SCOTT, YOUR EMAIL CAME THROUGH, RAY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott E. Antes" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:21 AM
Subject: Help and RE: The Scientific Method and intelligent design


> Hello All.  First off, would someone please let me know if this message
> comes
> through to the List?  I have never once received a copy of a message that
> I've
> sent--or a reply to one (that I've seen, anyway--I get about a hundred
> every
> day, so might have missed something).  Thanks a lot.
>
> Very briefly, I pretty much agree with Archie's and K.F.'s replies to
> Paula,
> regarding ID below, but I would like to contradict two examples/statements
> Archie gave: (1) The difference between microevolution is not a "red
> herring."
> Using humans as an example, if we compare (physically) a Mbuti "pygmy"
> with a
> Maasai cattle herder with an Inuit/Eskimoan with an indigenous Norwegian
> with
> an indigenous Sri Lankan with an American Indian with an Ainu with a
> Vietnamese, etc., etc., etc., we see examples of microevolution.  All of
> these
> people belong to the same species, Homo sapiens sapiens, yet they all have
> "microevolved" into unique clines.  They all can interbreed with one
> another
> and produce viable offspring.  (2)Macroevolution refers to the emergence
> of a
> new species (one that cannot successfully breed with members of the
> previous
> species), not the growth of an extra finger or head.  Someone with an
> extra
> pair of toes or an extra whatever still can breed successfully (all else
> being
> equal) with anyone of the opposite sex of his/her species.  The extra body
> parts have nothing to do with biological evolution, per se, which is all
> about
> passing on genes to future generations.
>
> Still not sure what this has to do with PD.  Thanks again.  Scott
>
>>===== Original Message From "Parkinson's Information Exchange Network"
> <[log in to unmask]> =====
>>Hi Paula
>>
>>I'm not certain how this is relevant to Parkinson's, but much of the
>>evidence for "intelligent design" is very weak. Most of the things you
>>mention here are criticisms of evolution rather than talking points for
>>ID.
>>My spin on a tiny bit of it
>>
>>Complexity does not imply a master creator. Take the complexity of our
>>society for example. There's no way any of us could understand more than
>>an
>>infinitesimal portion of it; many of us can't even handle the complexities
>>of running even our own lives! Yet 6 billion people interact every day and
>>keep the world fed, clothed, housed, and emailing -- not through one
>>pre-ordained plan, but through the independent actions of each of us.
>>
>>The micro-evolution/macro-evolution distinction is a bit of a red herring.
>>To take a silly philosophical exercise: when does a bald man become bald?
>>Each additional hair that falls out does not make much difference...but
>>summed together over years they do. It's the same with micro and macro
>>evolution. Growing something so distinct that you'd call it macro
>>evolution
>>-- like the trunk of an elephant -- could take thousands of generations,
>>but
>>at each generation you'd only see a slight "micro" change -- in the
>>elephant's trunk case, a slightly longer nose.
>>
>>In other cases we have seen evolutionary jumps toward macro evolution, but
>>these giant leaps usually fail miserably. Two-headed snakes appear in
>>nature
>>occassionally. In some case having an extra head might be an advantage
>>(say,
>>if an eagle bit one of your heads off) but for the most part two-headed
>>snakes are at a big disadvantage relative to single headed snakes. They
>>can't ever decide which way to go, can't fit through thin openings, and
>>constantly fight over food. They don't often lead long, healthy lives. For
>>a
>>human example: I have a friend who was born with six fingers. You could
>>call
>>it "macro" evolution but he really didn't have much need for the sixth
>>finger, so he had it chopped off.
>>
>>As far as ID researchers being censored by their peers, science, like any
>>social organization, can be very cliquish and set in its ways, but one
>>thing
>>to remember is that there is an army of graduate students and professors
>>out
>>there trying to make their mark on the world by discovering something new.
>>If some indisputable evidence of ID shows up, the person who tapes his
>>name
>>to it will be famous.
>>
>>Lastly, you are correct that carbon-14 dating is affected by changes in
>>the
>>environment, but scientists have built calibration models to account for
>>this. In any case, carbon-14 is not usually used to date fossils, as they
>>are much older than 60,000 years -- the limit of carbon-14 dating. From
>>the
>>wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating)
>>
>>The raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the
>>assumption that the level of 14C absorption remains constant does not hold
>>true in practice. The level is maintained by high energy particles
>>interacting with the earth's upper atmosphere, which may be affected by
>>changes in the earth's magnetic
>>field<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field>or in the
>>cosmic ray background,
>>e.g. variations caused by solar
>>storms<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare>.
>>In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter,
>>the ocean <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean>, ocean sediments (see
>>methane
>>hydrate <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate>), and sedimentary
>>rocks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock>; and changing
>>climate<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate>can sometimes disrupt the
>>carbon flow between these reservoirs and the
>>atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities -- it was
>>almost doubled for a short period due to atomic
>>bomb<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb>tests in the
>>1950s <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950s> and
>>1960s<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960s>and has been reduced by the
>>release of large amounts of CO
>>2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present -- the fossil
>>fuels<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel>
>>
>>used in industry and transportation.
>>
>>The BP dates are therefore calibrated <http://www.calpal-online.de/> to
>>give
>>calendar dates. Standard calibration
>>curves<http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/calibration_curves.htm>are
>>available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates with other methods
>>such as examination of tree growth rings
>>(dendrochronology<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology>),
>>ice cores <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core>, deep ocean
>>sediment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sediment>cores, lake sediment
>>varves <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve>,
>>coral<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral>samples, and
>>speleothems <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speleothem> (cave deposits).
>>
>>Hope this helps.
>>Archie
>>
>>On 10/10/05, Paula Nixon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Intelligent design scientists use the scientific methods. They went to
>>> the
>>> big important universities. But the evolutionists don't let the
>>> intelligent
>>> design papers be printed in their journals, and encourage the public to
>>> believe that they just follow myths.
>>>
>>> "Facts" have been known to change as more information is learned. The
>>> earth is not flat, etc. Facts are seen and interpreted by the
>>> philosophy's
>>> of the beholder. Neither intelligent design nor evolution can be tested
>>> by
>>> scientific method. No one has been able to see macro-evolution at work,
>>> or
>>> reproduce it in the laboratories. The missing links are still missing.
>>> Lots
>>> of micro-evolution is seen, like all the varieties of dogs, but they are
>>> still dogs. The peppered moth is still a moth. Not any slight change to
>>> be
>>> something else. Both evolution and intelligent design see the results of
>>> what has happened on the earth and we put those results into our
>>> theories,
>>> keeping what fits and trying to figure out what doesn't. Steven Jay
>>> Gould,
>>> one of Harvard's eminent scientists had suggested that evolutionist not
>>> debate intelligent design scientists because they usually lose.
>>>
>>> Intelligent design does use scientific methods. They can't assume
>>> anything
>>> or the label that they believe fables might be true. On the other hand,
> when
>>> you read the textbooks, they are peppered with "probably", "could be",
>>> "might have" when they are talking about evolution. All the dating
>>> methods
>>> start with the assumption that everything has continued on as it was in
>>> the
>>> beginning, however there are signs of too much oxygen, etc. in the past,
>>> hence the 3 ft. dragonflies, and other huge plants and animals found in
>>> the
>>> fossil beds. Obviously the environment has changed.
>>>
>>> The geologic column isn't found anywhere on earth except in the
>>> textbooks.
>>> It was thought up with evolution in mind. The fossils are dated by the
> rocks
>>> they are found in, and the rocks are dated by which fossils are in them,
>>> circular reasoning. (Some of those "fossils" have been found alive today
>>> like the coelacanth fish, somewhat ruining the idea that the rocks they
>>> are
>>> found in may not be that old.) Carbon 14 has dated living mollusks as
>>> being
>>> dead for 2300 years. Fresh seal skins dated at 1,300. And even in the
>>> textbooks, the geologic column has very little life in the Precambrian
>>> level, and suddenly there are all sorts of complex creatures in the
> Cambrian
>>> level. Where did they come from?
>>>
>>> The evolutionists aren't that magnanimous a bunch. They have their ideas
>>> and they are sticking to them. There are some good evolutionary
>>> scientists,
>>> that see logical problems with the Big Bang. They aren't working on the
>>> right track so they get very little press from the big boys".
>>>
>>> What has this to do with PD? Just you have to think for yourself.
>>> Science
>>> is very political.
>>>
>>> While we are at trying to find money for PD research, why don't we get
>>> some of the AIDS money? I guess it's to political.
>>>
>>> Paula
>>>
>>> rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> KF has taken the time and trouble to explain the scientific method and
>>> how
>>> science works. It would be so helpful if others took the time and
>>> trouble
>>> to READ what he has said.
>>>
>>> It seems to me science is the "business" of obtaining better and better
>>> understanding of what is I get that it explains how things work, is
>>> descriptive, predictive and self-correcting. Religion and faith are
>>> limiting and dogmatic - you have to believe a certain way and go through
>>> amazing mental gymnastics to make the facts fit what you already believe
>>> is
>>> true..Science could cause you to change your mind, but not religion. The
>>> existence or non-existence of God is not a question for science, but for
>>> a
>>> comparative religion or philosophy class like Metaphysics where I wrote
>>> a
>>> paper on Kant's arguments for the existence of God. However, even in
>>> Metaphysics you ended up with math....ideas had letters like a, b, c,
>>> and
>>> you had formulas because the ideas were complicated..
>>>
>>> When I taught Advanced Placement History I peppered my very smart
>>> students
>>> with questions about the 'why' of science and math because my science
>>> background was so skimpy. They always said, "It just is, Miss Brown."
>>>
>>> We will never be able to discuss or debate these issues unless you
>>> understand the kind of truth science deals with.
>>> Ray
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "K. F. Etzold"
>>> To:
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 9:29 PM
>>> Subject: Re: The Scientific Method and intelligent design
>>>
>>>
>>> > Paula Nixon wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Dear Ray
>>> >>When Darwin first started talking about Evolution, it sounded very
>>> >>rational that life evolved from the simple cell which was thought to
>>> >>be
>>> a
>>> >>jelly like mass of protoplasm with a nucleus. I remember drawing those
>>> in
>>> >>school. Now we know there is no such thing as a simple cell, it is a
>>> >>single cell. In 1963 Dr. George Palade of the Rockerfeller Institute
>>> >>in
>>> >>NY, discovered it was an amazingly intricate system of incredibly fine
>>> >>tubes and chain of minute bags that totally permeate the entire cell.
>>> >>To
>>> >>summary your 10 pages of the "simple cell" It has structural design,
>>> >>energy generators, invasion guards , transport systems, food
>>> >>factories,
>>> >>waste disposal systems, protective barriers, communication links
>>> >>within
>>> >>and without the cell city that it is. Just the "skin" of the cell is
>>> >>amazing. It controls the entry and exit of everything for the cell,
>>> >>almost as if it had a chemical sense of taste as it grabs or rejects
>>> >>the
>>> >>needed nutrients into the cell by forming a little "finger"!
>>> > !
>>> >> that
>>> >> reaches out and pulls the needed nutrient inside. Then there is the
>>> >> DNA
>>> >> and RNA! Science hasn't a clue how this could have just happened, but
>>> >> they don't say that in the schools or in science books, or if they do
>>> it
>>> >> is very low keyed. It couldn't have just happened.
>>> >>
>>> >>There was a quote I read once, that I can't find when I need it, that
>>> >>said, "Evolution expects us to believe the unbelievable, but to do
>>> >>otherwise is to believe in a Creator and that is unacceptable."
>>> >>Paula
>>> >>
>>> > Paula:
>>> >
>>> > Just because the scientific community does not know everything does
>>> > not
>>> > imply or force us to speculate on intelligent design. Any scientist
>>> > worth his salt will readily "admit" that his/her knowledge is limited.
>>> > The leap from this is unjustified and illogic. Had scientists made
>>> > that
>>> > leap all scientific progress would have stopped, because there is no
>>> > more knowledge to obtain.
>>> > A basic tenet is that our understanding of nature is always incomplete
>>> > and that we must strive for further knowledge. If we had accepted the
>>> > scientific knowledge of say 200 years ago
>>> > there would be a faith based understanding of, for instance, the cell
>>> > but no modern medicine no modern biology. Indeed our present society
>>> > is
>>> > inconceivable had we accepted the '"final" knowledge of 200 years ago.
>>> >
>>> > The details of the construction of the cell is just what I described
>>> > in
>>> > my article on science: The knowledge was refined but that does not
>>> > change our basic understanding. Just because something is complicated
>>> > does not imply intelligent design. The little finger you describe has
>>> > some man made analogs. Chemistry can now construct molecules at will
>>> > with specific properties (such as a little finger). But I would argue
>>> > that these molecules were not created by God. Most pharmacological
>>> > products were designed that way and in fact the latest Nobel prize nin
>>> > Chemistry rewards such a new process. If one did not know how this was
>>> > arrived at one could readily argue it was intelligent design.
>>> >
>>> > K. F.
>
> Scott E. Antes
> Department of Anthropology
> Northern Arizona University
> Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5200
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn