quote:Some evolutionists believe evolution is the method used by God to create the various species. (...)
There's also intelligent design, which I don't fully understand. I believe it states that examining the world can demonstrate it was not developed by chance.
I think these two refer to the same position : Intelligent design proponents argue that evolution could not occur randomly, but would require a guiding hand. Some of them have also taken to using the 'anthropic principle' in physics and cosmology as proof for the existence of a designer. This principle rests on the observation that the physical laws and constants of our Universe are such that human life is possible. If any of the constants were changed, even by a fairly small amount, humans would not exist. Since there is clearly a large range of logically possible constants, and an even larger range of possible physical laws, the probability of our existing if the Universe was created randomly is (the intelligent designers assert) small.
To be clear about this, let me briefly explain what is meant by constants and what is meant by laws. A good example is found in Newton's theory of gravity; it asserts that the force between two objects is proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Now, I can change the constant of proportionality, conventionally denoted G; for example, it is easy to imagine a universe in which G is one thousand times its value here. Stephen Baxter has written an excellent book, Raft, set in such a universe. That is to change a constant, and even small changes in the constants of electromagnetism have large consequences for chemistry. Alternatively, one could imagine a universe in which the force was proportional to the cube of the distance, for example by assuming four spacelike dimensions. That changes the law, and - for this example - has the interesting side effect of making stable planetary orbits impossible. (IIRC)
Incidentally, there is another interesting example in Newton's theory. Consider F=ma, the second law. The mass that appears here is the same that appears in the law of gravity; but there is no good, logical reason for this to be true. Indeed, many relativity textbooks make no such assumption until the second or third chapter, where they (paraphrasing) "drop the subscripts g or i (referring to gravitational mass and inertial mass) in light of the experimental evidence that these quantities are always identical." This is a purely empirical fact! Yet if it were not true, again, planetary orbits would be unstable.
Some intelligent designers, then, assert that because only a particular and highly unlikely combination of laws and constants leads to humans, a Creator is required. There are some problems with this assertion. First, the fact that some given event is unlikely does not prove an intelligence produced. My birth was plainly quite unlikely : A hundred thousand sperm cells were competing, and then there is the issue of my mother's fertility on that particular day, not to mention that similar arguments apply to the births of my parents. Yet no-one asserts that a birth is miraculous, except in the sense that it is a profoundly moving event.
Second, while only one particular combination produces humans, we do not know what kinds of life might be produced with different combinations. The probability of life may even be quite high, and humans happen to be the type that emerged. This is analogous to a bridge hand, or lottery draw : Any given combination is extremely unlikely; with number lotteries, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 is as unlikely as 1 4 6 11 21 22 36. But you know you are going to get some combination of numbers.
I should mention that the cosmological anthropic principle is only a subset of the main Intelligent Design hypothesis, which rests mainly on biology. Specifically, the assertion that life is too complex to have evolved purely by chance, and that some kind of guidance is required - presumably, God choosing this sperm cell rather than that one, or perhaps moving cosmic rays to cause a particularly desirable mutation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My pet theory also accounts for this, dumping all possible universes on top of each other results in this virtually flat universe preference. Of course having the solution to the great debate makes it dull every time it comes up. Nobody else understands it and bringing people up to speed is tedious.
posted
Intelligent design, and evolution being the mechanism god uses, are different theories.
Intelligent design purports to show that god exists, scientifically, and that he created the world and designed it.
Evolution being guided by god is an idea that mixes science, and religion. In this case, god is not shown scientifically, but rather the scientist says "this is as far as science takes me. After that, I rely on non-scientific inquiry"
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Chris' link is accurate, it seems to me that all 3 major belief systems have something I don't like about them. Naturalistic evolution believes that the universe was created at random, which I don't think is possible. Theistic evolution just seems to be trying to get the best of both worlds. And creationists just seem to completely believe the Bible, word for word, which I don't think is going to be accurate either. This is going to be harder than I thought... Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: This is not correct, ID is a "theory" (actually, hypothesis would be overly generous) that evolution is guided by an intelligent, largely omnipotent being and that there is scientific evidence for it. The idea that evolution happens because of God is separate, similar to the idea that gravity happens because of God. The counterpart to the second example would be a "theory" that in the universe as it exists gravity did not happen, but that God moved everything in the ways they move (that we currently say are caused by gravitation), and that we could detect (as that's required by science) this causing, either directly or indirectly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the very least, they strongly overlap. Intelligent Design people do assert, I believe, that evolution occurs, but is guided by God. It is possible that not all guided-by-God-asserters are Intelligent Designers - though I don't quite see how else to classify them. Perhaps they believe that God guides evolution towards random results? If so, seems to be a particularly striking example of defining a concept into uselessness.
Edit : This was in response to comrade Paul.
Edit 2 : But in light of fugu's post, I see that I was wrong. Very good point, and an important distinction.
[ December 17, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jaime -- these aren't belief systems, in that "evolution" isn't something one believes in, at least any more than one believes the world is round (for instance).
I'm uncertain what problems you have with being someone who thinks evolution happens but thinks that it (like everything else) happens because of God. What's problematic with "trying to have the best of both worlds" (though this implies a conflict/dichotomy that's not there; plenty of people believe in God and think the evidence points clearly to evolution)?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
edit: heh, looks like this was unnecessary, but I'll leave it, it might help someone else.
KoM -- by far most people who think evolution happens (most scientists, definitely) think it happens because of God. Incredibly few of these are ID proponents.
Its not a useless division at all -- ID people think they can scientifically prove God's involved, while most people don't (makes sense -- how many people have you heard of who try to scientifically prove God through gravitation?).
quote:KoM -- by far most people who think evolution happens (most scientists, definitely) think it happens because of God.
I am still going to have to disagree with this assertion. True, many scientists are theists. But I do not think they are a majority - possibly the only demographic group where this is true. And I would note that the statement 'because of God' is a bit vague in any case. In some sense, if you believe that God caused the Big Bang and never touched the Universe afterwards, then evolution is 'because of God' - everything can be causally traced to the Big Bang, after all. But it is not a very strong statement, either of belief or predictive power.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Naturalistic evolution believes that the universe was created at random, which I don't think is possible.
What have your likes and dislikes got to do with it? I suspect you won't much like quantum mechanics either, if you look closely, but it still works. As for randomness, try this link.Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps they believe that God guides evolution towards random results? If so, seems to be a particularly striking example of defining a concept into uselessness.
No. They believe that at certain key points, nature was "nudged" to select a particularly desired result, but the points where this happened cannot be distinguished by us from those results that were selected by natural processes only.
It's actually quite interesting, because small changes can be leveraged to great effect if one has enough knowledge and foresight (more than a human could have).
quote: "evolution" isn't something one believes in
Isn't it? I got the term "belief systems" from the link, but why isn't evolution something you would believe in? It's believing that evolution happened?
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The distinction is one between faith and scientific theory. For example, one might say "I believe in Einstein's Relativity." Although the word is the same, the statement is qualitatively different from "I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, evolution isn't something you believe in, at least not any more than you believe the earth is round (as I noted before).
KoM -- it does appear you're right. Only about 40% of scientists in general have some belief in God.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: What have your likes and dislikes got to do with it?
Nothing, I was just trying to figure out what "belief system" I would identify myself with. King of men, but you could still say "I believe in evolution" can't you? Ahh you have to stop posting before me!
posted
That's interesting. I'm not disagreeing, but I want to explore the scientific usage some.
Obviously the distinction can't be whether the thing being believed is true or not - Someone probably once said, "I believe the world is flat" or "I believe the sun is the center of the universe."
What's the principle difference - the ability to be empirically proven?
posted
Ok I'm having serious trouble with my computer so it's getting hard for me to talk. Fugu, why can't you say that you believe in evolution. Please explain .
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think not so much the ability, as the willingness. Faith, by definition, cannot be put to the test - even Jesus said as much, when the Devil was tempting him. If you put God to the test, then you are doubting already, even if the test works out.
One might say that 'to believe' is shorthand for slightly different attitudes in the two cases. Writing out in full, we find "I believe in Einstein's Relativity because of the many successful predictions and unsuccessful attempts at disproving the theory." Or, in the other case, "I believe in God because the Bible tells me he exists, and that I should not put that theory to the test." I think it comes down to the attitude of the believer, rather than any particular quality of the thing believed in.
Edit to say two things : 1. Dag, you meant to use 'principal', not 'principle'.
2. I'm going to bed.
[ December 18, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belief in evolution is dependent on scientific evidence (possibly at one remove, but even that's predicated on, or at least should be, an understanding of what's involved in something being a scientific theory). If the scientifically available evidence changes, belief in evolution'll change practically overnight (for those reading this at home, I mean several years, likely at least a decade before any competing theory would be considered well established, and the "usefulness" of evolution would decline much quicker -- scientists are quicker to be skeptics than they are to adopt new ideas), just as it has on so many other things since the emergence of modern science (past 200 years or so, give or take).
There is no scientific evidence for God or many of the other things people profess belief in. One sort of belief is predicated on scientific evidence, the other is not.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, the only ingredient in "Intelligent Design" that is different from creationism (of some brand) is that ID proponents have used some form of statistical analysis to show that the likelihood of life forming spontaneously is so remote that there must have been an "intelligent designer" that guided the process. Of course the unlikeliness of a thing doesn't point to its cause, so you can't draw that conclusion automatically.
What ID proponents miss in that position is that the intelligent designer must have had a mechanism (or perhaps a better word is: a "medium") to work with. The designer must have used the chemicals that make up life, and those chemicals must have been arranged as per reality. We are what we are. Evolution is so thoroughly demonstrated in science that the only conclusion I can see to draw from it is that God's medium is in fact evolutionary processes. Thus ID and Evolution should coexist peacefully, at least for theists.
The fact that ID claims to be an "alternate" theory to evolution indicates that ID proponents are using the same premise as creationism, that evolution cannot be true if God designed life. So their arguments are just as circular as ever.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A belief in ID is akin to believing that lotto numbers had to have been chosen purposefully because the odds of those specific six numbers coming up are one in 22,957,480. Obviously it's absurd to think that those six numbers could have come up at random.
The logical error, I believe, is in the tacit assumption that the ways things are must be the only way things could possibly have been. If you believe that humans had to look like this, for example, with no other deviations in appearance or structure or, for that matter, dominant species, then ID makes perfect sense.
When I think of ID I think of my buddy Dave, who once asked me to pick up a lotto ticket for him. I chose the numbers 1-2-3-4-5-42. He got mad at me. Those were lousy numbers, with no chance of winning. I was flabbergasted - this was a man well-educated and better at math than me, but he didn't think those six numbers had an equal chance to come up as any other set of six numbers. It just didn't seem right to him, evidently.
Amazing how much stock people will put into "it doesn't seem right."
[ December 18, 2004, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
An analogy for the weak anthropic principle: (if I picked this up from one of you I apologise, I heard it recently but I can't remember where)
The assumption that people are special because the universe was built specifically in such a way as to create human life is analogous to the assumption that the shape of water in a glass is special because the glass was built specifically in such a way as to hold water of that shape.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the thought that everyone is taking the intelligent design, i still believe exactly what i did before, i just won't consider myself an ID person anymore, that was my mistake, sorry
quote:I do not argue with Creationist because they embarrass me. I just feel bad for them, so I nod and go on and hope they have a good life! They are like children who believe in Santa!
Why's that? because we creationists don't have evidence to support our 'theory'? Where's the evidence of the evolution? There is a reason that they are called missing links. THEY ARE MISSING!!!
I literally believe in the Bible, every single word. I believe the earth was created in 7 24 hour days, and that God spoke aimals and humans into existence. I know there seems to be a magical element behind this, but there is just as much magic behind the theory of evolution. Taking inatimate molecules and suddenly getting life seems harder to believe than the thought that an all powerful being created us.
I know I'm preaching, but then again, i believe in santa.
[ December 18, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Peter ]
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Please read my link on the first page, in its entirety.
There's more evidence for evolution, than any other scientific theory except perhaps gravity and electromagnetism.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peter, there have been several links provided that give evidence of evolution. If you want to debate this topic, it behooves you to understand the opposing position more fully.
Just as you would casually dismiss anyone who relies on "who is Cain's wife?" as not understanding Creationism, so too can evolutionists dismiss anyone who claims that speciation does not occur, or that transitional fossils do not exist.
posted
Let me just say that I love you all, and especially your timing.
I'm currently doing research into faith and belief and how people arrive at the belief systems that they hold. This is just the sort of thing I'm interested in, what you all have been talking about here. You all have given me some great food for thought here.
everyone who has participated in this thread.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comrade Peter is clearly moderately uninformed on this subject. I suspect, if he continues to post, we are going to see every last pathetic creationist argument rehashed, right down to 'Piltdown Man was a fake, so all fossils are fakes.' Shall we just agree to link to TalkOrigins every time?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have one suggestion for those who feel that evolution fails as a theory because there isn't fossil evidence of every transition: study how the fossil record is created. Fossilization is a very hit and miss proposition. Many factors must be in place for a particular individual specimen of any species to become fossilized. Add to that that even when fossils do exist, they have to be found - another fairly hit and miss proposition.
Also, some characteristics may only be evident in soft tissue, not in the skeletal remains that are most often fossilized, so even having a fossil is not a sure way to see transitions.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The central problem, of course, is that a jury is no more likely to be able to understand scientific testimony than a judge. You can be sure scientists and engineers are kept off juries in cases with lots of scientific testimony.
Sorry, I know this is off topic, but Dagonee, could you explain this? Why would people whose knowledge could assist in a case be kept away?
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Comrade BC, your so-called theory is nothing of the kind. Go play with your guns now.
KoM you are the turd that half floats and half sinks to the bottom of a bowl while bubbling occasionally.
That said I will give you this to demonstrate that what I say is a based in sound scientific theory if you care to extend a few ideas to overlap each other. Specifically genetics and Quantum theory. Life and Negative Entropy
Virtual photons can effect photons as can virtual electrons, this is accepted physics. It is here that we see a mechanism to explain evolution, and to account for why it moves toward greater consciousness. Its speed, its rapid emergence and its direction. It is also an explanation for insight and genius. The uncertainty principle guarantees that molecularly significant areas of negative entropy do exist.
Combine this with the Sum over Histories theory and you have a mechanism that allows the complex possible to shape the real. Of course as complexity climbs you have some of your order bleeding away into less complex possibilities. That however is ameliorated by the nature of life, its robustness.
I offer this freely and expect to be ignored, but you have all shown a certain worthiness. So I give it to you, your Christmas gift from me.
I hope you all do well, I hope I will be back in 20 months. If not be assured I will have a set of bodyguards in hell!
quote:Sorry, I know this is off topic, but Dagonee, could you explain this? Why would people whose knowledge could assist in a case be kept away?
There are two reasons. The first, and most cynical reason, is that in a given case, the scientific evidence is most likely to favor one side over the other, sometimes very strongly. In cases where you represent the side with weaker scientific evidence, you don't want someone on the jury who can evaluate the technical problems with you expert's testimony. So you are likely to use your peremptory challenges to keep them off the jury.
The slightly less cynical reason is that good trial adovcates are telling a story, hopefully one that provides all the reasons needed for the jury to vote in your favor. You generally don't want people adding to your story, even if they think they're being favorable to you. For example, you wouldn't want an engineer in a product liability case talking about risk trade-off in safety design. Even though logically this could help the manufacturer, it might make the calculation seem cold and uncaring to the jury.
quote:That said I will give you this to demonstrate that what I say is a based in sound scientific theory if you care to extend a few ideas to overlap each other. Specifically genetics and Quantum theory.
Virtual photons can effect photons as can virtual electrons, this is accepted physics. It is here that we see a mechanism to explain evolution, and to account for why it moves toward greater consciousness. Its speed, its rapid emergence and its direction. It is also an explanation for insight and genius. The uncertainty principle guarantees that molecularly significant areas of negative entropy do exist.
Combine this with the Sum over Histories theory and you have a mechanism that allows the complex possible to shape the real. Of course as complexity climbs you have some of your order bleeding away into less complex possibilities. That however is ameliorated by the nature of life, its robustness.
Your link does not say anything about the 'negative entropy' coming from other universes. It does not use quantum mechanics in any way, only perfectly classical thermodynamics. Virtual particles do affect real ones, certainly. But your 'mechanism for evolution' is pure non sequitur. You might as well say that 'Gravity affects living beings, this is accepted physics. It is here that we see a mechanism for evolution to occur.' We see nothing of the kind. The same applies to sum-over-histories. Further, evolution does not move 'rapidly towards greater consciousness', a phenomenon of which you are the perfect example.
You, comrade, are a scientifically illiterate idiot, who believes any pseudo-rational explanation he can lay hands on as long as it includes the words 'quantum mechanics.' Be sure to cheer up your bodyguard in hell by telling them how much they've improved the gene pool.
[ December 18, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Darwin showed evolution within a species, then when he realized what they had turned it into, he protested it. He spent the last seven years of his life denouncing evolution, and his deathbed wish was that it would not be taught in schools. How many of you who claim to believe in evolution have actually read The Origin of Species? any? i have. the only proof for evolution is not for macro- but for micro-evolution.
Piltdown man, who was at one time, the largest link to prove evolution. Then 40 years after finding him, it was proven that he was not only a hoax, but a bad one. Less than half of 'his' skull was found. The jaw was filed down and stained with an acid to make it look older. When the scientists were asked why they fell for this, the answer was "because it was what we expected." What kind of scientist is that? it's not, it is faith. from TalkOrigins
Ya know what, i'm done debating, it's not worth it. All i'm gonna do is frustrate myself, and i'm not sure it's worth that. The last thing i have to ask is this: At the end of the day, if I'm wrong and your right, i lose nothing, we both go nowhere. But, if I'm right and you're wrong, i gain everything and you lose everything.
quote: Darwin showed evolution within a species, then when he realized what they had turned it into, he protested it. He spent the last seven years of his life denouncing evolution, and his deathbed wish was that it would not be taught in schools.
Could you provide evidence for this? It seems strange that Darwin would protest that his work was used as evidence of macroevolution since he later wrote The Descent of Man which theorized that humans evolved from apes.
And I wanted to mention something along the lines of what Dagonee said, but he said it better and more succinctly than I could have. Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hehe. Did you even read my post, comrade Peter? But I agree with you : You are plainly not worth debating with.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:At the end of the day, if I'm wrong and your right, i lose nothing, we both go nowhere. But, if I'm right and you're wrong, i gain everything and you lose everything.
Unless I'm a Christian evolutionist, of course.
Which I'm not, but that's besides the point.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any case, you left out several possibilities : Suppose we are both wrong, and the Roman Catholics are right? We both burn in hell; but according to Dante, apostates are punished worse than atheists. Further, suppose no Earthly religion is right, but there is a God who likes people who think for themselves? You burn, I get a harp.
In fact, now I think about it, let's do a quick probability argument. There are five major religions in the world today; but each of those has a large amount of subsects. Then there are any number of older sects, several hundred just among the American Indians, for example; there are also a bunch of extinct or nearly-extinct religions, like Mithraism and Asatru. Add in ancient stone-age gods, one per tribe no doubt, and you must have thousands of possible gods at the very least. Tens of thousands seems likely, hundreds of thousands possible. (And, to be sure, add one for atheism.) So, just what is the chance that you are correct? One in ten thousand, at a conservative estimate.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But, if I'm right and you're wrong, i gain everything and you lose everything."
Wow, Peter. I know you're new, and I know you don't know this, but you're like every straw man pro-creation argument I've ever wished I could make up rolled up into a little ball for my enjoyment. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, but he's so cute! I mean, what are the odds that someone would come on this site and not have had any of these conversations with other people before? To be honest, though, I don't really have the heart to get into it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no. Honestly, it's because I'm feeling rather grumpy right now about something else and very cynical, indeed. And the best I could accomplish would be to tick the poor guy off; in the worst case scenario, it would be like kicking a puppy in his fundamentals.
I've just had these conversations too recently to approach them with anything resembling subtlety.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Darwin showed evolution within a species, then when he realized what they had turned it into, he protested it. He spent the last seven years of his life denouncing evolution, and his deathbed wish was that it would not be taught in schools. How many of you who claim to believe in evolution have actually read The Origin of Species? any? i have. the only proof for evolution is not for macro- but for micro-evolution.
Start by changing the word know to think.
Second: Cite an reference showing where Darwin protested arguments for macro evolution.
And explain why, after keeping his theory under wraps for so long before publishing it, Darwin didn't call his book: "The Origin of Sub-species," since he so clearly was NOT discussing speciation, based on your assertion that he was only talking about microevolution.
It's been mentioned here earlier, but just to put the timing into context, Darwin published "The Descent of Man" in 1871, and died in 1882. So he must have changed his mind about evolution in 1875, 4 years after he published "Descent of Man," according to your assertion that he "last seven years of his life denouncing evolution."
A cite for that would be helpful also.
And yes, I have read "The Origin of Species." Cover to cover. Published in 1859, it might be considered an antique, except that despite a century and a half of experimentation by the entire bio-scientific community, the basic theories (yes plural) Darwin suggested have been reinforced to the point where "Natural Selection" is considered a basic law of science. Also, the entire branch of science devoted to molecular genetics is in complete agreement with Darwin's observations and his theories, despite the fact that he didn't have the understanding of chemistry required to have anticipated that breeding and physical characteristics could be explained at the molecular level. So added to the law of natural selection, we now have the laws of recombination and mutation, which are part of the body of work known as "Evolution Theory."
Oh, and one more thing: Science books are published specifically so they can be studied in schools. Now, where did you get this idea that Darwin didn't want his theory taught in schools?
Again, a citation would be helpful. But it would probably be easier to admit you're just lying.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for debating between evolutionists and creationists, for me the irritating part would be debating someone who was adamant that they KNEW the TRUTH about this thing that no one actually knows about. No matter which one I was debating with. That's why I usually avoid debating. I'm often out of my depth, and I don't know how to debate without knowing absolutely everything about the topid.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, Ryuko, people who are totally dogmatic are tough to argue with.
Peter, plenty of scientists were skeptical pf Piltdown:
quote: The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism.
Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.
This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries. None the less, Sir Arthur Keith (a major defender of Piltdown man) wrote in 1931:
It is therefore possible that Piltdown man does represent the early pleistocene ancestor of the modern type of man, He may well be the ancestor we have been in search of during all these past years. I am therefore inclined to make the Piltdown type spring from the main ancestral stem of modern humanity... In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it.
It was a fraud, and many scientists saw it as anamalous. If I published fraudulent results of a 10th planet, which correlated with expected results of those who have predicted a 10th planet, does that make those who "believe" my results part of a faith or religion? Hardly, they would just have been taken in by a fraud.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a quote from Douglas Adams that I am summoning from memory on the "intended universe" idea:
"Once upon a time there was a puddle in a hole in the ground. And this puddle looked around one day at the hole it was in. And it saw that the hole conformed to absolutely every single protrusion that the puddle made. So the puddle decided that this hole had been made just for the little puddle, and that was that."
Not that I believe entirely in where he's coming from, but I do believe it has some merit in this argument.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
everyone who has participated in this thread.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
