Here are some links I thought useful:
Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
[[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Charon. Here's my answers to your questions: 1.) Is outdated information that also evolutionists consider false still used in some school textbooks (eg. the embryos series or the horse evol.stages sequence)?
2.) Did some parallel similar structures evolve independently? (eg. eyes of mammals and cephalopods or some microbiological structures)
3.) Are similar homologic structures in related organisms sometimes encoded by groups of genes located in completely different places of the genome?
4.) respose to behe's arguments about irreducible complexity
5.) isn't the design hypothesis just a call to the most reasonable explanation based just on our observation? (eg. what is the difference between claiming that the paintings in caves are painted by intelligent artists and claiming that the brain (or cell or any complex structure in nature) is designed by an intelligent designer?)
6.) are there any complete series of transitional fossils documenting all slight step-by-step changes found?
5.) are there any examples of imperfect not-fully-formed ancestors of the complete and fully formed fossils usually found? how did they survive if they were not fully formed?
Hi Charon - sorry I'm so slow at responding, I'm in California visiting my sister.
1.) I was not talking about missing cutting edge research, but including tens of years old information that causes informed evolutionists to hide in shame. The information in textbooks plays a vital role in the controversy because it keeps the public uninformed and might even be called by some brainwashing or propaganda.
Ad 6.) Could you name the exact stages and specimen (location/date found) of horse evolution you referred to?
Ad 7.) Now I see that I misnumbered my questions and you copied it :) It is true that some arguments of that sort are just a lack of imagination. The problem is that your objection would be valid in the area of philosophy, not science. In science, the proponen of the theory has to supply evidence and to say that "there must be some purpose for those not-fully formed structures" is similar to a "god of the gaps" explanation and would be circular reasoning in the big picture.
Ad the feathered Trex: Are you referring to a specific article or specimen? Could you give a reference?
Graft 08:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Charon - I'm curious to know, other than your faith (which, actually, I'm only assuming), what exactly convinces you that the theory of evolution is bunk?
Graft 22:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Charon,
All of this work IS publically available. You can read a number of books written about the subject. They're simply written for knowledgable audiences; that is, they are not accessible in the sense of language and ability. This is unfortunately true of a lot of fields; if you want detailed justification you must crawl through subtle arguments made in scientific papers that laymen will not appreciate. For example I am frustrated by the fact that many of the arguments over global warming are beyond my ken; they exist, they are written up in journals I can access at any college library. But they require a better understanding of the field.
If you DO want to read some stuff, as a single book I'd probably recommend John Gillespie's "The Causes of Molecular Evolution". If you're interested in understanding "macroevolution", check out "Speciation", by Jerry Coyne et al. Both of these are very dense and technical works, but if you can work through them you will have a much better idea of the mathematical and observational justifications underlying modern evolutionary theory.
On another note, I'm still interested in knowing WHY you think genetics and microbiology repudiate Darwin. Graft 20:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here are some links I thought useful:
Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
[[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Charon. Here's my answers to your questions: 1.) Is outdated information that also evolutionists consider false still used in some school textbooks (eg. the embryos series or the horse evol.stages sequence)?
2.) Did some parallel similar structures evolve independently? (eg. eyes of mammals and cephalopods or some microbiological structures)
3.) Are similar homologic structures in related organisms sometimes encoded by groups of genes located in completely different places of the genome?
4.) respose to behe's arguments about irreducible complexity
5.) isn't the design hypothesis just a call to the most reasonable explanation based just on our observation? (eg. what is the difference between claiming that the paintings in caves are painted by intelligent artists and claiming that the brain (or cell or any complex structure in nature) is designed by an intelligent designer?)
6.) are there any complete series of transitional fossils documenting all slight step-by-step changes found?
5.) are there any examples of imperfect not-fully-formed ancestors of the complete and fully formed fossils usually found? how did they survive if they were not fully formed?
Hi Charon - sorry I'm so slow at responding, I'm in California visiting my sister.
1.) I was not talking about missing cutting edge research, but including tens of years old information that causes informed evolutionists to hide in shame. The information in textbooks plays a vital role in the controversy because it keeps the public uninformed and might even be called by some brainwashing or propaganda.
Ad 6.) Could you name the exact stages and specimen (location/date found) of horse evolution you referred to?
Ad 7.) Now I see that I misnumbered my questions and you copied it :) It is true that some arguments of that sort are just a lack of imagination. The problem is that your objection would be valid in the area of philosophy, not science. In science, the proponen of the theory has to supply evidence and to say that "there must be some purpose for those not-fully formed structures" is similar to a "god of the gaps" explanation and would be circular reasoning in the big picture.
Ad the feathered Trex: Are you referring to a specific article or specimen? Could you give a reference?
Graft 08:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Charon - I'm curious to know, other than your faith (which, actually, I'm only assuming), what exactly convinces you that the theory of evolution is bunk?
Graft 22:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Charon,
All of this work IS publically available. You can read a number of books written about the subject. They're simply written for knowledgable audiences; that is, they are not accessible in the sense of language and ability. This is unfortunately true of a lot of fields; if you want detailed justification you must crawl through subtle arguments made in scientific papers that laymen will not appreciate. For example I am frustrated by the fact that many of the arguments over global warming are beyond my ken; they exist, they are written up in journals I can access at any college library. But they require a better understanding of the field.
If you DO want to read some stuff, as a single book I'd probably recommend John Gillespie's "The Causes of Molecular Evolution". If you're interested in understanding "macroevolution", check out "Speciation", by Jerry Coyne et al. Both of these are very dense and technical works, but if you can work through them you will have a much better idea of the mathematical and observational justifications underlying modern evolutionary theory.
On another note, I'm still interested in knowing WHY you think genetics and microbiology repudiate Darwin. Graft 20:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)