Hi Folks,
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:51:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Might I raise a point of protest to the methodology of making *logical
> assumptions*?
> Ricsi makes a valid point that people who lack *true evidence* should not
> speak nonsense. However, I'm still waiting for the factual evidence to be
> presented.
That goes both ways in any argument. :)
> Unfortunately, Ron, Steve, and myself (and others) have pointed out
> several factual inconsistencies in some of the *true evidence* offered,
> so much so that some issues lack any valid proofs. They are, to use
> Steve's phrase, merely Urban Legends.
My contribution was only in relation to embryonic development being
mistakenly used to support evolution. As it happens, I have a very firm
personal position on evolution, but I am not looking for bad arguments
to support it.
Just as those on the other side really shouldn't claim that Darwin
said things he never said, just so they can discredit his work.
But I take no pleasure out of baiting "Creationists" - they never
seem to see the funny side of having their legs pulled.
> And, so, I will challenge the assumptions.
> During my undergraduate work, I once asked a PhD in Physical Anthropology
> (these are the guys who try to date the origin and sequence of the
> species) for the references of the research that outlined the repeatable
> experiments which demonstrated the positive results of genetic mutation.
>
> The professor taught and insisted that the *scientific method* required
> documented experimentation that could be repeated with identical results.
> So, when he taught that biological evolution required both adaptation
> over time AND genetic mutation, I thought it proper to ask for the
> research references that proved (through experimentation) the existence
> of positive results from genetic mutations. I didn't mean to offend, but
> our text books had only given examples of destructive mutations.
>
> Unfortunately, the professor had no references. I made the mistake of
> suggesting that he was not a very scientific scientist, which made for a
> most uncomfortable semester. (The professor may not always be right, but
> he's always the professor). As I recall, he too used words like
> *nonsense* and *ignorance*. And, I'm sorry to say, he did so repeatedly
> in public.
Being a professor doesn't necessarily mean he was a clear thinker. :)
> I still insist that he failed to PROVE his position using the scientific
> method. And I still believe (if I'm allowed to use that word) that I was
> right. We should have been given proof in the form of reputable data, not
> the mere opinion of an individual (no matter how important his position).
On the other hand, what replicatable experimental data have you
found for the opposing position ?
> I am not offended by Sam and Ricsi's assumptions. Their view is, after
> all, widely held. I actually enjoy observing the ongoing dialog and,
> especially, who interjects various comments on various subjects.
I make no assumptions, as such. But I do lean towards observed data that
tends to support what makes sense to me.
And I favour evolution, in its supportable forms, over other
explanations that seem (to me) to be based on "faith". And because
"Creationism" is a matter of "faith", there is really no point in trying
to change the other person's mind. I have learned that the hard way.
Regards,
Ron (who is not descended from monkeys, but who shares a common
ancestor with monkeys, dogs, horses, whales, and Bob)
Ron Clarke
http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html
http://tadpole.aus.as
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
