Re: What goes around comes around

From: janice matchett <>
Date: Sun Oct 09 2005 - 22:29:01 EDT

At 02:37 PM 10/8/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>Cornelius Hunter wrote:
>>These results are predicated on the assumption that evolution is true. Of
>>course there is nothing wrong with this (Kuhn calls it "normal science"),
>>but we need to be careful in using the results outside of normal science;
>>that is, as evidence for evolution.
>Seems that you are still struggling with this concept. Internal
>consistency based on a well supported assumption is hjardly wrong. What do
>you mean by "applying this outside of 'normal science'" and see this as
>evidence for evolution.
>And you are still confused about your claim that there are significant
>problems for common descent. Repeating your wishes does not make them come
>true however. Of course ID
>still has no scientifc explanations. ~ Cheers [Pim]

### Interesting what's being taught to young, impressionable minds under
the guise of "science" (biology) in the classroom here. Intellectually
honest people can readily see the direction into which the young people are
being led - at tax-payer expense.


"...It is almost as though biology consists of two very different sciences,
a reductionist science that seeks to emulate chemistry or physics (113),
and a much more philosophical science that is interested as much in the
subtleties of history as it is in rigors of the more exact physical
sciences (114). This is not to say that we will not be learning real
science in Biology 114, but instead that the general approach of learning
that we will employ in Biology 114 will be different from that of Biology
113. In Biology 113, basically, you sought to understand how a cell works.
Here we will deal with such squishy topics as why it is the cells that we
observe exist at all. .."

"Darwinian thinking is not confined to biology; it anchors a naturalistic
understanding of all complex order, even including our own intelligence.
Hence today, Darwinism is central to a thoroughly naturalistic picture of
the world."

Ultimately, if we go back far enough in time, all living (i.e.,
species may be collapsed into a single,
ancestral species (which in all likelihood was a

"Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot.
Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations
and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given
the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is
billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated.

But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling
explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today.

Evidence [not the same as "proof"] for macroevolution, or common ancestry
and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study.
These include: comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative
developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and
anatomy and the fossil record." (<>Talk.Origins)]

(19) Extant populations
(a) Evolutionary change is easily observed in extant
(i.e., currently existing)
as changes in
that occur over time
(b) The hard part is attributing that change to
(c) Your text examines one such attempt on pp. 437-438
(Campbell & Reece, 2002)


(Anonymous, Iconoclast of the Century. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) Time
December 31, 1999, p. 186)
remains one of the most successful scientific theories ever promulgated.
There is hardly an element of humanity – not capitalism, not gender
relations, certainly not biology – that can be fully understood without its
Received on Sun Oct 9 22:32:10 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 09 2005 - 22:32:10 EDT