Was there a problem with it?quote:
Gould in fact says, that P.E. validate a macro-evolutionary theory which is separate from micro-evolutionary theories
Yes, PE is about species. Micro-evolution is about changes within a species.
Tell me, larry_boy, how many micro-evolutionary changes are required to make one macro-evolutionary change?
And regarding the "extrapolating" bit: is there any reason to think that microevolutionary changes cannot build up, one upon another, into a macro-evolutionary change? In other words, if you assert there to be a boundary beyond which micro-evolution cannot go, where is the boundary, and what mechanism creates that boundary?quote:
Darwin originally claimed that speciation was not actively 'caused' by anything, but was the passive result that results whenever organism are reproductively isolate but 'random' events. Darwin eventually became unsatisfied with this answer...
That's funny, because the above is what PE asserts.quote:
Now, it is not clear from what you are saying, and you deserve a better responce than this, but I think you may have some confusion as to which level selection is opperating one.
"Selection," as in natural selection, can operate on any level, from the single organism on up to "all life on Earth." If an individual is incapable of living in the environment it finds itself in, its genes are selected against. Ditto for an entire species, genera, family, etc.quote:
But, Gould asserts that the fossil record is an accurate record of what actually happened, so he would disagree with your contention, though I will allow it is an entirely rational assertion.
If Gould asserted any such thing, then Gould was being self-contradictory, given that he also asserted that fossilization is rare, and so the fossil record is spotty, at best.quote:
Edit to add: Clearly these conclusions are closely paired to the contention that speciation drives morphological (and phenotypes) change, a contention of which Dave W. said
"And so, given that for fossils, phenotypic change equals speciation, by definition, it would be puzzling to see anyone make the sort of mistake that would lead to an assertion that one must drive the other." "...It is often their opponents who demand a rigid definition of "species" that applies the same way in all contexts, and thus manufacture that mistake through simple equivocation."
(It would probably be more accurate to say that it is strongly corolated, but the mechanisms which cause this corolation are not fully understood, just to avoid any 'equivocation' in the future.)
And to be clearer, my disagreement lies in the mistake of equating morphology with phenology, which is obviously a bad assumption to make when fossils do not record entire phenotypes.quote:
Anyway, if no one is contradicting the P.E. is actually the asertion that Species are morphologically stable from their aperance untill their eventual extinction and that, therefore, morphological change is concentrated at events of branching speciation, then we can move on.
Given that "stable" is a relative term (and lacking the p |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 18:54:49 [Permalink]
|
For a very concise and informative explanation of just what PE is, the TO site has just the thing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
quote:
The essential features that make up Punctuated Equilibria are as follows:
1. Paleontology should be informed by neontology.
2. Most speciation is cladogenesis rather than anagenesis.
3. Most speciation occurs via peripatric speciation.
4. Large, widespread species usually change slowly, if at all, during their time of residence.
5. Daughter species usually develop in a geographically limited region.
6. Daughter species usually develop in a stratigraphically limited extent, which is small in relation to total residence time of the species.
7. Sampling of the fossil record will reveal a pattern of most species in stasis, with abrupt appearance of newly derived species being a consequence of ecological succession and dispersion.
8. Adaptive change in lineages occurs mostly during periods of speciation.
9. Trends in adaptation occur mostly through the mechanism of species selection.
(emphasis added to contrast to Larry's misrepresentations of PE)
There is even a section that deals with the problems of paleospecies.
For those who don't know:
Neontology- the study of extant or very recently extinct species.
Cladogenesis- evolutionary change that occurs with a tree-like branching, i.e. 1 species becomes two distinct species.
Anagenesis- one species changes to another species, no branching off.
#6 above means that the speciation event occurs in a small ammount of time when compared to the ammount of time a species is extant.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 21:30:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky...
But why think that Larry is doing this because he believes his god is the one behind it all? Has he ever suggested that? I have yet to see any reason to assume it, and I think it is quite cynical to think that if you object against evolution, it must be because you think your god did it.
From the original post...quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy...
I do not think that facts alone are ever compelling enough to force the adoption of specific theories (though they might force rejections) and wish to understand what is a sufficient reason for accepting a theory as compelling.
I also wish to illustrate why Hybrid's responses and many of the comments regarding his responses do not further the goals of understanding by having a conversation which does enlighten us on issues surrounding creationism/evolution.
This certainly is a discussion about creationism (the individual believer's god poofed creatures into existence) and evolution (creatures have come to their current forms through change over generations occasionally resulting in new species.)
If larry_boy objects against evolution, and this discussion is about creationism/evolution, then there's nothing cynical about believing he thinks his god did some magic to cause creation. It isn't likely he thinks someone else's mythical bogeyman did it.quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy...
Now, I will, (for now *mwhahahhaha*) assume common descent. Most of the replies so far of focused on how creationist might attack the theory of common decent, and aspect of the theory of evolution to be sure, but not the only one that creationist might object to.
[...]
but . . . but . . . wait, Hybrid, aren't you and I on the same side here? I mean, alright, I accept a theory of common descent and, therefor, necessarily some means for transforming organisms from one to another, but clearly I am arguing against natural selection as that means.
[...]
Right right, I will grant all this, and perhaps a great deal of confusion has been sown by me half on purpose and half on accident, but this will all become clear later. [real maniacal laugh this time! *MWHAHAHAHAH*]
If he has another notion about how creatures evolved to their current state he has yet to present his alternative possibility. In fact he's admitting to being intentionally evasive about throwing his idea into the discussion. I'm still betting, from a perspective of reason not cynicism, that larry_boy will eventually make a pitch for his favorite mystical spirit being responsible for magically creating life as we know it.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 22:07:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
In fact he's admitting to being intentionally evasive about throwing his idea into the discussion. I'm still betting, from a perspective of reason not cynicism, that larry_boy will eventually make a pitch for his favorite mystical spirit being responsible for magically creating life as we know it.
I'm betting against you, GeeMack. I've got a hunch - given the evasiveness and other clues - that larry_boy is "testing" us, and once we fail (in his eyes), he'll declare that evolutionary theory itself fails (nevermind that none of us are professional evolutionary biologists).
After that, he might present his favorite deity as the only "rational" alternative, or he might just wander off, self-assured in his "victory."
Frankly, I hope that you and I are both incorrect. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 10:47:36 [Permalink]
|
Why are you guys psychoanalyizing Larry_Boy? And right out in the open where he can read what you're writing about him?
Stick to the issue at hand. It's more interesting. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 16:25:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
Why are you guys psychoanalyizing Larry_Boy? And right out in the open where he can read what you're writing about him?
Stick to the issue at hand. It's more interesting.
It was stated in the opening post that this is a discussion about creationism and evolution. So far there has been much discussion about evolution, with larry_boy finding fault in several details that support the current theory. He has articulated his position well and stayed on topic, which is very respectable (especially considering another recent participant who found fault with the ToE). But, he has alluded to having another idea about the sequence of events that brought life on earth to its current state, and he hasn't been forthcoming in presenting this other view.
I agree this is an interesting discussion, but so far it has only touched on half of the topic. I'd like to hear what larry_boy proposes as an alternative to this "flawed" theory. And since the issue at hand actually is evolution and creationism, I think it's time he tells us how creationism plays into the subject. Four pages should be enough space to set the groundwork for stating what he really thinks. I'm not trying to wreck an interesting discussion, and I hope not to, but I guess you could say I'm calling him out.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 18:56:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Why are you guys psychoanalyizing Larry_Boy? And right out in the open where he can read what you're writing about him?
You'd prefer we did the same privately, where larry_boy couldn't respond in any way to set the record straight?quote:
Stick to the issue at hand. It's more interesting.
Actually, old-fashioned creationism (which relied almost entirely upon finding "faults" with the current theories of evolution) is pretty dull. It's all been done before, starting over a century ago. Those best positioned to make serious critiques of evolutionary theories do so - more-or-less continuously - in the scientific journals, with appropriate evidence and reasoning, and not with misunderstandings of the current theories and a bunch of "presumablies" which never get supported.
Much more interesting is attempting to find patterns of thought and behaviour which lead to old-fashioned creationism, so that we might better be able to deal with the real issues which lead to anti-intellectualism and religious fanaticism head-on. While we'll likely never see an end to fanaticism, anti-intellectualism is a fairly recent phenomenon which can, with luck and effort, be eliminated again, sorta like disco music.
After all, young-Earth creationists (and I'm not saying that larry_boy is one, I don't know) do not come to their beliefs through evidence and science. They come to it through the Bible, their parents, their friends and their pastor(s). No amount of science and logic will convince such a person that creationism is incorrect. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 22:16:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I agree, in that I think the best way to poke holes in a theory is to suggest a better one. However, at the same time, it still is possible to question a theory without introducing a new one.
Evolution and a theory which replaces it are two different things, and should remain different topics. The topic that larry_boy chose was, "A rational argument about evolution." So let's just stick to the topic at hand.
Actually, the only way to poke holes in a theory is to provide an better explanation for the evidence. "Evolution" is a fact. It is an observation. There is no question that species change over time. This observation is the evidence. The theory is the explanation of this observation. So, technically, discussion of a "better" explanation/theory is covered under the title of the thread.
The rather expansive nature of the current ToE, and its proven explanatory power, will be difficult to replace though. But it could happen.
Seems we may have lost larry though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 07/24/2005 22:16:52 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
