[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [SPAM] evolution
I was unable to receive email for a week, and this is a late
response, but I find I must respond.
First, let me address the simple definition of the word theory. In
science, as opposed to Columbo TV movies, the word theory means a PROVEN
hypothesis. Try to remember your basic science folks. A hypothesis is a
questionable idea. Once data is collected and analyzed as firmly supporting
a hypothesis, it becomes a theory. If it is universally applicable in all
known circumstances, it becomes a law. I want to specifically address some
of the erroneous points in the original message below. Not that I expect
any "non-believers" to actually try and learn some facts.
The idea of protoctistan and protozoan progress from unicellular to
multicellular organisms is not "thinly supported." It is well supported by
numerous facts, readily understood by any who take the time to actaully
review them. For example, mitochondria present us with pretty clear
evidence of the combination of several organisms into a new whole.
Mitichondria are the nuclei of earlier, independent organisms absorbed by
our own genetic predecessors into our cells. This is why they still have
their own DNA.
Paleontologists are not searching for a "missing link." ALL fossil
species are links. I will here point out that in our own ancestral hominid
species, there are numerous specimens showing gradual transition in
morphology from one species to another. If Homo erectus skeletons are
compared during the full extent of their time-span, it is readily apparent
that their cranial capacity, knee joints, hip structures, teeth, sinus
cavities, etc. are all graduating from primitive to more advanced, i.e.
'like us' forms. We can very clearly follow the evolution of many species in
sme detail, such as horses and pigs. In killiefish, genetic testing is
beginning to unravel the confusion of relations between ancestral and
conjuctive speciation.
How does on accept the model of evolutionary biology as
"functional," yet not accept the principles on which it is founded? The
model of evolutionary biology IS the theory of evolution applied
practically! They cannot be though of as separate!
The idea that if we can't observe the origination of life, we have
to reject it, is flawed intellectual nonsense. If this form of logic was
acceptable no criminal could ever be convicted on the basis of forensic
evidence. It is like saying that if one can observe snow falling, one can
make useful application of the meteorological knowledge. But, if one goes
to bed at night and there is no snow on the ground, but wakes up to find
that there is snow on the ground now it cannot be concluded that it snowed
during the night because it is not now possible to observe it. OK, Tyrone
states that evolution is happening now. But he cannot accept that it
happened before science could directly observe it and make experiments.
Obviously he is underread in relation to the MYRIAD experiments in primitive
organic molecule composition and reaction, otherwise he would know that a
great many experiments are underway and have been done which definitely
support evolutionary theory. If such things are not so, then just when are
we to suppose that evolution, which he accepts is happening now (quite
correct) did, in fact, finally begin?
By the way, none of this implies that a superior being didn't direct
it, if religious individuals are concerned that evolution means atheism.
For example, it is now official Catholic doctrine that evolution is HOW God
created the species.
Jay Moylan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyrone Genade" <Tgenade at akad_sun.ac.za>
To: <killietalk at aka_org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] evolution
> On 8 Jun 2001, at 13:36, Allen Boatman wrote:
>
> > >"There's a very common phenomenon of
> > >making up theories that seem to make some sense and
> > >then accepting them..."
> >
> > >DKW
> >
> > Sort of like the "Theory of Evolution" ?
>
> Got to agree here. Until some one presents video footage Evolution
> is only a hypothesis (a theory at best). Al the speculation that
> bacteria turned into protists and protisits into woms etc... is mere
> conjecture based on what is very thin evidence. The fact that most
> palentologists etc concern themsleves looking for the missing link
> enforce this stance...
> However, The Model of Evolutionary Biology to describe animal
> behavior, distribution and genetic diversity is a very functional and
> well enforced theory.
> Evolution is going on today. We can even measure it DNA base by
> base and we can test the theories... But when it comes to the
> grand Theory of Evolution I must assume Popper's stance:
> because the Theory of Evolution can not be tested it can not be
> considerred Science---much like psychology. It is bogged down by
> subjective analysis and imagination. We can not discount that Mrs.
> Ples, the Tung Child etc... existed but to say that their kin bred the
> the next generation of would-be homosapeinse some million years
> later is science fiction. Not even Prof. Leakey (the Godfarther of
> paleoanthroplogy) was bold enough to go so far.
>
> Bye
> Tyrone Genade
> Southern African Killifish Society Coastal & Offshore Coordinator
> AKA 08248
> tyronegenade at yahoo_com
> http://www.geocities.com/tyronegenade
>
> *************************************************************
> P450 Lab, Biochemistry Department
> University of Stellenbosch, 7602, South Africa
> Ph: +27-021-808-5876, fax: +27-021-808-5863
> **********************************************************
>
> "No, the LORD has told us what is good. What He requires
> of us is this: to do what is just, to show constant love,
> and to live in humble fellowship with our GOD."
> Micah 6:8
> ---------------
> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
>
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
References: