The Evolution Myth

[Pista Gyerek]

I don't think it was "this" thread that lead to the expulsion of Robert, but his one-sided rantings in general. Of course, everyone has and should have the right to be entitled to their opinions. It is in how one shares them with the outside world that is a reflection on the true self. I can only hope Robert was humbled by the experience and takes away something positive from the experience. Maybe it will help in his day-to-day interactions with the world in the end.

Robert seemed to have a sincere love for music. But he also was an overbearing cyber-bully who touted every conspiracy theory under the sun: he started threads not only on creationism and the 9/11 inside job, but also on a unique and preposterous Mozart conspiracy that he evidently hawks throughout the Web. The way he heaped scorn on anyone with the effrontery to question his bold claims is all too common in online debates. In the dealings I've had with conspiracy theorists, this appears to be central to their dynamic. The negative attention they invite with this behavior fuels their sense of righteousness; they tell themselves they're being persecuted for their honesty, instead of disciplined for their rudeness.

I have no qualms in agreeing to disagree on any particular subject with another, but I always try and keep an open mind.

Sage advice indeed.

Regards,

Pistike

 

[sunwaiter]

Robert seemed to have a sincere love for music.

True, and that's why i love music myself, whatever its form. It has always been and will always remain a wonderful way of making people open themselves and share. Well, it seems it's not enough, but it's better than nothing.

Our own productions can remind us how small we are

 

[methodistgirl]

Remember my thread "Across the Border"? It didn't get me kicked out of
this forum and it was just as bad when I started with it. I was reading
it up last night. I did apologize for my nearsightedness. He never came
to his senses and say he was sorry. The one thing I won't do is keep
pushing when I finally realize that I Might be wrong.
judy tooley

 

[Andrew Roussak]

Hello guys,

back again finally. I see this thread had spontaneously evolved in the discussion of Robert Newman's person... My take on that: let us simply stop it. I would normally hate it, to speak about someone who can not hear me and can't respond. But, please try to understand, which kind of person, or kind of mind might be someone, who : has encyclopedial knowledge on various subjects; who has, at best, very questionnable views; who is inclined to believe in various conspiracy theories; who spends obviously all of his time online. Please simply show a bit of understanding, it works always good.
I do not comment the decision of the board , I know that Krummhorn, Robin are very delicate people, but as officials they are responsible for what's going on here. I am only sorry that this all should have happened on MIMF.

I ask you also not to respond and not to quote this post of mine, because I plan to delete it within a week from today.

Sincerely,
Andrew

 

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Pistike,

hope it is okay to let you wait - appear as often as I can!
​

Okay, I see that the discussion must now inevitably follow the familiar route - my next question must be the fossil record, right? That is, if you say "cumulative series of steps" over those millions of years, one would expect to find an uninterrupted row of fossils of these intermediates. Are they here?
There are plenty of fossils of intermediate forms between prehistoric fish and prehistoric land animals. ...

I was just FISHING online and found an interesting quote:

"Although the relationship of the rhipidistians to the amphibians will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, it should be said here that none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive tetrapods."
(Stahl, Barbara J. [Professor of Biology, Saint Anselm College, USA], "Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution," Dover: New York NY, 1985, p.148)

What may it actually mean? I think the two following takes might be interesting.

An example presented in the low right corner of your scheme, COELACANTH, was believed to be an evolutionary ancestor of tetrapods, that's right. But, it was caught alive in the Indian Ocean in 1938.
It is a very massive deep-water fish, with really bony fins, but it neither uses them for walking, nor it even comes close to the water surface. It did not evolve since Devonian in anything different than it was. Thus it is neither fishapod, nor missing link, nor even an extinct species.

Tiktaalik is a really very interesting and spectacular case. The fossil was found in 2006 in Arctic Canada and was proudly presented as a true missing link between devonian fishes and tetrapods ( that's why fishapods ). So, Internet is really full of evolutionist sites, presenting it as that, and of the creationist sites, stating, of course, the contrary. I have tried to find some analysis of the found , and got here:
http://www.wort-und-wissen.de/index2.php?artikel=sij/sij132/sij132-6.html

Sorry, it is in German, but the schemes represented are quite understandable. The article written by Dr. Reinhard Junker.
The essense in short:
TIKTALIIK was claimed to fill the gap between the first known tetrapods and their fishy contemporaries ( see the scheme ). Analysis of the front extremities of TIKTALIIK shows that they don't show any signs of transformation in the "desired" direction - they are fins, no signs of digits. The same goes to the scull. So, seen from an evolutionary perspective, TIKTALIIK could show, at best, another branch of evolution. But in this case, it does not only not fills the existing gap in the fossil record, but produces another two.
Moreover, the rear extremities of TIKTALIIK, and the tail, were not found. So the reconstruction, as that in Wikipedia , is based on a supposition how it SHOULD LOOK LIKE to fill in the gap. This is important, because it means , actually - could it walk? You know that we need LEGS for walking, these are not ARMS, because legs are attached to the backbone via pelvic bones, and such construction carries, actually , the weight of the body ( by me, by you, by apes, T-Rex....) . The fins of the fish are not of this kind. The logical hypothesis is that the rear fins of TIKTALIIK were not legs as all other details do not show it, and even the reconstruction does not. So, much says to the supposition that it was just a fish species, living by a coastline and feeding of insects etc, like also many modern species do. After this niche had closed ( and what did it look like in Devonian, one can only speculate ), TIKTALIIK had become extinct. That's all.

Does Carl Zimmer explain what were the pressures which made the fish to leave its normal environment?

First and foremost, the land was full of plant life that made easy prey for adventurous fish forms.

The evolutionary process is certainly still happening today.

I have some troubles to bring these two points of you together.

First, the land is full of plant and insect life today no less than it was millions of years ago. So, the pressures must be actually the same. There are lots of fish species living, as well - the half of all vertebrates ! There are certainly some adventurous species among them. Can you name some visible examples of fish on its way to tetrapod known today? If you say, evolution ( let us make it clear, it sounds like macroevolution for me ) happens now, as well as in Devonian, the examples must be all-present. Each living species of course prefers it, to live in its own niche. If this niche is being closed for whatever reason, the species would migrate or become extinct, that is what the modern observations show. Why should it have been different millions of years ago?

I can name also , if you want, of course, some examples of really EXTREME pressures, which the known species undergo since thousands of years and still do not show any signs of evolution.

AR:The last question ( for today !) - can you give your opinion on how life has started? Is abiogenesis possible or not? Just interested how you see it.

PG: This question doesn't deal with evolution, strictly speaking. How life initially came about has no real bearing on the question of the common ancestry of all life on Earth.

You are right, it doesn't, sorry I was a little bit provocative

Still, the question was significant for Haeckel, who understood the primitive life as a drop of jelly. It was important for Miller and Urey, who hoped to show in 1953 how the life begun but failed. The question is regarded as secondary by the modern ET, just because it can not answer it. Looks like the materialistic science stumbles at its very first step, and continues to walk further, as if nothing happened.

Very sincerely,
Andrew

 

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha jhnbrbr,

I very much appreciate your redacting in your posting - you have my thanks and heartfelt appreciation.

Respectfully yours,

CD

 

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

I was just FISHING online and found an interesting quote:

"Although the relationship of the rhipidistians to the amphibians will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, it should be said here that none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive tetrapods."
(Stahl, Barbara J. [Professor of Biology, Saint Anselm College, USA], "Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution," Dover: New York NY, 1985, p.148)

What may it actually mean?

Well, it may mean that, in the mind of Professor Stahl, the true intermediates between primitive fish and the earliest tetrapods hadn't yet been discovered. If this was indeed written in 1985, then it was nearly twenty years before the discovery of the Tiktaalik fossil.

But what do YOU think it means, Andrew? Could Professor Stahl, an eminent evolutionary biologist who studied vertebrate evolution until her death in 2004, actually have meant that intermediates between primitive fish and the earliest tetrapods never existed? Did you quote her because you think she meant that evolution is a gigantic hoax?

"Quote mining" is taking a quote out of context to make it seem like an authority is supporting a claim of your that they would never, in fact, support. It's an outrageously dishonest method, intended to claim expert support for a proposition that deserves none. How many times have I seen creationists dig up direct quotes from evolutionists that seem, amazingly, to support creationism? And how many times does it turn out that these scientists (Darwin, Gould, Lewontin, Dawkins, and so forth) were, in fact, quoted in a very misleading way, simply in order to deceive people unfamiliar with the details of empirical inquiry into thinking that evolutionary scientists were publically admitting the weakness of their own case?

Perhaps you're unaware of how competitive and controversial biology is. There are many debates raging in the field as we speak, concerning details of the genetic basis of the evolutionary mechanism, proposed lines of ancestry, the impact of certain events on evolutionary transitions, and many other subjects. However, the biologists debating whether species actually evolve constitute a miniscule, ideologically-motivated, deservedly ridiculed minority in the scientific community.

But maybe it should be your turn to answer questions, Andrew. Where did you get your education in biology? Who do you consider the authorities on natural history? What should we believe about the history of life on Earth? Is evolution just a fraud and a hoax? If so, why do so many people, particularly scientists, affirm the validity of Darwin's theory?

Regards,

Pistike

 

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Pistike,

I wish to humbly ask you where you have gotten your education in Biology. I myself have done Graduate work in Astrophysics with a concentration in Cosmology. So no, I'm no expert in Biology but am troubled by scientists and pseudoscientists who, with an eye to make politically charged statements and to support their gravy train feed bag with grants from Uncle Sam and other research funding organizations, inject themselves into the political discourse and, being *covered by this or that political party*, make unscientifically supported statements and grand summations to benefit the latest cause-du-jour of whatever political party or to perpetuate a deceit/conceit.

Just because x-number of scientists claim the validity of Darwin's theory, it does not follow that Darwin's theory has the answer. The world is not going to implode just because Darwin's theory might be invalid - However, it might mean that some scientists will soon be out of a job and politicians and educators will have massive quantities of egg to scrape off their face.

Humbly and Respectfully yours,

CD :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:

 

[Pista Gyerek]

Hey there, CD,

I'm no expert in Biology but am troubled by scientists and pseudoscientists who, with an eye to make politically charged statements and to support their gravy train feed bag with grants from Uncle Sam and other research funding organizations, inject themselves into the political discourse and, being *covered by this or that political party*, make unscientifically supported statements and grand summations to benefit the latest cause-du-jour of whatever political party or to perpetuate a deceit/conceit.

I'm no expert in biology either, and I think the scientific community is full of vested interests. But I'm troubled by creationists making a buck off the ignorance and bigotry of people who barely understand what evolution is, let alone have a sturdy grounding in philosophy and critical thinking.

Just because x-number of scientists claim the validity of Darwin's theory, it does not follow that Darwin's theory has the answer.

You're right. But we need to recognize the context here: an overwhelming number of scientists affirm the theory. If you're claiming Darwin's theory is invalid on the authority of a vanishing minority of scientists who affirm creationism, you need to explain on what basis you judge this infinitesimal minority more reliable than the majority.

The world is not going to implode just because Darwin's theory might be invalid - However, it might mean that some scientists will soon be out of a job and politicians and educators will have massive quantities of egg to scrape off their face.

Let's not be disingenuous. Darwin's theory is the best explanation we have for the massive amount of fossil, genetic, and morphological evidence that scientists need a framework to understand. Common ancestry and evolution by natural selection form the basis of modern biology.

If there is a superior, coherent, verifiable theory to explain everything the neo-Darwin synthesis does and more, it has not been proposed. I've got no attachment to Darwinism apart from the fact that the theory has been verified by subsequent research: present a better theory and every scientist would be eager to claim it as his own and get to Stockholm for his Nobel prize.

Regards,

Pistike

 

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Pistike,

I agree with you about a framework for discussion in using a heretofore standard model with its inconsistencies and all until a better model is agreed upon by the assembled scientific community. In regards to the overwhelming number, what might that number be? What affiliation to institutions of higher learning, received research grants, professional assemblies are these scientists allied with? My gripe is also about the dishonest buck and political score being made off of the seeming ignorance of many civilians.

The question about the validity or invalidity of Darwin's theory will not be settled in your or my lifetime. I know the contentious tone of debate about Faith within the Astrophysics Community and it is very often raw when scientists and researchers are stigmatised because they have a Faith system. I don't check my Faith at the door when I enter the Analysis Room or the office to conduct independent research. I do the Mathematical Physics and verification experiments using the tools afforded me by my education.

Btw, I didn't read about what your background is - if you wish not to share it, I can live with that.

In greatest humility,

CD :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:

 

[Pista Gyerek]

Hello CD,

The question about the validity or invalidity of Darwin's theory will not be settled in your or my lifetime.

Uh, actually, it's been settled rather emphatically. The overwhelming consensus in academia and the scientific community is due to the viability of Darwin's theory, not some insidious brainwashing conspiracy. A miniscule number of opportunists hawking an incoherent theory like creationism to the uneducated does not constitute responsible dissent.

I didn't read about what your background is - if you wish not to share it, I can live with that.

Like you, I'm not a biologist. I'm a businessman with an interest in natural history and philosophy. Some ten years ago I first heard of the creationism phenomenon. I was interested to hear what both sides had to say on the issue, so I started by reading Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher and Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson. The difference between the approach of the two books speaks loudly about the context of the debate.

Kitcher is a philosopher of science, so he begins with a broad historical overview of the development of empirical evidential inquiry. He demands his audience familiarize itself with concepts such as inductive reasoning, methodological naturalism, and statistical inference. He outlines what evolution is, and how it fits the definition of science. He then explores the claims of creationism and demonstrates their weakness in the context of scientific inquiry as well as philosophy. Kitcher is appealing to his audience's respect for knowledge, and its ability to make important distinctions between what is science and what is not.

Johnson, in contrast, is a lawyer, so his work is nothing more than a hatchet job. The way he defines concepts like materialism and evolution makes it clear he's writing for an audience with little education in the history of science or philosophy. His argument consists entirely of presenting quotes from evolutionists taken out of context, as well as pointing to 'anomalies' in evolutionary theory in a scattershot manner. The lack of a description of a theory to replace Darwin's is conspicuous in its absence. Johnson panders to his audience's ignorance, mistrust, and prejudice.

So tell me, CD, who do you consider the authorities in biological science? Which materials most influenced you in your interest in the matter?

Regards,

Pistike

 

[methodistgirl]

I'm not a biologist either. In fact I just made it through high school. But
I know where you guys are going with this. Evolutionist and creationist
can both get it wrong and some people misunderstand the bible. There is
a place in the bible that says a day in heaven is like a thousand years on
earth. That goes to show that maybe the days of creation might have
taken over a million years. As for the big bang theory might be right.
The Lord did say,"Let there be light!,"and the universe exploded with
light until things cooled down and started to make the stars and planets.
You have today thousands of star making nebulas from Orion to the
Trifid Nebula. The crab nebula is begining to make stars too now.
When a star dies and supernovas new stars are being created. Man was
created from the earth which the earth herself is made of the same thing
that makes stars which is cosmic dust,gases like oxygen, hydrogen,
helium, and etc. just like the stars. The sun is made from the same
material as the earth with the exception of nuclear fusion to make
it shine and so on. I just hope I didn't get anything wrong but I
probably did.
judy tooley

 

[Contratrombone64]

Judy I'd be very interested to see exactly where in the bible you state that:

place in the bible that says a day in heaven is like a thousand years on
earth

I'm waiting in anticipation. Thanks!

 

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Corno Dolce,

Just because x-number of scientists claim the validity of Darwin's theory, it does not follow that Darwin's theory has the answer. The world is not going to implode just because Darwin's theory might be invalid - However, it might mean that some scientists will soon be out of a job and politicians and educators will have massive quantities of egg to scrape off their face.

Looks like it really happens...

http://www.physorg.com/news153661585.html

 

[Andrew Roussak]

Hello Pistike,

"Although the relationship of the rhipidistians to the amphibians will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, it should be said here that none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive tetrapods."
(Stahl, Barbara J. [Professor of Biology, Saint Anselm College, USA], "Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution," Dover: New York NY, 1985, p.148)

What may it actually mean? Well, it may mean that, in the mind of Professor Stahl, the true intermediates between primitive fish and the earliest tetrapods hadn't yet been discovered. If this was indeed written in 1985, then it was nearly twenty years before the discovery of the Tiktaalik fossil.

But what do YOU think it means, Andrew? Could Professor Stahl, an eminent evolutionary biologist who studied vertebrate evolution until her death in 2004, actually have meant that intermediates between primitive fish and the earliest tetrapods never existed? Did you quote her because you think she meant that evolution is a gigantic hoax?

I hate what you call "quote mining " too, but in this case, I believe, the quote reproduces the true meaning of Prof. Stahl's words. You know - it is a commonplace - that the abscence of the fossil evidence was a serious problem for Darwin himself ( yes, there is a quote! but this fact is recognised by both sides, so I believe, I can now go further ). The abscence of such evidence did not stop Darwin, though, as he hoped the "missing links" will be found soon. The honest words of prof. Stahl simply confirm, that the present ( as to 1985 ) state of affairs is not better. I think it's a true context.

For Tiktaliik - sure, the fossil was found 20 years later. But I have placed the detailed analysis of it, with scheme, reconstruction, and the photo of what was actually found. I have also put a shortened translation of the article from German, so what could I do more?

Let me try to make this point clear once again. If you click on RECONSTRUCTION, you will see that we are talking of the fragments of the bones. It is no problem, but WHAT one could actually analyse were only the fin, and the scull. The rest is reconstruction. The analysis, made by dr. Junker, shows that Tiktaliik DOES NOT FIT in the gap it was claimed to fit in. Therefore, it is not an intermediary in this row. It could - well - represent one another branch of evolution. But, seen as that, it could be just another Devonian fish species as well - which is the quite logical supposition due to lack of other evidence. There are about 25.000 fish species now, looking quite different from each other. In Devonian, the situation was quite the same, I believe.

There are some general concerns on missing links, too. I have once stumbled on a website representing the "true" missing links, with Tiktaliik and Archaeopterix among them. 7 links, all together. Sunwaiter had once posted in this forum, there are about 20 intermediaries found to the day.
What matters is, even 200 were not too much. Please take a look at this scheme one more time. You see a dotted line here - that is a space, which should be actually filled with the transitional forms within all those millions of years. It should have been more than one intermediary anyway, I don't want to speculate, how many exactly. You say, the modern species are only the latest buds on a tree - that is, each living species must be connected with such a dotted line to its ancestor. There are, as estimated, about 2 000 000 known species on Earth now, who knows how many still undiscovered, how many became extinct. It means anyway - we must speak of millions intermediates in the fossil record. Not of 7, not even 20. But...

 

[Andrew Roussak]

Pistike, I have decided to answer this your question separately ( from Tiktaalik )

But maybe it should be your turn to answer questions, Andrew. Where did you get your education in biology? Who do you consider the authorities on natural history? What should we believe about the history of life on Earth? Is evolution just a fraud and a hoax? If so, why do so many people, particularly scientists, affirm the validity of Darwin's theory?

I answer willingly - as mentioned before, I am no more than an amateur in this field. My actual educations were: Dipl. Engineer , with major on microprocessor control systems in aviation/airspace ( State Aviation and Technical University, Ufa, Russia ), and classical piano ( Diplom of State College Of Arts, Ufa, Russia ). I have honestly tried it, to combine professionally such two different activities for a certain period, but later evolved to a full-time muso. For what it's worth, I think, that the general education gives one the ability to quickly learn, analyse and systematize new facts, in whatever field. It does in no way equates a degree on biology, of course.

Who do you consider the authorities on natural history?

Maybe these two videos can be interesting for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE7cvUzSn4U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1xkpncGHEQ&feature=related

Two of a many . Prof . Dr. Siegfried Scherer ( Molecular Biology ), Prof . Werner Gitt ( Theorie of Information ).

I am sorry, once again, that the first video is in German - you asked me about MY preferences. So, these two gentlemen stay strictly within their own professional domains, no further speculations. Dr. Scherer on the first video explains, that the human emrios do NOT represent evolutional stages, as it was claimed for a long time. Furthermore, he claims that abiogenesis is proven, to be impossible ( you see the experiment of Pasteur, and then that of Miller ).

You see, there are really many prominent figures, Profs, Drs... on both sides of the argument. Why should opinion of Dawkins be more preferable for me, than opinion of Scherer?

What should we believe about the history of life on Earth? Is evolution just a fraud and a hoax?

But then, it is still a matter of belief? Pistike, I can't of course say what anybody SHOULD believe. The views of Prof. Scherer are represented on his Wikipedia page. He undoubtedly believes, that God created life. He works with American creationist Universities, but does not support the literary conception of creation in 6 days. He accepts the evolution too, but more like a speciation - all dogs, apes...came from their common ancestor. Maybe even all mammals, it is not clearly posted there. In this case, it was, once again , a web, not a tree, and the process went downhill, like all natural processes do. I think such version of a natural history has more evidence than the classical ET. But, this is just my opinion.

If so, why do so many people, particularly scientists, affirm the validity of Darwin's theory?

This one is absolutely a brilliant question ,Pistike, if one would understand it kinda, Why are there so many materialists in our time? I think it is even worth a separate thread. But, first off my answer here:

I think , on two reasons. First , and rather simple, people do always understand many really different things as evolution, and there are cases where evolution clearly happens ( like the adaptation of modern humans to raw milk ). But, this is microevolution, and then the usual extrapolation is being made. There are also many works on mutations, especially in microbiology, whereas one is inclined, to see each and every change as the proof of evolution. It was, btw, also mentioned in the article ( about the web-tree ) we have discussed a week ago here. Then, the results ( in the special field of research, absolutely verifiable, of course ) are being published in a magazine like NATURE. The reader reacts on the word "evolution" and gets a steady image of a tree, and the Darwin's portrait , linked together with the real context of the article.

The second reason is , it is a matter of the world view, as always. You have mentioned that phylosophy is one of your interests, then the words "modern times' mentality" - or Neuzeit Mentalitaet, in German - should say you something.
You know that the mentality of the medieval Europe could be of course described as religious , or Christian. Via Reformation, renaissance, baroque it has slowly shifted to more and more secular one, and the ideas of humanism were already completely atheistic. So was the modern times' mentality born, and this was the society, and the model of thinking, which has accepted Darwin's Theory. The idea itself was in no way new. Scientists are the part of the society, like all other people. You know that Sir Isaak Newton has written more works on theology, than on physics, trying to understand or to explain the harmony of the world around him. And you know that Prof. Richard Dawkins has written "Delusion Of God", for whatever reason. So I think - all-common world view, mark of time... is the actual answer. No sign of any conspiracy plot, anyway ( only if it is not the plot, in which the most of adult population of Europe, USA... take part ).

Best regards to you,
Andrew

 

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

I don't know whether you're deliberately making scattershot and incoherent claims, in order to make dialogue more difficult, or whether you simply don't recognize the context of the matters you're discussing.

Your incomplete understanding of debates in biology have you quoting Professor Stahl's work as if it somehow casts doubt upon evolutionary theory in general. I said before that I think quote mining is dishonest, but I don't think you understood why: Professor Stahl had no doubt that the rhipidistians represented the ancestry of the original land tetrapods, only she didn't feel that (in 1985) the true intermediates had yet been found.

This brings up the matter of your refusal to acknowledge any conceivable intermediates between primitive fishes and tetrapods. You seem to feel that any question you could raise represents a definitive refutation of the evolution of the original tetrapods. Then you demand that we produce fossils of millions of intermediates, demonstrating a rather comical unfamiliarity with the realities of paleontology in general.

Then there's your enlisting Drs. Scherer and Gitt as your authorities, on no better basis than that they tell you what you want to hear. Do their views represent the mainstream of thought in their respective fields? If not, what do other experts think of their work? If, in fact, Scherer "proved" abiogenesis was impossible, did he offer his assessment of the probability of any rival theory of the origin of life on Earth? And as I said before, species evolution is a separate issue from that of the origin of life anyway, so what does that have to do with the shared ancestry of life on Earth?

Last and most disturbing, you talk about the "materialistic" philosophy that is the basis of science as if it's a bad thing. I can't understand this. Science is supposed to be about formulating testable hypotheses for understanding natural phenomena, not pandering to our religious prejudices. Are you suggesting no Christian affirms the theory of evolution by natural selection? Are you suggesting that we're all bad Christians, or bad people, if we're persuaded by the evidence for species evolution? Can the evidence for creationism be assessed on the same objective basis as evolution, or does it depend on our unrealistic wish to have our religious beliefs validated by science?

Regards,

Pistike

 

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Andrew,

Since I know enough German to read and understand complex scientific tomes, I have read Prof. Dr. Scherer's findings and consider him one of the best there is in Molecular Biology. I find it interesting that one of Europe's finest Universities(Leiden) is cutting back on funding for Evolutionary Biology.

The reaction was not slow in coming - blood-curdling screams, gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair and nails, anger, and resentment. Why, might one ask, is there such furor, hue and cry? I guess the evolutionists see their place and time at the feed trough being curtailed. Oh well, as the world turns...................Some peoples apple carts are being upset.......Or is it the Geese are having their feathers plucked and so they hiss, shriek, and honk?

I have extremely grave misgivings about so much stock being put into the philosophy of science without having had the benefit of doing Graduate level research work in a science field. Yes, it can be fascinating for the layman to grapple with the philosophical underpinnings but it in no way replaces good old-fashioned lab work.

Andrew, I am very impressed with your level of education - I doff my hat in respect to you :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:

Maybe Kant's *Kritik Des Reinen Vernunft* (Critique Of Pure Reason) should be a part of the Philosophy 101 curriculum. :grin::grin::grin:

 

[Pista Gyerek]

I find it interesting that one of Europe's finest Universities(Leiden) is cutting back on funding for Evolutionary Biology.

The reaction was not slow in coming - blood-curdling screams, gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair and nails, anger, and resentment. Why, might one ask, is there such furor, hue and cry? I guess the evolutionists see their place and time at the feed trough being curtailed. Oh well, as the world turns...................Some peoples apple carts are being upset.......Or is it the Geese are having their feathers plucked and so they hiss, shriek, and honk?

And this says what exactly about the theory of evolution by natural selection?

Personally, I'm far from surprised that academics are complaining about funding cuts. Would you expect a different reaction from the staff of a physics or geology program? Do you honestly take this to mean the end of Darwinism or something?

Regards,

Pistike

 

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Pistike,

Having collaborated with Astrophysics colleagues from most of the major European, Russian, Chinese, and American top flight Universities, there seems to be a movement afoot where all theoretical and research programs are under the microscope for to see what meaningful results are being produced by every program.

I trust you know that research funding organizations of both private and public nature like NSA, Ford Foundation and scores of others like to see very tangible benefits that have immediate implications for the organization and for the common good.

Of course, much is predicated on how well one writes the research grant proposal and if it is accepted in short order. Yes, there are many variables.
So, I don't necessarily see the end of a standard reference model just because a *Uni or more* cuts fundings, but, as they say, the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

In humble sincerity,

CD :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat: