🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob <rdwillia@flash.net> wrote:
>My original position was a posting of the "16 Theses" which were felt to be
>valid objections to the current Theory of Evolution. The page contains a
>request to various members of the education community to include these
>Theses in the teaching of  Evolution, if they are not found to be in error.

The short answer is that they are in error.  In most cases (if not all), the
errors are the type of thing that you should already understand if you have
read and understood a basic colege level evolution text.  Your arguments show
that you have not done so.  You are thus INCOMPETENT to write "valid
objections to the current Theory of Evolution".  You may consider this "ad
hominem", but surely you can see that calculus professors would not waste
much time with a 3rd grade arithmetic student who said that he had 16 valid
arguments against the validity of calculus that should be taught in the
calculus class. And that is how you are coming across.

Now in addition, the topic (evolutionary theory) happens to be one that is
ONLY controversial as science in the United States, and ONLY because of
attacks by creationists.  You writing in the United States seem to think that
you can use arguments that are identical to those used only by creationists,
arguments that have been thoroughly dealt with ("refuted" is too good a word
for them, because one cannot refute that which has not been properly
supported) over and over and over again in endless discussions on
talk.origins and other creation vs. evolution fora including places where the
creationists, for all the fact that their arguments are wrong, at least are
better capable than you of arghuing for their arguments.

>Examples of a few comments in the thread:
>
>> > > You are imprecise in your wording leading to unnecessary confusion.
>> > > Explain what you mean by 'development'.
>> Very few, if any, biologists postulate evolution from an atomic basis.

Sloppy use of language is a good way of spreading confusion.

>> > > I refer you to the  essay "Betting on Chance" by Stephen Jay Gould (in
>> the collection
>> Eight  Little Piggies) for the realtionship between randomness and
>> evolutionary theory.

Have you read the referenced text?

>> > But, looking ahead, you  have quoted Gould a number of times, from an
>> > "authoritarian" standpoint. Let us look at this from the standpoint
>> of an "ad hominem" argument (which is unquestionably what you're argument
>> is).
>
>> In other words, you are too lazy to read the published works that
>> refute your 'theses'. Copyright laws (and respect for the original
>> authors) prevent me from simply posting their arguments.

Furthermore, as Thorain has posted, it is not our job to teach you a college
course in evolution for free.  Go to your nearest resgistrar and enroll in a
propoer course.

>> (Note however, that several hypothetical
>> > > scenarios have been presented, which are apparently unanswerable -
>> Theses 14
>> > > suggests only one of many possible new proto-species demanded by
>> Darwin's
>> > > theory. Where is it, or anything like it? Why not?)
>
>>  > What? Your "super bat"? The fact that you sincerely believe this as an
>> example against evolution shows the need for further education on your
>> part.

You need that education.

>> Here are the relevant sections from the 1995 National
>> Science Education Standards:
>
>Snip of these Standards. (Thanks for posting them - very informative). What
>do I object to? Not wanting to get further off the subject may I say almost
>all the assumptions made therein. It is all based on a "prior" belief in
>Evolution. Admittedly, this type of answer is what I have objected to from
>you in the past.

Sorry, but the standards are based not on a "belief" in evolution, but in the
FACT that scientists have accepted evolution, and science is what scientists
have accepted.  It is not the role of K/12 schools to debate the correctness
of the analysis of higher level science, because they do not yet have all of
the facts needed to make that kind of evaluation.

>> As to Darwin and Wallace - only someone who has not read one of the
>> many books published about this subject would think that Darwin 'stole'
>> anything from Wallace.
>
>Read "A Delicate Arrangement" by Arnold Brackman.

You have been answered and told to read our references.  Why should we read
yours (assuming that some of us haven't already done so - I can't speak for
others)?

>> "There is, of course, no question that one species can cause the
>> extinction of another species. The introduction of the Nile perch into
>> Lake Victoria in Africa has resulted in the extinction of several
>> hundred endemic species of cichlid fishes.
>
>Agreed.
>
>If you, or anyone, would like to refute one single (simple) idea of a
>Thesis, try # 12:
>
>"The "fitness" of many species is limited by a factor unknown to Science."
>
>Kindly explain how the Darwinian feature of "Survival of the Fittest"
>(Natural Selection, Differential Reproductive Success", etc.) can account
>for the "very expensive" acorn of the Oak tree after 100 million or so years
>of the Oak becoming the "fittest". (You yourself have raised the issue of
>"economy" as being a factor in evolution.) It should be noted, that this
>argument, unrefuted, is FATAL to the crux of Darwin's theory. It is only ONE
>of the Theses.
>
>It is obvious that if the much vaunted "mutations" that are constantly being
>"Selected" to be the fittest, have occurred in the Oak, why haven't they
>produced a seed more in line with those of the Cottonwood tree, (far more
>efficient), or even a much more efficient (more "fit") seed such as that of
>the ubiquitous Dandelion? These genetic features are numerous throughout
>species, and if evolution is true, similar characteristics have "evolved"
>1000's of times. Note that every Oak is in competition with all other plants
>for resources, and its greatest competition would be with other Oaks. Thus,
>a smaller, more efficient, inedible, widely dispersed, seed would be crucial
>to survival of a varied (more fit) species. Such a "mutation", would be a
>immense improvement to the species. Witness the Dandelion.
>
>A dandelion will produce about 200 seeds/plant, altogether containing maybe
>1% as much in resources as an acorn; further, this seed is wafted into the
>air and can be carried hundreds of miles for replanting. It does not appear
>to be a source of food, thus there will be no loss to predation, which has
>to be a heavy penalty to the Oak. (Just look at all the Squirrels and Jays).
>There is no question that this system is a dozen orders of magnitude (or
>more) efficient than the production of an acorn. How can this be, after 100
>million years of "evolution" of the Oak to be the "fittest"? Dandelions,
>e.g., are far more numerous than Oaks. Please explain, using currently
>accepted Darwinian theory.
>
>And yes, Darwin was aware of this problem, and while he essentially ignored
>it in later editions after it was called to his attention, he simply stated
>a "principle" that things do not evolve to "perfection", only to a certain
>degree of "fitness". Great explanation. Where is there a shred of evidence
>for the "cause" of this? What puts the "brakes" on evolution? Perhaps you
>can explain this also. It is only an explanation if evolution is TRUE. But
>that is the argument. Perhaps you are able to explain it.
>
>And perhaps this whole concept is in error. (your argument  is awaited).

You've been told to read the appropriate (college level ecology and
population biology texts needed to discuss this, if you want an
"explanation".  You won't find an explanation suitable for grade schoolers
because the concepts are rather more complex than most grade schoolers have
the background for.

>But
>it illustrates to me the teaching of an erroneous concept

The only erroneous concepts are yours.

>which can only
>have a deleterious effect of those who blindly accept the idea, in hope of
>passing a test, perhaps. Students, particularly the young, are learning the
>absolutely crucial process of conceptual thought from examples such as this.
>And that is wrong. Forget that Johnny and Jonna cannot read; can they THINK
>properly? A rational thinking process would quickly produce a good reader.

I am as much in favor of teaching critical think as the next person, but we
don't teach biology with nearly enough rigor to support this kind of thinking
at the K/12 level, and probably cannot do so given the time allotted.
Similarly we cannot teach the "why"s of physics in k/12 - the kids do not
have the mathematics to even look at basic differential and integral calculus
as models of acceleration, much less LaPlace transforms and moments of
inertia.

>The concept of Natural Selection, is another example. There is not a
>rational explanation for the process. Nowhere can you find an agreed upon
>definition of HOW it works.

Of course there is.  You just aren't reading a high enough level textbook
that covers the kinds of questions that you are raising.

>Note that they are all not biologists; but the concepts of Natural
>Selection/Survival of the Fittest are very simple in principle

If they are, then why do you keep saying that no one has explained how they
work?  Obviously there is something about these "simple concepts" that has
escaped you.

>and once these propositions are studied with an open mind

Studying anything without thorough knowledge of what has gone before renders
one incompetent to determine what is "open" or "closed".  You take the
coursework or its equivalent, and then maybe you will know enough to argue
the issues.

>it becomes evident that
>they are meaningless. This is born out in the arguments in the 16 Theses.
>Your rebuttal, by direct argument, of Thesis # 12, above, or any other, is
>invited.

The rebuttal is that you do not know what you are talking about and need to
get beyond the arithmetic stage before you start asking people to rebut your
disproofs of calculus.

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org