 |
 |
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