Date: Mon, 11 Oct 99 21:38PM EDT
From: Slade Farney <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Re: A = A = A = A = A]
AndyMoore <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nick N wrote:
>
> ... And their line -- mark my words and compare
with everyday
> reality -- will be "NO MORE EDUCATION IN OUR SCHOOLS".
>
> What can be done to counter this sort of marabunta
menace that --
> unwillingly or not -- seeks to keep children in
the dark and to
> eat away the education standards? More maybe
yes maybe no
> anti-evolution-but-never-say-why-or-how-much books?
>
> Why no! What can be done is to crush the naive propaganda
every
> time you meet it in debate in front of possibly
undecided
> individuals, without pity. Give those ideas the
intellectual
> Zyklon they deserve. Exterminate them like lice
without ever
> resorting to the slightest personal offence nor
physical
> violence. It's the only way: I'm against both censorship
and
> offensive physical violence.
>
> > You are being very unrealistic and indeed rather
arrogant when
> > you consign "well intended" people who simply
have questions
> > about Evolution to the Amen corner at the local
gospel mission.
>
> See above. It's not a joke. It's "stop the education
of
> children".
If "the education of children" were the issue, the
professional
educators would be teaching children to read and write,
to speak
languages, and to do math. They would be teaching
children the
Scientific method and equipping them with the tools
to evaluate
crackpot disputations for themselves.
But no. All this concern for "the education of
children" turns out
to be inculcating the correct attitudes and doctrines,
including
anti-Christian doctrines. Earth Spirit is OK
to teach;
Christian/Moslem God is a bad no-no.
Have you looked into "death education" in the US yet?
Children are
required to imagine their own deaths and enumerate
the people who
would feel sorry for them. They write essays
about their own
funerals and they are required to speculate on how
long they will
be remembered. Then the professional keepers
of these asylums
wonder out loud why the teen suicide rate is rising.
"Education of children," indeed. If that was
your cause, it's the
first I've heard of it. Evolution is not the
first place to begin.
If the basics of literacy and logic are established,
they will be
able to read books and learn about Evolution theory
for
themsselves.
--Slade
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 99 18:46PM EDT
From: Slade Farney <[email protected]>
Subject: [Re: [science textbooks, last months discussion]]]]
I am going to make one reply serve to answer both Mike
and Andy's
questions.
Mike Green <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 07:35 PM 10/03/99 EDT, Slade Farney wrote:
> >Mike Green <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> At 01:05 PM 10/01/99 EDT, Slade Farney wrote:
>
> >> You are the promoter of creationism so I have
no idea just
> >> what you are possbily objecting to position.
>
> >Mike, you are desparate. You have never,
never read a single
> >word of mine promoting, advocating, or supporting
Creationism.
> >And you won't either. I haven't got a Creator
to support that
> >theory, so it falls at Step One.
>
> Then what might be your issue? An explanation
rather than no
> explanation for the facts of evolution? I
am at a loss as to
> what your problem is in this matter.
Those who thirst for mere explanations should read
more of Ovid's
Metamorphoses, the coastal Amerindian Raven stories,
and other
cultural tales of origins. Explanation is the
territory of
religion and myth poetry. Explanation is the
feel-good medicine
that bridges the gap between a bump in the night and
the dawn of
logic. Explanations are for when your puppy
is run over, when your
girl breaks off the engagement, and when you come
home after
midnight with your pants on backward.
Explanations are not Science. There is no license
in Science to
make up wild tales of explanation when you don't have
enough facts
for the truth. Science should be, above all,
honest. If you don't
know, you should be honest enough to say so.
When a group of professionals (like TV scientists)
take it upon
themselves to supply explanations for everything in
the Universe -
they are playing the roll of priests. They even
wear white (lab)
robes in the studio while they interpret all of existence
for us
lesser peoples.
It is precisely this activity that removes Dialectical
Materialism
from the realm of Science and places it in the category
of religion
(as shown, for example, by the 1933 Humanist Manifesto
definition I
gave you a few days ago). Dialectical Materialism
has been
actively (and sometimes violently) attempting to displace
all other
religions in the world since about 1850. Dialectical
Materialism
is the ideal religion for an absolute ruler to cultivate
because it
holds no restraint for the ruler.
All Knowledge is the badge of deity. If Science
is going to
replace religion, Science must know Everything (even
when it's
wrong). Thus "Scientific" explanations have
to be developed for
every major and minor question that ever occurred
to anybody. And
of course there are the mysteries beyond Science.
Carl Sagan will
tell you about these in front of a starry night sky
with organ
music and grand, sweeping, un-Scientific poetry.
Now we have the "Discovery Channel." Can you
tell me what
beneficent, non-commercial, non-political interest
has given birth
to that massively expensive operation? And everything
it says is
true because it is Science for the masses in the privacy
of their
own homes. Kind of like your own family Shinto
shrine right there
in the rec room.
> >Creation vs. Evolution are called the fallacy of
the False
> >Alternative. Decrying the rank fraud and
anti-Science in
> >Evolution does not turn me into a Creationist.
There have been
> >other theories in time, and there will be more.
>
> You have demonstrated no "anti-science" in Darwin's
or Gould's
> theories that I noticed. Perhaps you might like
to repeat if you
> think I missed something.
Pardon me. By "anti-", I did not mean "opposed
to", as in
anti-Communist. I meant "counter" as in anti-matter
or antivenin.
> >Who cares whether I have a theory of the origin
of life?
>
> Evolution does not address the origin of life.
Nonsense. In the very same volumes that discuss
Evolution, by the
same authors who write the balance of the volume,
are discussions
of the nitrogen-rich seas, spontaneous occurrences
of amino acids,
how complex must be the most primitive self-replicating
molecule,
and how life could emerge therefrom. It is in
the same Museums and
addressed in the same courses. Only Mike Green
makes a
distinction.
> >I can shoot Evolution full of holes, and that is
all that
> >counts.
>
> Please do. Take all the screens you need. I will
be very
> interested in seeing something new. You may also
read that as
> "seen it all."
>
> >> Your ignorance of the subject matter is more
than obvious from
> >> this and other posts.
>
> >If so, you have done a piss-poor job of pointing
it out.
>
> You have said something in this message about the
origin of life
> when that is beyond evolution. You still have not
written as
> though you have grasped the difference between the
fact of
> evolution as compared to the theories of evolution.
>
> You also said
>
> > That is the simplest statement of answer hunger
I ever heard.
> > If you don't have an answer and you are honest,
you don't have
> > an answer. If your theory is not perfect
enough to stand up
> > against all the evidence, it falls. That
is the simplicity of
> > the Scientific Method. A single disproof
and the theory is
> > dead.
> >
> > Daemons, bunkum, hokey math, and fraud will not
serve.
>
> I see nothing in that which illustrates even one
thing it appears
> to reference.
I mentioned the enlarging horse picture series, the
one we all had
in our school texts. Horse starts out the size of
a small dog with
3 or 4 toes, grows through the millions of years in
a half dozen
frames until it stands as the one-toe full-sized modern
species.
That series was a fraud. The specimens were out
of sequence in the
geological record, and they were taken from different
continents.
The fossil record did not support the story and the
authors and the
reviewers knew it. But far from "peer review"
keeping the trade
honest, peer pressure and guild mentality forbade
anyone to point
out the fraud.
For all that you and Andy mock the Creationists, they
have their
uses. They have put some real heat on the Evolutionists
to clean
up their act, and the enlarging horse picture sequence
has been one
casualty.
This is the most well known fraud, but there are plenty
of other
examples.
> Please take the screens you need to point out the
problems as YOU
> see them.
Other people have written books. I don't intend
to. There is more
substance below.
> >> I do not think you really have a point dealing
with me on this
> >> matter but, as with gas chambers, post your physical
evidence.
> >> Please feel free. I have all the time in the
world.
>
> >How many specimens of T. rex have been found?
Two dozen? Three
> >dozen?
>
> About right. And only two can be considered reasonably
complete.
>
> How many mountains have been pulverized searching
for specimens?
> Zero is the correct answer to that question.
>
> If you watch the documentaries on The Discovery
Channel you have
> probably seen interviews with the majority of the
fossil hunters
> in the world. There probably aren't more than 100
full time
> hunters actually hunting in the world. (Not counting
grad
> students, interested amateurs, and work crews.)
>
> And despite the photogenic nature of the beast,
one more example
> is not the highest priority.
>
> Rather it is surprising there are so many examples.
>
> >Scattered over millions of years in more that one
continental
> >geological record.
>
> Millions of years and more than one geological record
don't quite
> go together. What are you trying to say?
"Scattered over millions of years on more than one
continent" In
other words, T. Rex was in a lot of different places
over a long
period, but always T. Rex. Very stable.
Not coming from anywhere,
not going anywhere. Just being himself.
> >In a real world of continuous change,
>
> Punctuated equilibrium, rapid variation in isolation.
Gould,
> remember?
Yes I do. This is another legerdemain of Evolution,
and one of the
biggest.
Darwin won his case by an application of Xeno's Paradox.
Remember
Xeno? He was that Greek who convinced a number
of short-lived
Greek soldiers that they could never be touched by
a spear. The
spear would cover half the distance to their bodies,
half the
remainder, then half what was left and never reach
them.
Unfortunately, those who had the empirical data to
dispute this
theorem were not around to hold up their end of the
debate.
Darwin first pointed out at length various physical
attributes and
behaviors that enable differing species to survive
differing life
challenges. Then he argued that miniscule variations
in the
direction of survival attributes might be marginally
useful in
survival, establishing and reinforcing the variations
in progeny.
Through a combination of benign mutations (imperfect
reproduction)
and inheritance (perfect reproduction), the species
developed as a
mathematical function of protoplasm. By breaking
complex systems
down into simple components and postulating smaller
and smaller
incremental mutations, he made his story of Microbe
to Man
believable.
As time went on, the fossil record began to fill out
and Darwin's
theory didn't look so good. The fossil record
showed the
appearance and disappearance of species, but it did
not show the
development of species over time. There were
trends, it is true,
but individual lines argued more strongly against
Darwin's theory
than for it. Species with no close ancestors
suddenly appeared,
continued unchanged for a while unchanged, then disappeared
again.
This was called the problem of the "missing link",
originally
referring to the whole fossil record, but popularly
taken to mean
the one ancestor of homo sapiens that would prove
the man/monkey
connection.
Clearly Evolution was in trouble.
Then up pops this Punctuated Equilibrium theory (was
it really
Gould?). PE said the fossil record showed exactly
how it happened
historically. There were long periods of stasis,
or equilibrium,
punctuated with rapid change. This was the trick.
But wait a minute. The improbability of advancement
through birth
defects (mutation) was handled by Darwin's postulate
of miniscule,
incremental changes. Then along comes the PE
theory and states
that exactly the opposite occurred: Big Changes happened
in short
periods, so brief the transitions did not show in
the fossil
record.
Darwin's whole postulate of species development was
utterly and
completely dependent on long periods of proof-of-concept
testing by
the environment through countless incremental changes.
Now, with
no (or drastically reduced) testing and winnowing
of the fittest
individuals, the accidental occurrence of complex
systems is
returned to the mathematically improbable. Gould
solved the fossil
evidence problem only by removing Darwin's essential
premise from
the Theory.
And now we must multiply this utterly inconceivable
event (the
abrupt good mutation) by the millions of incidents
required to get
the species development. The thickened amnion
of puppies must
occur at the same time as the bitch's instinct to
clean the puppy's
face at birth, else the second generation will never
grow to
adulthood. The instinct to fly must occur in
the same improbable
freakish individual whose limbs are capable of flight.
And the
stinging bee must have the venom, the hollow barb,
and the will to
use it all at once.
The mathematical implications for sudden, wholly accidental,
beneficial mutation presupposes astronomical numbers
of non-
mutating individuals and billions of non-viable mutations
that we
never see. The mutations, remember, must be
carefully balanced
against an overwhelming majority of faithful reproductions
of the
working viable specimens, else the species leaves
the casino having
bet and lost it all on a long shot.
And now, to put the tie wrap on the question, we must
remember that
good-mutant individuals alone are not enough.
These wildly varying
individuals must be accompanied by mates who are sufficiently
similar to mate successfully and to support the mutation.
In other words, the natural royal flush in one hand
must happen
simultaneously with pat hands in all the other seats,
and this must
continue for a million hands in a row, here at the
Evolution
Casino. Given those odds, even a billion years
is kinda short.
> >[In a real world of continuous change,] the chances
of finding
> >two specimens in the exact same state of evolution
is nill.
>
> Over a "few million years" we would be surprised
to find
> different "stages" whatever stages means.
>
> >But look: There is no pre-T. rex, and no apres-T.
rex. There is
> >just -- T. rex.
>
> Yes, there are several "pre"s found. As to posts,
that is what
> extinction means. It was recognizing extinction
that lead to the
> recognition of the fact of evolution.
>
> >O yes, there are similar species, but any theory
of continuous
> >and contiguous evolution is simply not supported
by the physical
> >record.
>
> Even if that were the only theory, there is no theory
a
> continuous favorable fossil creating conditions
in time nor space
> nor a theory continous human discovery nor a theory
that humans
> know where to look even if the first were true.
Hold the course there, Mike. Either the Equilibrium
is Punctuated,
or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.
If the fossil record
shows long periods of stasis punctuated by abrupt
change sufficient
that PE theory must be invented, will you now go back
and make
excuses for the record itself?
> One thing searchers don't do is start digging into
rock with no
> signs. It all starts with natural exposure. Even
then, that is a
> few million square miles to examine closely for
natural exposure.
>
> >If it were, you would have a different species
name for every
> >fossil found, unless brothers die together and
are fossilized
> >together.
>
> While the definition of species for fossils is a
bit less precise
> than for living specimens.
It is different for living species, but precise, nevertheless.
> >A hundred thousand lines of evolution spread over
a hundred
> >million years, and we have a few tens of thousands
of fossils.
> >The math says no two will be the same.
>
> Your math is demonstrably in error by the facts
of what has been
> discovered. There are diplicative examples.
Follow the conversation, now, Mike. Using Darwin's
theory of
constant change, we should predict that no two fossils
should be
alike unless they were brothers and died together.
They should be
like the arrows in an amateur archery contest, all
over the place,
not splitting each other down the middle in dead center
like Robin
Hood's arrows. The fact of many duplicate examples
argues against
continuous change through random mutation.
> >There is my evidence: The same that you call
your evidence.
>
> So what is your theory? How do you explain the facts?
Such is a subject for comparative religions, not Science.
Science
is methodical and rigorous. If your theory does not
hold up to the
task, it is finished. Your theory does not live
or die by whether
you or I have the better theory. That is the
story of competing
religions, not Science.
> >And you have not yet addressed the rank fraud of
teaching
> >something as truth what is only "best guess".
>
> Sir, right up there in front it is called "Theory."
Theory and
> Truth are not synonyms.
And when they part, which path does your Science take,
eh, Sir?
I said it before, Mike. "Theory" (in Science)
is not a synonym for
hypothesis. Theory is the cohesive set of premises
and
computations that model a real world system -- with
sufficient
accuracy to consistently predict events and test results.
"Theory" is what you do on the blackboard before you
go into the
lab and do the "practical." Everything you learn
out of a Science
book is "theory." It is the condensed knowledge
of volumes of
practical work.
--Slade
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 99 11:28AM EDT
From: Slade Farney <[email protected]>
Subject: [Re: [science textbooks, last months discussion]]]]]
AndyMoore <[email protected]> wrote:
> Slade Farney wrote:
> >
> > I am going to make one reply serve to answer both
Mike and
> > Andy's questions.
>
> You didn't consider any of my lines or my question
(on how do you
> avoid speciation if you accept intra-species genetic
mutations)
> in your double reply. A reply to the question would
be
> interesting, but it's okay.
Excuse me. I considered this point doubly addressed
in
1) Explanations are the province of religion, vs. coherent
testable
set of premises being the province of Science.
"Avoidance" and
"acceptance" are both in the category of the former.
2) Improbability of beneficial mutation multiplied
by number of
improbable incidents required to create new species,
exacerbated by
Big Leaps of punctuated equilibrium putting the pool
of potential
sexual partners out of reach of the fortuitous mutant.
Each problem, including sex, raises the improbability
to a new
exponent.
Like a casino owner, I don't claim an evening clotted
with royal
flushes is impossible. It is just so remotely
improbable, it is
not worth serious consideration.
> > This was called the problem of the "missing link",
originally
> > referring to the whole fossil record, but popularly
taken to
> > mean the one ancestor of homo sapiens that would
prove the
> > man/monkey connection.
> >
> > Clearly Evolution was in trouble.
>
> Let me put it this way: your only trouble when you
speak about
> the Theory of Evolution is you echo the comics of
the 50s and the
> creationist tracts and seem to completely ignore
the remaining
> corpus of human knowledge on the subject. I certainly
would like
> to know *what* would be your "the one ancestor that
would prove
> the man/monkey connection" if the whole family of
Pitecantropoids
> doesn't fit your bill. Would your "link" have to
be a monkey in a
> business suit, sort of a counterpart to the proverbial
Holywood
> guy in the monkey-suit?
I think you misread the last paragraph. The "missing
link" was a
popularized concept with the above meaning.
I made no other
statement about it, except in the general sense that
transitional
species in all the lines were markedly absent.
--Slade
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 99 17:52PM EDT
From: Slade Farney <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [evolution /mutation]
Mike Green <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let me clarify something.
>
> Andy has used mutation. I do not know the language
differences
> but mutation was taken over by Hollywood after Hiroshima
to mean
> gorilla-men.
>
> It never meant that in technical english on this
subject.
>
> Changes is all that was meant. Two children from
the same parents
> are different unless identical twins. But they are
mutations in
> the original sense.
>
> When we are talking those kinds of differences it
is the same as
> mutations.
>
> But the popular radition/hollywood usage of mutation
is the one
> that creationists have latched onto and used to
make their
> fictional case.
>
> In the original sense it meant the differences in
siblings.
Let us stick to the English dictionary, Mike.
Communication is
made no easier by ad hoc definitions.
Sibling difference has never been defined as mutation.
Mutare is
Latin for change, as in "Mutando nomine et de te narratur"
(Just
change the name and the tale is told of you).
Mutation is defined, in Biology and Evolution, as "a
sudden
departure from the parent type, as when an individual
differs from
the parents in one or more heritable characteristics,
caused by a
change in a gene or a chromosome." (Random House)
--Slade
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 99 18:22PM EDT
From: Slade Farney <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Re: What An Evoltin Development!]
Nick N <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> AndyMoore wrote:
>
> > Nick N wrote:
>
> > > Since the heart of philosophy is epistemology
and science
> > > means organised knowledge, Slade's efforts are
valid. This is
> > > not to say that the discussion must forever
remain in the
> > > airy regions of philosophy, but that its terrain
must first
> > > be surveyed therefrom.
> >
> > Not quite. The discussion is a 0 % philosophical
and 100 %
> > scientific one. It's not why or what for. It's
what, when and
> > where.
So sorry, Andy, but you should examine the engine mounting
bolts
for that Scientific intellect of yours. Science
is a branch of
Philosophy. Always was and always shall be.
Philosophy is the
granddaddy and superset of all Scientific reasoning,
without which
Science is the dead language of mindless dogma and
rote
mumbo-jumbo. Your remark is as silly as a sophomore's
complaint
that Arithmetic was a good subject until they got
it all mixed up
with Math.
I refer you to earlier essays I wrote for this group
about the
teaching of Science in the schools. Without
inculcation with the
Methods of Science, all the "science" factoids in
the world are
just mindless dogma and rote mumbo-jumbo.
> Of course we begin with what, when and where, but
since we are
> not apes or housecats, we go on to ask why.
We may not get a
> satisfactory answer, but we seem programmed to ask.
It's built
> into our genes, you might say.
Do you know that the sequence you suggest here is the
exact
opposite of the sequence I have observed of you?
I have accused
you of practicing Dialectical Materialism, the religion
that
teaches that all the Universe is a bleak coincidence
of accident
and chaos. You begin with this Why as your hidden
premise, and then
wonder how came the Earth? And all your Whats,
Whens, and Whys are
edited to match your Hidden Premise. Eagerly,
the Dialectical
Materialist will debate the Oscillating Universe,
the Big Bang,
Behavioral Psychology, or any other such theory that
begins with
this Hidden Premise, and he will call the debate Science.
And just as eagerly (and desperately), the Dialectical
Materialist
will insist the discussion has nothing to do with
Philosophy or the
Religion of Dialectical Materialism
> > > 2) The practice of tact does not imply a disdain
for
> > > objective truth. It is one thing to state that
the truth of a
> > > proposition is all that matters epistemologically
and that
> > > epistemology doesn't concern itself with tact.
It is another
> > > matter to pretend that tact weakens one's epistemological
> > > rigor. We might all well remember this.
> >
> > This has absolutely nothing to do with problems
of an
> > epistemological nature. You don't discuss
the epistemology of
> > Earth's roundness measurements.
You certainly should. The whole subject of observation
and proof
is within Epistemology. The Scientific Method
is practical
Epistemology.
And here we get back to it again: Those ministers of
Dialectical
Materialism who run the US education system (and most
other
government schools in the world) carefully de-emphasize
the
Scientific Method. The pupil is taught to swallow
his daily ration
of factoids and ignore his own observations.
I witnessed the
astounding event in university Biology of a Biology
lab instructor
announcing to the class that water-fleas lay eggs,
despite the
appearance in one student's lab microscope that a
water-flea was
giving live birth; we were instructed to accept the
standard
factoid and ignore the what we could all see for ourselves
in that
student's microscope.
True to their education masters, very few students
saw anything
wrong with the instructor's approach to Scientific
truth.
> > You simply go ahead and measure.
If that is all you do, you are a surveyor, not a Scientist.
> > Of course, you don't measure directly, but that's
a technical
> > problem, not one of a philosophical nature.
Then you have never measured the Earth, and certainly
never
invented a way to do it. The people who found ways
to measure the
Earth were all accomplished philosophers, and that
is not a
coincidence.
> > Exactly the same for the history of life on Earth,
once genes
> > were developed and fossile registers made their
apparition.
> > You may not know exactly all the details of how
a king George V
> > became king George VI after a king Edward VIII,
but you know
> > their place in history and their family relationship;
it's not
> > an epistemological problem nor is any philosophy
involved in
> > the factual description of the events that took
place in
> > history. We know who they were because of the
absolutely
> > coherent historical register.
The reality of geological dating is revealing.
Geologists often
rely on paleontologists to tell the age of the rocks
on the basis
of any fossils present. Then, using this information
on the age of
the rocks, the Evolutionist claims the age of the
fossils is
confirmed. Welcome to Tautological Truth.
> [...]
>
> > What follows [Creationist text on the attempt
to create
> > mutations in fruit flies] is not science because
in science you
> > don't select *your* private life facts only, or
*your*
> > presumably unfruitful investigations only. You
must consider
> > *all* the known facts; if you don't look at them,
you don't see
> > the whole picture. The text below -- in a somewhat
Farney-like
> > fashion -- ackowledges genetic mutation but tries
to deny that
> > a mutation may be "beneficial" on the grounds
that the author
> > never saw one!...
I do not hold a torch for the text, but the original
study sounded
interesting, and you misrepresent the substance of
the remarks.
The beneficial mutant is not impossible. It is
just very, very
unusual. Evolution relies upon the supposition
of uncounted
millions of [highly improbable] beneficial mutations
in tandem. It
is not just one natural royal flush, but a million
million royal
flushes in sequence.
The cited study tried to get one beneficial mutant
fly, possibly in
an attempt to wrap their mathematical arms around
the whole
problem. The original study may or may not have
been flawed, but
you cannot tell by the second-hand narrative.
> [...]
> > This is so desperately and intrinsically absurd
that a short
> > reflection should be enough to see that *if* genetic
mutation
> > happens ramdomly, *then* random mutation that
happens to be
> > beneficial must be a fact of life every now and
then.
Without the math to support it, you are leaping from
the "arguably
not impossible single instance" to the absolute certainty
that an
million million such incidents actually did take place
in tandem in
the absurdly short interval of a few billion years.
From the not-impossible presence of the accused in
the general
area, you leap to a guilty verdict with supposed motive
and modus
operandi. A short detour into epistemology would
show you some
problems with this course of reasoning, but in Evolution
as in
other subjects, it is not an unusual to forbid discussion
of the
underlying premises.
Notice the embedded premise in the above text: "...
random mutation
..." In Evolution, the subject of First Cause is very
much on the
front burner. Evolution is one of the evangelical
arms of
Dialectical Materialism. Every religion does
it. The Roman
Catholics pushed the Virgin Mary in Ireland (rather
than father
Jehova) because they were competing with a predominant
female
goddess. In war-torn China, the pacifist Buddhists
developed
"passive" martial arts. The Holocaustalists
used school-age Ann
Frank to teach American school children about the
Holocaust.
Thus, the government missionaries of Dialectical Materialism
push
Barney the Dinosaur to preschoolers and argue to university
students that Dialectic Materialism is the only non-religious
non-philosphical philosophy possible in the Age of
Technology.
Who forbids?
--Slade
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 99 07:24AM EDT
From: Slade Farney <[email protected]>
Subject: Evolution Fraud
Mike Green <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 06:17 PM 10/13/99 EDT, Slade Farney wrote:
> > Mike Green <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
Evolution does not address the origin of life.
>
> >Nonsense. In the very same volumes that discuss
Evolution, by
> >the same authors who write the balance of the volume,
are
> >discussions of the nitrogen-rich seas, spontaneous
occurrences
> >of amino acids, how complex must be the most primitive
> >self-replicating molecule, and how life could emerge
therefrom.
> >It is in the same Museums and addressed in the
same courses.
> >Only Mike Green makes a distinction.
>
> Not only I but the rest of the scientific community
in the
> broadest sense.
Sure, Mike.
http://www.gbhap.com/abstracts/mgcn/T980542H.198.htm
"N-PHOSPHOAMINO ACIDS AND CO-EVOLUTION OF NUCLEIC ACID
AND PROTEIN
"Yu-Fen Zhao, Pei-Sheng Cao
"Department of Chemistry, Bio-organic Phosphorus Chemistry,
Laboratory, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084,
P. R. China
"Why nature chose ribose and phosphodiester as the
backbone for the
nucleic acids? Why nature chose [alpha]-amino acids
as the protein
backbone? To understand the intrinsic chemical properties
behind
these selection, the investigation on the system of
N-phosphoamino
acids were studied for almost twenty years. It was
found that all
the [alpha]-amino acids but not the [beta]- or other
types amino
acids were able to self-organize into oligonucleotides
under the
acidic, neutral or basic aqueous condition at the
temperature from
4C to 60C. Among the N-phosphoamino acids, serine,
threonine,
aspartic acid and histidine were most reactive.
"With the presence of ribose, nucleosides, in addition
to the
self-assembly mechanism, the nucleotides and oligonucleoides
were
also produced by N-phosphoamino acids. From 31P-NMR
and MS results,
it indicates that only the N-phospho--amino acids
could form the
intramolecular penta-coordinate phosphorus intermediate.
The
ribonucleotides could form spiro-penta-coordinate
phosphorus
transition state. A general scheme was shown for the
co-evolution
of nucleic acid and protein from N-phosphoamino acids."
> And regardless of what you wish to say or wish to
pretend,
> evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Period. You
> are certainly capable of finding several statements
of the
> theories of evolution, proper ones from scientific
sources which
> are the only ones who can speak for the subject,
and you are
> hereby challenged, even defied, to find any mention
of the origin
> of life.
>
> BTW: I also challenge you to NAME the title and
authors of the
> "volumes" to which you refer above. And I will give
state quite
> confidently beforehand you have not read a one from
any credible
> source. Credible meaning a scientist working
in the field.
> Popular writers and PhDs in theology do not count
here any more
> than they do when they write about holocaust deniers.
Dang. You really have to be careful of those PhD's
in theology from
the Peoples Republic of China.
> >> I see nothing in that which illustrates even one
thing it
> >> appears to reference.
>
> >I mentioned the enlarging horse picture series,
the one we all
> >had in our school texts. Horse starts out
the size of a small
> >dog with 3 or 4 toes, grows through the millions
of years in a
> >half dozen frames until it stands as the one-toe
full-sized
> >modern species.
>
> >That series was a fraud. The specimens were
out of sequence in
> >the geological record, and they were taken from
different
> >continents. The fossil record did not support
the story and the
> >authors and the reviewers knew it. But far
from "peer review"
> >keeping the trade honest, peer pressure and guild
mentality
> >forbade anyone to point out the fraud.
>
> Yes, you are quite correct that the very popular
series was
> created in the 1930s as a textbook illustration
for a high school
> textbook. Yes, you are correct that it has spread
beyond that
> over the years.
>
> And it is also correct that everything you "discovered"
about it
> can be found in any discussion of it by any scientist
in the
> field. It has never been considered a linear progression
in the
> field.
It was literally represented as a linear progression
wherever it
appeared.
Try this for an example:
http://www.microcolor-inc.com/html_files/photo_illos_credits/horse.html
Horse Evolution Photomontage
Photomontage for Natural History
article "Mr. Sophia's Pony."
Author: Stephen Jay Gould. Art director:
Tom Page.
Illustrator: Martin Haggland.
Design firm and client: Natural
History. 1996.
Apparently, this illustration was approved by the great
Evolution
rabbi, Stephen Jay Gould, himself.
> If you have a problem with the "fraud" I suggest
you take up your
> problem with McGraw-Hill. They really can publish
science texts
> that are not true. McGraw-Hill is not subject to
peer review,
Publishing houses do not write the text books.
They just publish
books written by Ph.D.-endowed professors in the field.
Flip open
any school text and you will see. Then the books
are reviewed and
selected by boards of Ph.D.-qualified people.
It's a joke for you
to pretend that McGraw-Hill is an irresponsible maverick
publishing
house out of step with the experts in the field.
That horse series
was a popular item in text books well into the 70's
and 80's.
And while we are on the subject, even you denied it
was a fraud a
few weeks ago. Now suddenly everybody already
knew it. Auschwitz
gas chambers anyone?
> nor are museum curators.
More uneducated, out-of-control, irresponsible crazies?
How can
the wholesome, honest Science of Evolution survive
the hordes of
frauds who speak in Its name?
Even the Encyclopedia Britannica indulges in a little
fraud now and
again:
http://www.eb.com/bol/search?type=topic&query=Eohippus&DBase=Articles
"Evolution of the horse
"The evolutionary lineage of the horse
is among the best
documented in all paleontology.
The history of the horse family,
Equidae, began during the Eocene Epoch,
which lasted from about
54,000,000 to 38,000,000 years ago. During
the early Eocene there
appeared the first ancestral horse, a
hoofed, browsing mammal
known technically as... "
Note that: "... the best documented in all paleontology."
You
don't suppose they are referring to the infamous "enlarging
horse
series," do you?
Nah. They must mean the OTHER horse series.
> >[. . .] This is the most well known fraud,
but there are plenty
> >of other examples.
>
> Again, file charges against McGraw-Hill for their
science
> textbook creation. It has never been a progression
taught as an
> evolutionary sequence.
Give it up, Mike. You've been caught. Fraud
is fraud, even when
McGraw-Hill, Encyclopedia Britannica, or Mike Green
is involved.
--Slade
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 99 15:18PM EDT
From: Slade Farney <[email protected]>
Subject: [Re: [Re: [science textbooks, last months discussion]]]]]
Mike Green <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 06:17 PM 10/13/99 EDT, Slade Farney wrote:
>
> >Explanation is the territory of religion and myth
poetry.
> > [...]
> >Explanations are not Science.
>
> But Science IS explanations. At least it has been
as long as I
> have been inolved and so far as I can tell back
to when it
> started. You may not like that but it is true.
Then you can take your Gould, your Sagan, your Discovery
Channel,
and any other grand explainers and retire to an armchair,
if that
is all you ask of Science.
The rest of us have a real job to do, feeding, clothing,
medicating, housing, and protecting humanity from
an unsympathetic
universe, and from humanity's own flaws. That
is the Science I
preach: rigorous, practical, and empirical.
Science has built the
atom bomb and the Salk vaccine. It has, with
equanimity, given
birth to elaborate equations predicting holograms
a half century
before the first one was made, and then dashed beautifully
symmetrical theories into the dust.
The difference between the Science I preach and your
"explanations"
is that mine is creative and predictive, while yours
is merely
retrospective. My Science requires the discipline
of laboratories
and merciless demonstration of principle. Yours
is simply an old
man's passion for interesting tales by the fire.
It is my Science that has changed your life from "nasty,
brutish,
and short" to the kind of place where you have warm
comfortable
rooms with armchairs and Discovery Channels wherewith
to
contemplate and compare mythologies of origins.
Enjoy.
--Slade
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 99 01:49AM EDT
From: Slade Farney <[email protected]>
Re: [Re: [Re: What An Evoltin Development!]]
Nick N <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Slade Farney wrote:
>
> > Nick N <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Of course we begin with what, when and where,
but since we
> > >> are not apes or housecats, we go on to ask
why. We may not
> > >> get a satisfactory answer, but we seem programmed
to
> > >> ask. It's built into our genes, you might say.
> >
> > Do you know that the sequence you suggest here
is the exact
> > opposite of the sequence I have observed of you?
>
> Just wanted to step in here very quickly. I know
these long
> threads can get confusing. Those were my words,
Slade. I hope
> that clarifies things.
Oops.
> Just one other thing, sir. I've never thought of
science as a
> branch of philosophy, at least in the sense of the
special
> science such as physics, biology, chemistry, geology,
> thermodynamics and so forth. These are all
organised bodies of
> accuimulated knowledge. Then again you do have a
point, because
> Science (Scientia) means knowledge, and that's the
domain of
> Epistemology.
Yup. Wisdom ("science") belongs to those who
love thought
("philosophy").
Check the definition of "natural philosophy" in your
dictionary.
--Slade
|