Close, but no cigar

Posted by GaDS on August 28, 1998 at 21:10:50:

In Reply to: I've said this before too posted by rpcman on August 28, 1998 at 19:35:08:

: : Yes, I have. Read the previous posts again. READ them. Don't just stare at the words.

: So you want me to read between the lines? OK, you are a creationist.

Nope. Read my post to Carlos above to get back on track. As I said, is the nature of the Universe wave or particle?

: Now explain how your theory is better in light of objective evidence rather than your presupposition of a god.

When did I EVER claim one theory was better than another? If I were on a religous bulletin board I'd be taking an opposite stance to much of what they said. If you refer to your post of 20:23 on 26 August you asked how another theory would explain the fossil record, the similarity of separate species, and so forth, evidently meaning in conjunction with YOUR flat assertion that evolution was the ONLY theory, that no other theory could. I proposed alternate explanations that did in fact fit those observations, which you rejected out of hand with no real evidence that it couldn't so.

: : Again, until they can be clinically demonstrated, they are theories of inference or deduction at best, not facts, as the "proof" consists of the second-hand evidence of fossil records and population studies. Evolution and speciation are processes, and until witnessed or produced first-hand cannot possibly considered "facts" (unless, as with "species", one makes up one's own definition of the word).

: Using your definition of what can and can't be called a fact means that if you didn't witness it or produce it first-hand through recreation of an event then it is merely a theory?

I submit for the readers' consideration the following Webster's II New Riverside College Dictionary (which is the only one I can get my hands on at this place):

"fact n. (some etymology and pronunciation stuff) 1. Something put forth as objectively real. 2. Something objectively verified and real. 3.a. Something with real, demonstrable quality. b. The quality of being real or actual. 4. Something carried out or performed. 5. . a. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence as distinguished from interpretation of law. b. A crime."

I refer you specifically to definitions 2 and 3a which my previous posts asserted. If you chose to use definition 1, I would ask you how evolution can be objectively real, since objective requires that the reality be based on observable (not inferred or reasoned) phenomena? 4 is inapplicable to the subject since it requires a presumption of the reality of the subject in question (trying to determine whether evolution can be defined as a "fact" or not under 4 requires a pre-suppostion as to whether it is a fact or not). 5 is for lawyers, which I am not.

: As I've said before if this is the case, there is no proof that you can show me that the civil war took place.

Specious reasoning. The Civil War was not an indiscernible process open to interpretation from ambiguous evidence. It was an event, well-documented by the participants and impartial 3rd-party witnesses at the time it occurred. That is why such things as the Civil War are considered fact rather than myth, while the founding of Rome by the twins Romulus and Remus is considered legend. Even though there are writings that this was so, there were all secondhand accounts written years later by parties with a stake in the matter.

: You should be skeptical of just about all claims then--especially old religious traditions.

I am skeptical of all claims. I don't accept anything just because it is in writing, although you apparently you do (considering the number times you cite articles and books) provided it supports your point of view. The validity of claims is established by testing them. If you really want I'll tell you how you or anyone else can prove claims of speciation. Take any organism (fruit flies are probably the best choice as they are cheap, easy to breed, and have short generations and can be easily observed and isolated). Take any two sets of progeny using whatever criteria you want from the common parent and separate them. Breed them for as long as you want. 1000 generations (about 30,000 human years) should take about 20 years, but research projects and studies have gone as long or longer. If you want, you can expose them to mild doses of radiation to induce a higher mutation rate and breed them longer if you have the time so that you might get the equivalent of 200,000 human years (well before Cro-Magnon, I believe). Keep only those offspring that exhibit the characteristics in question that you wish to develop in the two populations. At the end, you should have two distinctly different populations. Since the populations have been continuously bred they can obviously breed within their own gene pool. The question is, can the two gene pools still interbreed (that is to say, are the gametes of one population still compatible with the other)? The theory of speciation says they won't be. Anyone out there ready to take the challenge? I'd bet there would be a Nobel in it for someone if it worked.

GaDS