🚀 go-pugleaf

test!
Bob <rdwillia@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3937E7E8.CD1F3CE2@flash.net...
> Greetings James and the group,
>
> thorain@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <39319337.9892307E@flashcom.net>,
> >   Bob <rdwillia@flashcom.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > thorain@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <392D541C.4716E969@flashcom.net>,
> > > >   Bob <rdwillia@flashcom.net> wrote:
> > > > > Greetings James Powell and the group,
> > > >
>
> This post is getting so long and is so far removed from the original
> question of Teaching Evolution that this reply will make major snips with
a
> version of a summary, in an attempt to get back closer to the point. If
you
> feel that this is fatal to your argument, I apologize and expect you may
not
> reply.
>
> Summary.
>
> 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.
>
> Many replies have been made with various arguments as well as comments, to
> support that  idea that these Theses are wrong, immaterial, are based on a
> lack of understanding of the author, etc.. Several posts have directly
> offered refutations by argument, and some others, such as yours, have
> offered refutations based on what I have called "ad hominem" arguments,
> quotes from (say) Gould that are proffered as a refutation of the Theses.
> My position is that this is not direct argument, rather "collateral"
> argument and does not actually refute the Theses. Your position is that
> these arguments contain the necessary information to refute the Theses,
and
> this constitutes the proof that they are wrong.
>
> 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.
> >
> > > > 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.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > (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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > "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).
But
> it illustrates to me the teaching of an erroneous concept 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.
>
> 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. Everyone who believes it *must*  work, does so
> because Evolution is a "fact". Therefore it must be the cause. Even many
> evolutionists agree that the above scenario is correct. (See quotes
below.)
> Yet is taught as unquestionable truth. This can only be the cause of much
> muddled thinking.
>
> To close, here are some "ad hominem" quotes on the subject of evolution.
> This is acknowledged as leaving the world of argument, but it seems that
> quotations are some form of proof, at least if they support evolution.
> [comments by Bob]
>
> Source: " http://www.goodschools.com/darwin.htm"
>
> "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has helped nothing
in
> the progress of science.  It is useless."  (Professor Louis Bounoure,
> Former: President of the Biological Society of Stassbourg, Director of the
> Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French national
> Centre of Scientific Research, writing in "The Advocate," March 8, 1984,
p.
> 17)
>
> "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great
> con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.  In
> explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."  (Dr. T.N.
Tahmisian,
> Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission.  As quoted in:  "Evolution and the
> Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, Title Page)
[Comments:
> strong language, applicable to the Evangelists such as Dennett, Dawkins,
and
> Gould.]
>
> "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent
> to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history
> books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious
> an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it
has."
> (Malcom Muggeridge, Well-known Journalist and Philosopher, Pascal
Lectures,
> University of Waterloo) [Comment:] (Former author of Punch Magazine)
>
> The following citations are from I.L. Cohen's "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study
in
> Probability," New Research Publications, Inc., 1984. Cohen is a
> Mathematician, Researcher, a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences,
and
> an Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.) :
>
>  ". every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended
> thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by scientifically
> established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability
> concepts.  Darwin was wrong."  (p.209)
> ". The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science." (p.
> 210)
>
> Note that they are all not biologists; but the concepts of Natural
> Selection/Survival of the Fittest are very simple in principle and once
> these propositions are studied with an open mind 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.
>
> Regards,
> Bob
> Ref: "http://www.flash.net/~rdwillia/darwinian_evolution.htm"
>
>
>