---Jerry Coleman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >No way. Sorry, I have read Gould and Eldridge and I ain't gonna buy
> >this one cause it stinks. Gould and Eldridge both accept the basic
> >concept that man has evolved. They do NOT question this basic tenet!
> >In fact, I would say the "debate" is very similar to that which is
> >going on with the axioms of choice under uncertainty that I have
> >mentioned before. (Although there really isn't much debate in
> >economics since everyone knows there is a problem.) Or as Chris says
> >a discussion on the auxillary tenets of the theory and not a
> >questioning of the "Big One" nobody is talking about junking
> >evolution. C'mon, I know there are biologists on the lists what
other
> >alternatives to evolution are there? Is intelligent design the only
> >one?
>
> Um, stasis? Evolution is change (of gene frequencies in a
population over
> time, to quote a widely-used definition), so the alternative is thus
NO
> change. But we see ("observe") change, hence acceptance of evolution.
There is intelligent design. I have not read much about it and I
don't put much value on it, but I notice you don't even really
consider it. Perhaps you are more religious than you think in your
belief of evolution.
> That evolution per se is well accepted doesn't preclude arguments
about
> tempos, rates, specific examples in history, selective pressures,
etc., nor
> does it preclude acceptance that there is a chance that future info
will
> show us to be wrong (e.g., when the bearded white male in the clouds
comes
> and shows us how he just made things to make us "think" things
evolved...).
Geez, where have I heard this before. Oh wait, it was me.
> To "accept" (that human have evolved, and continue to do so!) does NOT
> imply not having questioned (and come to accept, which is not taken on
> faith, either). Yep, human evolution has been questioned, over and
over,
> for well over a hundred years. Neither Gould nor Lewontin really
spend
Haven't I heard this somewhere before (or at least something like it)?
Oh yeah, it was me again. As if economists say to their
students...Now our base axioms are....and we never ever question them,
and you should not either if you want to get published and get good
jobs (or keep your teaching assistancship). [Actually we do...and we
take a blood oath and the head of department wears his Ceremonial
Robes and we only do it when the Moon is full <sarcasm>].
> much time with human evolution...try the Leakys et al. for a human
> evolution debate.
>
>
> >> discipline, inquiry has replaced certainty (which they haven't
had since the
> >> 18th century when God's creation was the unquestioned authority),
and the
>
> >You talk to the scientist for each side of the debate and they sound
> >pretty certain their view is correct. C'mon Chris, whats wrong,
> >afraid to label biologists as fundamentalist zealots out to destroy
> >the world too?
>
> Huh? I'm sure it's not fear that prevents him, but rational
> thought. But I'll let him answer for himself. But are YOU claiming
that's
> what I am?
Whoa....you mean he actually uses rational thought...but I thought
that was the boogie-man? <sarcasm here> As for claiming you are a
religious fanatic, well you don't really question whether or not
evolution is a valid theory now do you...after all its still here...so
yeah I guess I am claiming that.
Steve
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|