Sorry about taking so long to reply - had friends over for the weekend. We hung out in NYC, Philly, and several points inbetween. Lotsa fun!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
2. The theory of evolution is a theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to hear someone admit it is not a proven fact...
Um, I don't think you fully read my post. The above statement is a common misconception held by many who believe in creationism, and I tried from the beginning to address this. Again:
Originally written by Vrylakas: 2. The theory of evolution is a theory. I know in popular parlance the word "theory" describes something unsure or unproven, but in science the word theory refers to a hypothesis, a description of the most probable explanation for an observed phenomenon - regardless of what amount of evidence exists. This means that evolution will always be "just a theory". Another example is flight - the ability for humans to fly is also "just a theory", but humans send many hundreds of tons of metal and plastic into the sky every day. And guess what - we have more data relating to Evolution than we do to the theory of flight! (How does that make you feel for your next flight?) This is basic first-level science textbook stuff; what the hell do they teach in your schools nowadays?
To emphasize the point, let me quote from a standard English-language dictionary, in this case the
American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition (1993):
"
the-o-ry [...] - 1. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, principals and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of specified phenomena.
You'll note that your usage of
theory, the colloquial usage, comes in at number 4 in the definitions:
"4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
The point is that there is a difference in usage that is critical to the meaning. When scientists refer to Evolution as a theory, they mean definition #1, while fundamentalists tend to confuse this with the colloquial definition of #4. The dimwitted Ronnie Reagan revealed his own weak understanding of basic science when he made his public gaffe to the effect that "Evolution is still just a theory". Of course it is - as it and everything else science studies can only ever be.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
3. Evolution is fact. It is not a matter of belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUH?! Wha? You just said it was a THEORY!! You can't have it both ways!!
Read above. You've got to sort out the definitions before you can understand the point.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
There is a MASSIVE mountain of data pertaining to evolution that is overwhelming in its pointing towards evolution, not just about humans but about almost every species on the planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example? (That I haven't already invalidated, that is.) Now there is all kinds of evidence that Evolutionists claim supports their theory, but upon close examination, one can see that while this evidence supports some parts of the Darwinian Synthesis, it is only those parts that actually have nothing to do with speciation.
??? You're making some broad statements and I'm not sure what you specifically want. Speciation is the point reached when two separated gene pools diverge enough in development that they can no longer interbreed (and create offspring). This can happen through simple geographic separation (allopatric speciation), widespread territorialization that may cause isolated pools of divergant development (parapatric speciation) or through having particularly strong traits within a given population (sympatric speciation). I'm not sure what your point is.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
We (humans, that is) have actually had the opportunity to watch it in action right before our eyes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example? (That I haven't already invalidated, that is.) I am sure you are talking about Natural Selection, not Evolution. Natural Selection happens, Evolution does not. Variation within a species occurs, speciation does not.
But the two are related. That's Natural Selection. Natural Selection is when something in the environment changes and some members of a given species have a particular trait that allows them to survive the change. That's exactly why (according to the theory of evolution) species each create a plethora of individual variation. Evolution as a process does not attempt to save each and every member of any given species or population; the point is to save the population. (Humans, with their egos, find this part a bit difficult to understand and digest sometimes.) By creating as many variations within a population as possible, Evolution is tryng to guarantee that at least some members of the population will always survive. It's absurd to separate the two.
An example: In 1977 two biologists from Princeton University, Rosemary and Peter Grant (husband & wife team), went to the island of Daphne Major in the Galapagos Islands to do an unrelated study on ecology on the island, but a drought struck a few years into their study and radically altered the local environment. They became fascinated by the local finches (the same ones Darwin had studied in the 19th century in reference to speciation) because they noticed Natural Selection at work: the drought had wiped out much of the finches' food supply of seeds. Some large kernal seeds had managed to survive, and a select group within the finch population had beaks large enough to crack those large kernal shells and eat - and survive. Within a year, only finches with the large beaks were alive, and consequently this became a defining aspect of the surviving population. Now the finches on Daphne Major all have large beaks - because only the ones with those genes have survived that late 1970s drought. Sooner or later, over time, if the local resources warrent, then variation will set in again and a few finches with smaller beak genes will be born (gene mutation) and the population will become varied in this trait again - but if the drought is permanent, if it is a part of a larger process of desertification, then the large beak trait will become a permanent part of the finch trait kit.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
My majors in university were history and cultural anthropology, but they forced us to take physical anthro courses as well,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now why would they force you to take courses that indoctrinate you into the holy covenant of Establishment Science's Catechism?
You mean, why would I be trained to rely on the evidence of my senses to explore the world rather than suspect theological texts, distorted and tainted by politics, mythology and regional traditions...?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
and I spent months combing through the development of dental patterns in bipedal simians over millions of years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of like how the Jesuits have you pore over illuminated manuscripts in seminary... But Evolutionism definitely has no similarities to religion. Nope, nosirreeBob, none whatsoever.
First of all, I do not believe "Evolutionism" is a term in English or any other language. I imagine fundamentalists probably have invented this expression, with the suffix "-ism". this suffix denotes an ideology, and evolution was created using science. Secondly, Jesuits were great scholars who founded universities around the world, and indeed still run some institutions of higher learning today, despite Layola's order being officially disbanded long ago. The Jesuit's scholarship has contributed much to modern science, so it should be of no surprise to you that the modern Roman Catholic church - the entity that first commissioned the Jesuits in the 16th century - endorses the theory of Evolution. John Paul II has established a scientific think tank of sorts in the Vatican and has invited scientists from all over the world to study and lecture at the Vatican. (The opening to Stephen hawking's latest book has a bit about his embarrassment at almost having to admit to the Pope that he was an atheist when he lectured at the Vatican.) John Paul II's first action as Pope in 1978 was to reverse the church's 400 year old mistake in condemning Galileo for his celestial theories. John Paul II's concern with science is its moral impact, not whether every single contradictory dotted "i" and crossed "t" in the Bible fits the latest scientific findings... I learned much of my early English and science (including Evolution!) at the behest of Jesuits. Unlike some of the more radical Calvinist-inspired Protestant groups, the Jesuits did not shun scholarship or science, and they were able to understand the difference between their faith and their science.
Oh Im sorry were you saying something professor curt?
And I don't go around here saying all this stuff I say because I'm trying to convert anyone. Far from it. But I don't at all like to sit and tolerate being called ignorant because I believe in creationism in any of its many incarnations or my God who I know started it all. Not that I'd think you'd ever call anyone ignorant with out a good reason, though. I've always found you a very respectful poster.
The Catholic can't be the pinnacle for all religon, ya know. (No offense, anyone.)
