Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest

Expand Messages
  • Joe Martin
    From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: October-31-12 5:59 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
      From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
      Sent: October-31-12 5:59 PM
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest






      ----- Original Message -----
      From: gluadys
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:25 AM
      Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest

      I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author of
      Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

      In the Prologue he notes that he book has three main parts and says:

      "I would like to think of them as being like the three parts of a good and
      memorable meal--a little bit of preparation, plenty of food, and some
      meaningful conversation."

      I have finished the "preparation"--some info on the mathematics of
      evolution, and the "food"--six chapters of fascinating empirical evidence
      and am about to begin the "meaningful conversation" --why do people continue
      to doubt and deny evolution?

      Here is how Carroll sums up the situation before diving into that question.

      "Today the body of facts concerning evolution continues to expand in all
      dimensions. . . . It is hard to imagine how anyone in command of these facts
      could harbour any reasonable doubt. . . . Yet in the face of all of the
      evidence, there remains much doubt and outright denial of the reality of
      biological evolution. To understand this doubt and denial, we'll leave the
      realm of scientific evidence, because the reasons for such doubt could not
      be, and are not, scientific."

      LA> On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at various times
      and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their
      evolutionary opponents in a decade of hundreds of open, public, debates on
      the scientific questions! For example noted evolutionist, Niles Eldredge
      wrote the following;

      --------------------------------
      "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
      separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
      United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
      religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
      scientific
      notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
      of
      the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
      societies
      have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
      how they came to be, and why.

      But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
      comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
      creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
      as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
      grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
      as
      Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
      supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
      prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
      ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
      trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
      journalist H.
      L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
      wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
      religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
      curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

      The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
      general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
      conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
      Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
      local control of
      tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
      attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
      Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
      American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
      anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
      religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
      overt political
      action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
      hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
      is
      once more on the political scene.

      Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
      Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
      and
      staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
      creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
      already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
      been
      showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
      Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
      soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
      scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
      points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
      Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
      educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
      homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
      who
      are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
      too
      evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
      are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
      because
      of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
      evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
      evolution.

      The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
      collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
      unresolved,
      intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
      he
      sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
      and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
      Thomas
      Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
      England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
      theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
      Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
      religion.
      Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
      upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
      never
      claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the the other hand, are
      belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
      time-honored-but
      utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
      communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
      are
      pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

      (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
      Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)


      JM> Of course the quote was out of context as usual (in context now) AND
      public debating games and shows are not science anyway. Eldredge calls them
      SHOWS and Red Hot Creationist Paul (FAILED balanced treatment author)
      Ellwanger calls them debating games. Too bad YECs can't enter the
      scientific arena with some real science to present.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful. Charles P:
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
        Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
        author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

        Charles P: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658057n I got the DVD
        by Sean B Carroll. His research is very valuable. He has been one of my
        heroes even before he was on CBS.

        http://seanbcarroll.com/

        James A Shapiro, "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century", p.116: Descent
        with modification provides the overall context for this book, whose main
        theme is to illustrate how many exciting facts we have learned about the
        processes that lead to evolutionary inventions. Analyzing the fossil
        record is somewhat outside the scope of this book, but the correlation
        of paleontological novelties and genome organization is a fascinating
        question addressed by the branch of science now called Evo-Devo, the study
        of the evolutionary basis of morphogenetic processes.

        ********************************************************************************

        Laurie Appleton: On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at
        various times... etc.etc.etc.

        Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution Creationists also believe in
        evolution. The material that you have quoted might sound very impressive
        in church or a political campaign, but unless there is empirical and
        verifiable evidence contrary to what Sean B Carroll is describing or
        contrary to the descriptions for the diversity of life concluded from
        evo-devo research, Laurie, your quoted material is unscientific.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • D R Lindberg
        ... of Endless Forms Most Beautiful. ... good and memorable meal--a little bit of preparation, plenty of food, and some meaningful conversation. ...
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...>
          wrote:
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: gluadys
          > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:25 AM
          > Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest
          >
          >
          >
          > I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author
          of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
          >
          > In the Prologue he notes that he book has three main parts and says:
          >
          > "I would like to think of them as being like the three parts of a
          good and memorable meal--a little bit of preparation, plenty of food,
          and some meaningful conversation."
          >
          > I have finished the "preparation"--some info on the mathematics of
          evolution, and the "food"--six chapters of fascinating empirical
          evidence and am about to begin the "meaningful conversation" --why do
          people continue to doubt and deny evolution?
          >
          > Here is how Carroll sums up the situation before diving into that
          question.
          >
          > "Today the body of facts concerning evolution continues to expand in
          all dimensions. . . . It is hard to imagine how anyone in command of
          these facts could harbour any reasonable doubt. . . . Yet in the face of
          all of the evidence, there remains much doubt and outright denial of the
          reality of biological evolution. To understand this doubt and denial,
          we'll leave the realm of scientific evidence, because the reasons for
          such doubt could not be, and are not, scientific."
          >
          >
          > LA> On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at
          various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly
          "routed" their evolutionary opponents in a decade of hundreds of open,
          public, debates on the scientific questions! For example noted
          evolutionist, Niles Eldredge wrote the following;
          >
          > --------------------------------
          > "Creationists travel all over the United States,
          > visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
          > biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
          > creationists nearly always win."
          >
          > "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
          > converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
          > have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
          > awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
          > Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
          > onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
          > topics."
          >
          > "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
          > relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
          > geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
          > the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
          > intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
          > their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
          > than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
          > bewildered state of incoherence."
          >
          > (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
          > (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
          > debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
          >

          Every time Laurie has nothing to add to a conversation, he trots out the
          same old tired, irrelevant, outdated quotation that he's been using for
          nigh on twenty years.

          Unlike Gluadys, he doesn't appear to have read anything new in the last
          thirty years.

          And he doesn't appear to understand Eldredge's point, that fast-talking
          con artists will win debates even when they don't have the science.

          After all their business is debating, not science.

          Cheers!







          "Darwin was wrong. Man's still an ape." -- Michael Ghiglieri


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David
          ... David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist s work in
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: gluadys
            > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:25 AM
            > Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest
            >
            >
            >
            > I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
            >
            > In the Prologue he notes that he book has three main parts and says:
            >
            > "I would like to think of them as being like the three parts of a good and memorable meal--a little bit of preparation, plenty of food, and some meaningful conversation."
            >
            > I have finished the "preparation"--some info on the mathematics of evolution, and the "food"--six chapters of fascinating empirical evidence and am about to begin the "meaningful conversation" --why do people continue to doubt and deny evolution?
            >
            > Here is how Carroll sums up the situation before diving into that question.
            >
            > "Today the body of facts concerning evolution continues to expand in all dimensions. . . . It is hard to imagine how anyone in command of these facts could harbour any reasonable doubt. . . . Yet in the face of all of the evidence, there remains much doubt and outright denial of the reality of biological evolution. To understand this doubt and denial, we'll leave the realm of scientific evidence, because the reasons for such doubt could not be, and are not, scientific."
            >
            >
            > LA> On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in a decade of hundreds of open, public, debates on the scientific questions! For example noted evolutionist, Niles Eldredge wrote the following;
            >
            > --------------------------------
            > "Creationists travel all over the United States,
            > visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
            > biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
            > creationists nearly always win."
            >
            > "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
            > converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
            > have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
            > awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
            > Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
            > onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
            > topics."
            >
            > "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
            > relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
            > geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
            > the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
            > intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
            > their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
            > than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
            > bewildered state of incoherence."
            >
            > (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
            > (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
            > debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
            >
            > =================
            >
            >
            >
            > Laurie
            >
            > "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
            > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
            > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
            > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
            >


            David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist's work in their scientific papers. Such is not the case. Creationism and its offshoot, Intelligent Design have little or no impact on real science.

            Back in the 1970s, I went to one of those sham debates. The evolutionist was not prepared for the debate tricks used on him. Also, I myself was able to refute all of the creationist arguments because I had access to a university library. Scientists who know much more than me have also refuted the creationist's arguments. Creationists keep using most of those failed arguments. That is ok with me. It just shows that creationism is still a flop.

            In USA courtrooms where evidence counts, creationists have never been able to persuade most judges that creationism is a real science and thus eligible to be taught in USA public school science classes. Intelligent Design flopped as a science in Kitzmiller vs Dover in 2005.
          • Laurie Appleton
            ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:46 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: The Making of the Fittest ... GLU:
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: David
              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:46 AM
              Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: The Making of the Fittest





              >
              GLU: > Here is how Carroll sums up the situation before diving into that question.
              >
              > "Today the body of facts concerning evolution continues to expand in all dimensions. . . . It is hard to imagine how anyone in command of these facts could harbour any reasonable doubt. . . . Yet in the face of all of the evidence, there remains much doubt and outright denial of the reality of biological evolution. To understand this doubt and denial, we'll leave the realm of scientific evidence, because the reasons for such doubt could not be, and are not, scientific."
              >
              >
              > LA> On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in a decade of hundreds of open, public, debates on the scientific questions! For example noted evolutionist, Niles Eldredge wrote the following;
              >
              > --------------------------------
              > "Creationists travel all over the United States,
              > visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
              > biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
              > creationists nearly always win."
              >
              > "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
              > converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
              > have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
              > awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
              > Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
              > onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
              > topics."
              >
              > "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
              > relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
              > geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
              > the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
              > intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
              > their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
              > than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
              > bewildered state of incoherence."
              >
              > (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
              > (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
              > debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
              >
              > =================
              >
              >
              David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist's work in their scientific papers. Such is not the case. Creationism and its offshoot, Intelligent Design have little or no impact on real science.




              LA> Quote true. However, on this question we have American Public education being similar to the bad old days of Joseph Stalin, where only atheism is taugh in schools.



              DW: In USA courtrooms where evidence counts, creationists have never been able to persuade most judges that creationism is a real science and thus eligible to be taught in USA public school science classes.



              LA> You make a strong case for the dreadful state of the Judicial system, where most Judges are probably themselves evolutionists and perhaps should have disqualified themselves. Even then, most cases result in a divided "opinion" among the judges anyway, and this shows that their judgemenmts are questionable at best.



              Laurie.

              Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school; (Newsweek, November, 1980)

              ...




              No virus found in this message.
              Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5865 - Release Date: 10/31/12


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Laurie Appleton
              ... From: Charles Palm To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:55 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest Gluadys: I
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Charles Palm
                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:55 AM
                Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest



                Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
                author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

                Charles P: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658057n I got the DVD
                by Sean B Carroll. His research is very valuable. He has been one of my
                heroes even before he was on CBS.

                http://seanbcarroll.com/

                James A Shapiro, "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century", p.116: Descent
                with modification provides the overall context for this book, whose main
                theme is to illustrate how many exciting facts we have learned about the
                processes that lead to evolutionary inventions. Analyzing the fossil
                record is somewhat outside the scope of this book, but the correlation
                of paleontological novelties and genome organization is a fascinating
                question addressed by the branch of science now called Evo-Devo, the study
                of the evolutionary basis of morphogenetic processes.

                ********************************************************************************

                Laurie Appleton: On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at
                various times... etc.etc.etc.

                Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution Creationists also believe in
                evolution. The material that you have quoted might sound very impressive
                in church or a political campaign, but unless there is empirical and
                verifiable evidence contrary to what Sean B Carroll is describing or
                contrary to the descriptions for the diversity of life concluded from
                evo-devo research, Laurie, your quoted material is unscientific.



                LA> Yes Charles. However a number of evolutionists have clearly stated in their writings that it was on the scientific questions that the Creation scientists regularly routed their evolutionary opponents. Besides that the facts of the matter is that the Evolutionist debaters insisted that ONLY scientific arguments were to be debated anyway, and this was what was adhered to. The following is another example of an evolutionary Biologist's written statement;

                -----------------------

                "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
                winners in public debates with evolutionists? . . .
                We biologists are our own worst enemies in the
                creationist-evolutionist controversies."

                "We must no longer duck this and other issues
                related to biology and human affairs, and when we do
                face them we must think clearly and express ourselves
                accordingly. We may still not be consistent winners in
                the creationist- evolutionist debates, but let the
                losses that occur be attributable to other than lapses
                in professional standards.

                ("Evolution/Creation Debate," Bioscience, Vol.30, January 1980, p. 4)

                =====================

                Laurie.

                "We used to have an open mind, now we realise that the only logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

                ..





                No virus found in this message.
                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5865 - Release Date: 10/31/12


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Charles Palm
                David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist s work in their
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
                  David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at
                  mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist's work
                  in their scientific papers. Such is not the case. Creationism and its
                  offshoot, Intelligent Design have little or no impact on real science.

                  Charles P: I suggest that we all try to realize that the vast majority of
                  people, regardless of their religion or non-religion, are intelligent and
                  reasonable people. It is the arrogant extremists who make all of the
                  unreasonable claims that cause the rest of us to take sides on a ridiculous
                  debate that can never be resolved based upon philosophies alone.

                  Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE The ENCODE project has
                  clarified much confusion about biology as an information science. It would
                  be wise for all of us to read as much as possible about the sciences of
                  molecular biology, evo-devo, etc. that are answering the profound questions
                  about the origin and diversity of life.

                  Charles P: http://www.nnu.edu/academics/academic-departments/biology
                  Northwest
                  Nazarene University, here in Nampa, Idaho, offers a Bachelor of Science
                  Degree in Biology. Real scientists are just like the rest of the
                  population. They do not all think alike. Real scientists deserve our
                  respect and should not be blamed for the unscientific writings by
                  scientific writers with a distorted agenda of trying to impose their
                  philosophies in science classes.

                  Charles P: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php It is also a
                  wise idea to keep in mind that Intelligent Design is not the same as
                  creationism. Unless critics have empirical and verifiable evidence that
                  contradicts Intelligent Design, their criticism is unscientific.

                  Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution It is also a wise idea to
                  keep in mind that creationists also believe in evolution. The empirical
                  and verifiable scientific evidence is the same for everyone. It is OK that
                  we have different interpretations of that evidence.

                  Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
                  definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
                  questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
                  verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
                  tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
                  science.

                  Charles P: David, I share the same criticism that you do of the arrogant
                  extremists who make all of the unscientific claims that are neither
                  empirical nor verifiable.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • gluadys
                  ... Unless IDists have empirical and verifiable evidence that supports Intelligent Design, it is not possible to offer a scientific criticism of it. What is
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
                    --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Charles P: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php It is also a
                    > wise idea to keep in mind that Intelligent Design is not the same as
                    > creationism. Unless critics have empirical and verifiable evidence that
                    > contradicts Intelligent Design, their criticism is unscientific.
                    >


                    Unless IDists have empirical and verifiable evidence that supports Intelligent Design, it is not possible to offer a scientific criticism of it. What is empirically observable is that ID uses the same oratorical strategies & tactics, often even the same arguments, as evolution-denying creationists. So, the observation that it is a repackaging of creationism seems to be borne out by the evidence.


                    > Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution It is also a wise idea to
                    > keep in mind that creationists also believe in evolution. The empirical
                    > and verifiable scientific evidence is the same for everyone. It is OK that
                    > we have different interpretations of that evidence.
                    >


                    It is not OK to have false interpretations of the evidence, or to treat false interpretations as justifiable "differences of opinion". It is also not OK to cherry-pick evidence (as much evolution-denying literature does) to give a false impression of supportive evidence when the more complete picture is clearly in favour of evolution.
                  • Joe Martin
                    From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: October-31-12 9:22 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
                      From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                      Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                      Sent: October-31-12 9:22 PM
                      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest






                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Charles Palm
                      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:55 AM
                      Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest

                      Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
                      author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

                      Charles P: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658057n I got the DVD
                      by Sean B Carroll. His research is very valuable. He has been one of my
                      heroes even before he was on CBS.

                      http://seanbcarroll.com/

                      James A Shapiro, "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century", p.116: Descent
                      with modification provides the overall context for this book, whose main
                      theme is to illustrate how many exciting facts we have learned about the
                      processes that lead to evolutionary inventions. Analyzing the fossil
                      record is somewhat outside the scope of this book, but the correlation
                      of paleontological novelties and genome organization is a fascinating
                      question addressed by the branch of science now called Evo-Devo, the study
                      of the evolutionary basis of morphogenetic processes.

                      ****************************************************************************
                      ****

                      Laurie Appleton: On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at
                      various times... etc.etc.etc.

                      Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution Creationists also believe in
                      evolution. The material that you have quoted might sound very impressive
                      in church or a political campaign, but unless there is empirical and
                      verifiable evidence contrary to what Sean B Carroll is describing or
                      contrary to the descriptions for the diversity of life concluded from
                      evo-devo research, Laurie, your quoted material is unscientific.

                      LA> Yes Charles. However a number of evolutionists have clearly stated in
                      their writings that it was on the scientific questions that the Creation
                      scientists regularly routed their evolutionary opponents. Besides that the
                      facts of the matter is that the Evolutionist debaters insisted that ONLY
                      scientific arguments were to be debated anyway, and this was what was
                      adhered to. The following is another example of an evolutionary Biologist's
                      written statement;

                      -----------------------

                      "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
                      winners in public debates

                      JM> not scientific debates. YECs have never HAD a scientific debate where
                      the merits, theories and hypotheses of the science of creation has been
                      presented for scientific scutiny... WHY?? Because YEC has no scientific
                      evidence to support any of the wild notions proposed by YEC science(sic).
                      Public debating games are not science.



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Charles Palm
                      Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful. Charles P:
                      Message 10 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
                        Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
                        author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

                        Charles P: http://www.hhmi.org/news/mesozoic20121026.html This is some of
                        what Sean B Carroll is doing nowadays.

                        Sean B. Carroll, HHMI vice president for science education and the film�s
                        executive producer, will introduce the story to teachers on October 31
                        during the second annual HHMI Night at the Movies at the NABT conference in
                        Dallas, Texas. Following the film, Carroll will host a panel discussion
                        with teachers attending the conference.

                        http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/shortfilms/ The Day the Mesozoic Died.
                        33 minutes 43 seconds. Watch The Day the Mesozoic Died (720p HD, 2Mbps)

                        ********************************************************************************
                        Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28214 You
                        will probably remember some of the 19 messages we discussed here on Origins
                        Talk in April about stickleback fish research done by evo-devo researchers.

                        Charles P: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/shortfilms/ The Making of
                        the Fittest: Evolving Switches, Evolving Bodies 15 minutes 27 seconds.
                        Watch Evolving Switches, Evolving Bodies(720p HD, 2Mbps). Here is a new
                        updated video with some new evidence that describes the diversity of life
                        similarly to the way James A Shapiro does. The name Mike Shapiro appears
                        on some stickleback slides.

                        http://edenrcn.com/steering/shapiro.html Genetic architecture of
                        evolutionary change. Sticklebacks are ideal model organisms for genetic and
                        developmental studies of natural populations because different populations
                        of these fish vary dramatically in skeletal structures, yet fish from
                        throughout the Northern Hemisphere can be readily crossed in the laboratory
                        for genetic mapping experiments. Previous work determined that cis-acting
                        regulatory changes in the Pitx1 locus are responsible for hind fin (pelvis)
                        loss in a population of threespine sticklebacks (Shapiro et al., 2004,
                        Nature). More recently, we showed that both similar and different genetic
                        changes control pelvic reduction in ninespine sticklebacks (Shapiro et al.
                        2006, PNAS; Shapiro et al., 2009, Current Biology), a different genus of
                        fish that last shared a common ancestor with threespine sticklebacks over
                        10 million years ago. By comparing the genetic basis of other traits
                        between the two different types of fish, we can critically test whether
                        similar genetic mechanisms repeatedly underlie similar adaptive phenotypes,
                        a topic of enduring interest to geneticists and evolutionary biologists.


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.