Hello, Jurassic Park

[Rust]

As Ugz impled, and as Rust skirted around in a deft fashion calling a fish a piece of bread, macroevolution is a guess with many holes and will most likely undergo <more> wild gyrations of change.

The issue circularly comes back to the question of 'Why are we here', and what happens after we die?
Different people have different beliefs.

We really are just skirting the edge of discovery in regards to many of these things.

Science can't answer metaphysical questions. I know some scientists like to do so (Richard Dawkins for one) but answering 'meaning of life' type questions should be left to theologians and philosophers.

--R.

[Lyion]

The evolutionary sciences are especially susceptible to difficulty in
establishing certitude. Unlike physics or chemistry, which are verifiable
through controlled laboratory experimentation, the evolutionary disciplines
are essentially historical. All the forms of paleontology (including
paleoanthropology, the study of ancient man) seek to determine what
happened to living things over the course of time.

When researchers advance hypotheses to explain fossil phenomena, they are giving *reasonable interpretations* which are verifiable only through subsequent research.
Later findings may confirm these explanations, or perhaps render them less
plausible, or even prove them *wrong*--that is, very highly unlikely. Thus
what is generally accepted by specialists today may be outmoded only a few
years from now. The field is highly dynamic.

Stensons quote pretty much sums up my thoughts eloquently.

This is not pure lab tested science, such as mathemathics or physics.

[Rust]

The thing is, belief in Evolution is entirely and completely compatible with the belief that god created everything. After all, you attribute omniscience and omnipotence to god, yes? Well, how do YOU know his preferred method of causing humans to come into existance wasn't to cause the Big Bang to happen just "so", knowing that if he did that, then billions of years later, Earth would form, and billions of years of evolution later, Humans would arise. Still have god creating it all, but instead of the rather rediculous (and completely bogus according to science) "waves hands over a week's time, and POOF, here's humans and the rest of the fauna", he created a universe with natural laws, and manipulated those to cause humans to eventually come into being. After all, if he's omniscient and omnipotent, he could do just that, yes? Certainly seems more believable to me to figure it happened that way, assuming you go in for diefic creation of the universe, than the strict creationist view where Earth was created on Sunday, October 27th, 4004 BC.

-Arlos

God may have created the Earth in 4004 B.C., but he did so in such a way that it appears to be something over 4 billion years old. One geologist and theologian, Philip Gosse, in 1857 tried to justify the 'apparent age' of the universe in a book called Omphalos (greek for navel, as his theory was that God created Adam and Eve with navels to make it look like they had been born). Why God would want to play these kind of mind games with humans is not clear.

On talk.origins we've refined that argument to be Last Thursdayism. The entire universe, and everything in it, was created Last Thursday, and Judgement Day is Next Thursday. You can't disprove the theory, since it fits all the evidence (the Creator created us all with false memories of our lives prior to Last Thursday, etc.). It also is neater than other apocalyptic religions since we obviously know when Next Thursday is.

There are some heretics who claim (falsely, obviously) that the world was actually created Last Tuesday. They are evil, false people who will pay for their sins.

One offshoot of Last Thursdayism is the study of the nature of the Creator. Some claim it was one of various Gods (Allah, YHWH, Jesus, Krishna) while the more refined believe it was Her Furriness, Queen Maeve (manifesting as a domestic housecat).

Fear Her Wrath! Avoid The Eternal Litterbox!

--R.

[Langston]

Umm... Rust.... Newton defined what is now the LAW of gravity... there's no "theory" there any more.

Don't try to compare your BELIEFS about evolution to the Laws explaining the effects/operation of Gravity. One is supposition, the other is proven.

Once again (some of you have a really hard time with listening...), I have not expressed my personal OPINION regarding evolution and/or creationism... stop trying to pigeonhole me into whatever stereotype suits your purpose.

[Rust]

The evolutionary sciences are especially susceptible to difficulty in
establishing certitude. Unlike physics or chemistry, which are verifiable
through controlled laboratory experimentation, the evolutionary disciplines
are essentially historical. All the forms of paleontology (including
paleoanthropology, the study of ancient man) seek to determine what
happened to living things over the course of time.

When researchers advance hypotheses to explain fossil phenomena, they are giving *reasonable interpretations* which are verifiable only through subsequent research.
Later findings may confirm these explanations, or perhaps render them less
plausible, or even prove them *wrong*--that is, very highly unlikely. Thus
what is generally accepted by specialists today may be outmoded only a few
years from now. The field is highly dynamic.

Stensons quote pretty much sums up my thoughts eloquently.

This is not pure lab tested science, such as mathemathics or physics.

First off, I agree with you and Stenson that science is tentative.

Second, mathematics isn't a science.

Thirdly, a lot of evolution is lab-tested - genetics and molecular biology. For that matter, not all science goes on inside a lab - when was the last supernova tested in a lab?

--R.

[Langston]

On talk.origins we've refined that argument to be Last Thursdayism.

Christ, Rust... now you're taking credit for terms that you didn't create. Does your pride know no boundaries? That term has existed since long before your little newsgroup ever glimmered in someone's eye.

[mofish]

Huh? Newton didnt understand shit about gravity. His LAW of gravity is a THEORY. Newton had NO IDEA that gravity was simply warpage of space-time. He had no clue that space and time were related.

The effects and operation of gravity have been proven? Wow, thats news to me and every scientist on the planet. Way to go. Although its gonna hurt when they find out you had the answer all along. Gravity Probe B, what a waste.

[Donnel]

As Ugz impled, and as Rust skirted around in a deft fashion calling a fish a piece of bread, macroevolution is a guess with many holes and will most likely undergo <more> wild gyrations of change.

The issue circularly comes back to the question of 'Why are we here', and what happens after we die?
Different people have different beliefs.

We really are just skirting the edge of discovery in regards to many of these things.

Science can't answer metaphysical questions. I know some scientists like to do so (Richard Dawkins for one) but answering 'meaning of life' type questions should be left to theologians and philosophers.

--R.

There are those of us who believe they can't and shouldn't be seperated.

[Langston]

Huh? Newton didnt understand shit about gravity. His LAW of gravity is a THEORY. Newton had NO IDEA that gravity was simply warpage of space-time. He had no clue that space and time were related.

The effects and operation of gravity have been proven? Wow, thats news to me and every scientist on the planet. Way to go. Although its gonna hurt when they find out you had the answer all along. Gravity Probe B, what a waste.

Mofish... do you understand the difference between a "law" and a "theory"? Also, you need to learn to read closer - I didn't say that Newton discovered the Law of Gravity - I said he defined what has now become the Law.

[Rust]

Umm... Rust.... Newton defined what is now the LAW of gravity... there's no "theory" there any more.

Don't try to compare your BELIEFS about evolution to the Laws explaining the effects/operation of Gravity. One is supposition, the other is proven.

Once again (some of you have a really hard time with listening...), I have not expressed my personal OPINION regarding evolution and/or creationism... stop trying to pigeonhole me into whatever stereotype suits your purpose.

This attitude is a common error by non-scientists (like Ugzug) in misunderstanding what a 'physical law' is.

The Wikipedia article on physical laws discusses this nicely:

Outside the scientific community, it is often assumed that the laws of nature have been proved beyond a doubt, in the same manner that mathematical theorem can be proven. However, this is not so. It is just that no instances have ever been seen where they are repeatably violated. It is always possible for them to be invalidated by repeatable, contradictory experimental evidence, should any be seen. However, fundamental changes to the laws are unlikely in the extreme, since this would imply a change to the basic structure of the universe, which would almost certainly make it immediately uninhabitable (see fine-tuned universe); If the laws were to change, we wouldn't be here to notice.

As they say (better than I could), physical laws like Newton's are not 'proven', they simply have never been invalidated.

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed directly in the lab, as well as in the field in living animals (Darwin's finches for one) and via the fossil record. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the facts observed.

Really, this stuff is all basic science education, it's sad that people aren't taught this in school. It would help put paid to a lot of the misunderstandings about science and evolution spread by people who don't know anything about it.

--R.

[Rust]

Huh? Newton didnt understand shit about gravity. His LAW of gravity is a THEORY. Newton had NO IDEA that gravity was simply warpage of space-time. He had no clue that space and time were related.

The effects and operation of gravity have been proven? Wow, thats news to me and every scientist on the planet. Way to go. Although its gonna hurt when they find out you had the answer all along. Gravity Probe B, what a waste.

Mofish... do you understand the difference between a "law" and a "theory"? Also, you need to learn to read closer - I didn't say that Newton discovered the Law of Gravity - I said he defined what has now become the Law.

And Ugzug again demonstrates unfamiliarity with basic science with this sort of statement.

--R.

[Rust]

On talk.origins we've refined that argument to be Last Thursdayism.

Christ, Rust... now you're taking credit for terms that you didn't create. Does your pride know no boundaries? That term has existed since long before your little newsgroup ever glimmered in someone's eye.

Ah, but we refined it and raised it to a full religion, complete with heretics and theological debates, and Queen Maeve.

Not to mention the Last Wednesdayist Crusade.

--R.

[Lyion]

Websters defines science as:
Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained
truth of facts.

Mathematics is science at it purest. What you discuss could possibly be the farthest thing from true science and in my mind shouldn't be correlated with Physics and Mathematics which deal in real truths that are not changing every twenty years.

Macroevolution involving humans has no proof. That is a fact. It is highly subjective opinion solely. It may be strongly circumstantial but there are many holes and many regarded scientsists who have widely varying opinions. You keep trying to say it is fact, and make comparisons to laws and other purer forms of proven science.

It may be a highly circumstantial opinion but at the end of the day any sort of macroevolution theory you put forward involving humans is simply your belief, and thus your whole science explanation is inaccurate.

[Langston]

If Evolution is an immutable fact, as you want so desperately for it to be, then the scientific community would label is as a "law" just as they did Gravity.

I know the difference between theory and laws - your insults only help to bolster your own opinion of yourself while at the same time ruin the opinion everyone else has of you. Just like how you cling to a term you can't admit you have tried to pirate and claim as your own.

You're over-compensating, Rust... and it's almost nauseating at this point.

I hate to break it to you, Rust, but all of your pontificating hasn't "proven" anything other than you're more full of yourself than Lumpy is full of HoHos.

[Lyion]

He almost answered a question we asked, Ugz. 300 more posts and he may actually admit the few facts we've ascertained in the several hundred quotes he's pulled from a usenet group.

There are no transitional fossils. Segue into whatever bullshit you want, but that is a fact. Small microevolution correlations do not make macroevolution a fact. Especially since a large amount of scientists consider them distinct.

What is the mathematical probablility of macroevolution? It makes it a thousand times more a leap of faith than intelligent design. Unlike scientists with an agenda, math never lies.

[Tossica]

You mean there is an equation that proves God created everything?

[Lyion]

Unlike Rust, we never claimed leaps of faith as fact.

Just for you though, Toss. Go here:

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/ ... 1d9166ab57

[Rust]

He almost answered a question we asked, Ugz. 300 more posts and he may actually admit the few facts we've ascertained in the several hundred quotes he's pulled from a usenet group.

There are no transitional fossils.

This is simply untrue.

See Kathleen Hunt's Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ for many examples of transitional fossils. It's from 1997, so many more transitionals have been found since then.

--R.

[Lyion]

Again you link that BIASED site. Sorry if I do not agree wwith information from a site with an Agenda.

Scientists do not agree there are ANY transitional fossils.

Given your claims, there should be billions. There are none.

[Rust]

If Evolution is an immutable fact, as you want so desperately for it to be, then the scientific community would label is as a "law" just as they did Gravity.

I know the difference between theory and laws - your insults only help to bolster your own opinion of yourself while at the same time ruin the opinion everyone else has of you. Just like how you cling to a term you can't admit you have tried to pirate and claim as your own.

If you claim to know the difference between 'theory and laws' why did you make such a boneheaded claim that scientific laws are somehow 'proven'?

You're over-compensating, Rust... and it's almost nauseating at this point.

I hate to break it to you, Rust, but all of your pontificating hasn't "proven" anything other than you're more full of yourself than Lumpy is full of HoHos.

And all your posts 'prove' that you don't have an understanding of science in general or evolutionary theory in particular. I have no problems pointing this out.

--R.

[Lyion]

Everywhere I look the fossil records do not support the theories you are saying are fact. Mathematics is against you as well. All your kinships are implied. Do you understand that word, Rust? IMPLIED.

I'll add a quote, since they seem to help you.

Collard and Wood in Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (1994) state:

...existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly, new approaches are required to address the problem of hominids....Despite a century of work on metazoan phylum-level phylogeny using anatomical and embryological data, it has not been possible to infer a well-supported [evolution].

Despite your claims, all fossil species remain unchanged throughout their history. FACT

There is not one single example of a significant transition.

All you have is segueing that microevolution proves macroevolution. Due to the fact many scientists, and even many athiest evolutionists do not agree with you, do not be arrogant enough to call that fact please.

[Langston]

Rust... are you that unable to read ... even when you quote me?

I don't say that scientists are proving anything - I'm saying that YOU haven't proven anything. YOU have NOT PROVEN your OPINION. Is that a little clearer now?

I can try to use single syllable words if that would help....

Get off the high horse, boy, and start paying attention.

[Tikker]

[Rust]

Again you link that BIASED site. Sorry if I do not agree wwith information from a site with an Agenda.

Scientists do not agree there are ANY transitional fossils.

Given your claims, there should be billions. There are none.

The University of California at Berkeley has some nice pages on evolution. Their page on transitional fossils suggests you should see the talk.origins archive's Transtionals FAQ. So there's some scientists who don't agree with you.

The National Academy of Sciences has a series of papers on Creationism and Evolution link. One section dealing with transitionals fossils states:

So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.

Again, a clear statement from a major scientific body simply commenting on the existance of well-known transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Like I've said before, the talk.origins archive is quite well known. Many of the articles are written by experts, quite a few of whom are actual practising scientists. The FAQ archive was created to reduce the need to endlessly repost stuff when Creationists would wander into t.o and scream 'my preacher says there are no transitional fossils!' and expect to be taken seriously.

Kathleen's article is clear and well written. If you can't deal with the evidence, just say so. But don't lie about it. Transitional fossils are well known and well studied. Saying they don't exist is simply lying.

--R.

[Langston]

Lyion said: There is no evidence of macroevolution.

Rust said: Look at the microevolution fossils... you're wrong

Lyion said: MACRO... MACRO MACROOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Rust said: You're not listening to me... here's 3 more links to microevolution proof

Lyion said: RUST! HELLO!?! M---A---C---R---O... MACRO evolution... MACRO, you idiot!

Rust pouts: Well if you're going to ignore the evidence of microevolution, I just won't link you any more examples.

Lyion said: ...