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

What kind of evidence is acceptable?

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/ Darwin or Design http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1169 Primer: Naturalism in Science.
    Message 1 of 119 , Dec 11, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/ Darwin or Design

      http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1169 Primer:
      Naturalism in Science.

      http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=92 NABT Position
      Statement on Teaching Evolution.

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

      James A Shapiro:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/inconvenient-truths-why-a_b_2228277.html
      Inconvenient Truths: Why Are Self-Styled Defenders of Evolution so
      Resistant to Lessons From Molecular Genetics?

      James A Shapiro: I would like to understand where Ben and Tobrjörn find a
      basis for the certainties they express about what kind of evidence to
      accept. So, can someone please answer two questions for me?

      A What do my nine take-home statements have to do with supernaturalism
      outside the bounds of science?

      B Where have these statements been convincingly incorporated into Ben's
      all-encompassing *Theory of Evolution by Random Mutation and Natural
      Selection*?


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      D R Lindberg (To Jim in Missouri): You agreed that intermediate fossils can be identified independently of of theory. That eliminates any circularity. Charles
      Message 119 of 119 , Jan 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        D R Lindberg (To Jim in Missouri): You agreed that intermediate fossils
        can be identified independently of of theory. That eliminates any
        circularity.

        Charles P: The old idea of *transitional fossils* from the old Theory of
        Evolution is not acceptable as empirical and verifiable evidence. Naming
        them *intermediate* or some other name is a distinction without a
        difference. Arguing *circularity* draws attention away from the central
        issue. Look at this unscientific collection of intermediate fossils that
        does not even meet the standards of Wikipedia. This page was last modified
        on 14 January 2013 at 03:13.

        List of transitional fossils:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.

        1 This article needs additional citations for verification.

        2 This documentation needs attention from an expert in Palaeontology.

        Introduction to cladistics:
        http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html There are three basic
        assumptions in cladistics: (1) Any group of
        organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor. Please read (2)
        and (3) for additional information.

        Charles P: Everyone understands human genealogy and the concept of *common
        ancestor* for humans. Everyone understands dog genealogy and the concept
        of *common ancestor* for dogs. Why should anyone consider the concept of a
        *common ancestor* between living things that are self-evident as being very
        different?

        Phylogenetic trees:
        http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Phylogenetic+trees Limitations.

        1 Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or
        genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they
        have important limitations.

        2 When extinct species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as
        it is unlikely that they are direct ancestors of any extant species.

        3 Scepticism must apply when extinct species are included in trees that
        are wholly or partly based on DNA sequence data, due to the fact that
        little useful "ancient DNA" is preserved for longer than 100,000 years, and
        except in the most unusual circumstances no DNA sequences long enough for
        use in phylogenetic analyses have yet been recovered from material over 1
        million years old.

        Understanding homology and analogy:
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/similarity_hs_01 Note:
        There is no empirical and verifiable method for determining *common
        ancestry* between non-related living things.

        Charles P: Common ancestry is assumed in the science of cladistics.
        Transitional fossils are assumed to be intermediate between other fossils.
        Transitional fossils are extinct species. Transitional fossils are
        terminal nodes. Transitional fossils are unlikely to be direct ancestors
        of any extant species.

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

        Charles P: The skeptic does not have to qualify as a *creationist*. The
        skeptic does not have to qualify as an *Intelligent Design Theorist*. The
        skeptic does not have to qualify as *anti-science*. All a skeptic needs is
        to do their homework to verify for themselves what is scientific and what
        is not scientific.


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