>The computer science aphorism, "Garbage in; garbage out", would
>seem to cover the situation nicely. Feed in a false premise;
>get back a wrong answer.
Yes, but the point is that what came out didn't look like garbage at
all. Using darwinian logic, Chris was able to come up with a
reasonable explanation for a state of affairs that does not exist.
>Evolutionary biology is not the only stance that can fall prey to
>such a situation.
I wasn't talking about evolutionary biology; I was speaking of the darwinian
interpretation of evolution.
>There are plenty of examples of theologians coming up with "reasonable and
>plausible" explanations due to ignorance that were later found
>to be wrong.
Sure, like theology, darwinian interpretations can do this.
>I find it rather odd that Mike thinks that this sally of his is significant.
I think it very significant. We get to see a nice example of the plasticity
of the darwinian interpretation. Like plastic-wrap, it has the ability to
itself to any form, thus fitting just about any data set we uncover (after the
fact, of course). One then has to wonder how much of the appeal of darwinism
is a function of this plastic-wrap behavior rather than it being a valid
>I also did not notice Mike disestablishing the transitional
>character of the sequence discussed by Pearson et alia in the
Of course not. I have no interest in disputing such proposals. I am
interested in the larger picture.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 10:37:42 EST