|
Author
|
Topic: How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 6 of 304 (392725)
04-01-2007 10:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-01-2007 9:06 AM
|
|
oops
It seems to me that many religious people who oppose the ToE are under the impression that others, including scientists and science-minded people, "believe" in the same way that religious people "believe" in gods. I would like those who reject the ToE to explain how they reconcile their rejection with the logical implications regarding scientists I have listed above. You're making the same mistake: expecting them to reason the way you do. Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by nator, posted 04-01-2007 9:06 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 13 of 304 (393187)
04-03-2007 8:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
04-03-2007 11:33 AM
|
|
Re: Re-ToE
When I talk about the Theory of Evolution I begin with nothing. If you start somewhere else we have a problem. If you start after life is found on the earth then you have to take everything before the point you begin by FAITH so ... Evolution is the change in species over time, the change in the frequency of alleles in populations from generation to generation, descent with modification, a shift in the proportions of hereditary traits from one generation to the next, etcetera. Without life you don't have the initial stage of this evaluation. Abiogenesis is the science that studies origins. Before the point where life originates the answer currently is "we don't know" -- that is not faith, it is uncertainty, scientific uncertainty.
It is a proven fact that formas over a period of at least 66 million years produced at least 330 different species of formas. But as of today they are still formas. Which just confirms common descent. You do realize that common descent is one of the theories of biological evolution yes? Everything descended from {X} would still be a descendent of {X} no matter WHAT {X} was.
When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. A point I have made is that the term "evolution" applies to (a) the science that studies evolution in the past and the present (b) a theory involving one or more mechanisms that produce the results we see and (c) the factual evidence we have that change in species over time has occurred.
I know what I believe and why, you know what you believe and why. And they will never agree so lets leave it at that. I believe in following the evidence to see where it leads. If you do not agree with that then you are correct. Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by ICANT, posted 04-03-2007 11:33 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 05-02-2007 10:13 AM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 18 of 304 (393302)
04-04-2007 10:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
04-04-2007 12:05 AM
|
|
Re: (lovely) Re-ToE (Me-ToE Made?)
nator writes: The various therories of Abiogenesis
nator writes: Well then your difficulty is with Biochemistry
I don't have a problem with either of them, you do. The problem is mutual: we don't know.
RAZD writes: Before the point where life originates the answer currently is "we don't know" -- that is not faith, it is uncertainty, scientific uncertainty.
Since these sciences can only tell you they don't know you call it scientific uncertainty. Can I have the same privilege because I can't show you God and just call it religious uncertainty. Actually I would still call that scientific uncertainty: we don't know the facts of what happened, nor do we know the process. Until that happens the possibility of special creation and random process are in the same boat: we don't know. I call that scientific uncertainty because science looks to evidence and facts for the answers, and when those can not be determined science is necessarily uncertain. Religious uncertainty I would call agnostic or a questioning of faith, as religion is not based on evidence and facts but on faith ("belief that is not based on proof"). Science is not limited to telling us what we don't know, as there is plenty of evidence for the things we do know:
I will quote RAZD on this one:
RAZD writes: There is about a billion years from the formation of the earth and the first evidence of life noted above. Where did it come from is a question we don't know - and likely can't know - the answer to due to the problem of destruction of the evidence. What caused it is also anyone's guess at this point - we don't have any evidence of how if formed so it is not possible to define the causes (with evidence). (Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from? ( Message 106) (Added link to message) The age of the earth is a fact. We can find evidence that consistently points towards it being at least 4.5 billion years old, whether it is 4.55 or 4.6 billion years old is still uncertain, but we can use >4.5 billion years old as factual. The age of life on earth is a fact. We can find evidence that consistently points towards it being at least 3.5 billion years old, whether it is 3.55 or 3.6 billion years old is still uncertain, but we can use >3.5 billion years old as factual. Likewise evolution is a fact: it has been observed in the genetic flux within populations over time, and it has been observed in actual speciation events observed under controlled conditions (ie scientifically validated).
Chiroptera writes: This is stupid. I have no idea how my ancestors arrived in North America.
But they did exist. And the cyano-bacteria did exist 3.5 billion years ago. Since then the fossil evidence shows an accumulation over time of increased diversity. So we can study what we do know about Chiroptera's ancestors with the same validity that we can study what we do know about the fossil past: we can draw the same kinds of family relationships and test them for validity. This is all - really - that evolution at the "macro" scale is doing, testing the concept of common ancestor to see where the evidence leads.
nator writes: God could have poofed the first life into existence and it would not change the ToE one iota.
It would if God made a full grown man and woman, full grown animals, birds and fishes. No because those "full grown man and woman, full grown animals, birds and fishes" would still have been the foundation for evolution to proceed after creation. It would still be just as valid from that point on as it is to look at it as occurring from cyano-bacteria 3.5 billion years ago. The debate in not over evolution, but common ancestry -- how far back that goes and to which common ancestors.
Evolutionist take what you hope these sciences will prove at a future date on faith, what if they fail to ever give the answer and many have said they never will. Scientifically inclined people follow the evidence to see where it leads. Science is not about answering questions of religious faith (the purpose of life etc) but about answering questions that can be tested and validated based on evidence. Science is happy with uncertainty: it's a challenge and an opportunity, it is where the growth in knowledge occurs as we whittle away at the uncertainty.
If I wanted to remain that way I would not put up with the snide posts, uncalled for sarcasm, and downright bigotry on this forum. I truly appreciate RAZD he has been helpful and pointed out many things in a civil way. Thanks, but I've been called snide, sarcastic, bigoted and worse. I've been suspended for it too. I try to remain civil as best I can, but I also have low tolerance for outright willful clinging to ignorance and delusions, especially when there is evidence to evaluate. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : age of life a fact
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by ICANT, posted 04-04-2007 12:05 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 22 of 304 (393311)
04-04-2007 10:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by StevieBoy
04-04-2007 10:23 AM
|
|
Re: Re-ToE
Many people do not buy into the theory that God exists and yet they only have to look hard and honestly at the body of evidence that supports a firm and tenacious belief in God over 2000 years to wonder if possibly, just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them. So. When are you going to become a Deist? {Added by Edit - thanks shraf}: this is off-topic, but we can discuss it elsewhere. Perhaps on Perceptions of Reality? Here we are discussing the validity of biological evolution versus it being a mode of belief. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : abe
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by StevieBoy, posted 04-04-2007 10:23 AM | | StevieBoy has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: ongoing search for the biological definition of 'kind'
or this one:
perhaps a long nosed hog?
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 92 of 304 (419203)
09-01-2007 2:02 PM
|
|
|
Refpunk - please defend your position
On several other threads Refpunk has made several absurd assertions about what biologists do and do not do. These are two recent examples:
Message 22And evolutionists are humbled indeed by making up impossible and ludicrous scenarios that even children can see are false until they ar brainwashed by those less intelligent as they are, simply because adults are stronger and more powerful than they are. Message 28But it's too bad that scientists have to go into labs to try to define humans and animals, nor can they unbderstand why mice can't breed or change into humans. They therefore jump to impossible conclustions that can't happen in reality all because they don't know why humans and animals have similar genes. The theory of evolution is thus, much more bizarre and impossible than any other theory in the 19th century. Please read the OP on this thread and then defend why you think there is a world wide disinformation conspiracy. If you can. Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 110 of 304 (419898)
09-05-2007 11:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by Vacate
09-05-2007 11:01 AM
|
|
Oklo Natural Reactors (slightly OT)
That is what happens to U238, it becomes plutonium239. When it is in sufficient concentration. Most U238 does not and did not meet this criteria, except in this one location that we know of. Existence of ancient natural reactors was predicted if the required conditions were met, such as occurred at Oklo. See http://www.oklo.curtin.edu.au/
quote:
This is one of the most fascinating stories in the relatively short history of Science and especially in the even shorter history of Nuclear Physics. In 1972 the very well preserved remains of several ancient natural nuclear reactors were discovered in the middle of the Oklo Uranium ore deposit. Since their discovery the Oklo reactors have been studied by many scientists around the world who have uncovered the answers to the following questions. * Where are the Oklo reactors located?
* When did the nuclear reactions occur?
* What caused the nuclear reactions to start?
* Why are these reactors worth studying?
* Who discovered the reactors
* How were the reactors discovered? At this site you can explore the answers to these and many other questions about the Oklo natural fossil reactors and investigate many other things about nuclear fission.
Note last time I visited some of the links were being revised, so you may get link errors. There are multiple paths to the various pages though (the side bar copies them) so you can work around this problem. Note that the existence of these reactors is just another piece of evidence against a young earth (including any fantasy that reaction\decay rates changed magically at some time in the past). Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by Vacate, posted 09-05-2007 11:01 AM | | Vacate has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 119 of 304 (419947)
09-05-2007 4:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 115 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 3:52 PM
|
|
"polystyrate trees" and "ghost forests" (slightly OT)
This is way off topic, I will propose a polystrate fossil thread to discuss this further. Please do. Then I will delete the following and link it to a reply there: Now at Message 3 Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : moved to new thread
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 3:52 PM | | Ihategod has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 140 of 304 (420283)
09-07-2007 9:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 137 by Q
09-07-2007 8:33 AM
|
|
To dismiss out of hand based on what is accepted today as the rational. What is accepted today as rational is science, not untested hypothesis. And the way ideas get into science is by way of tested hypothesis, not by politics or popular vote. It does not matter what the common lay person thinks about evolution, for instance, because they are not involved with studying the science.
The funny thing about the issue is that both ToE and ID start at the same unknown problem ( HOW did it start ). Nope. Evolution starts with life existing. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, so there has to be an initial population for it to work. Abiogenesis is the study of possible development of life from chemicals, and it is an interesting field. There are several threads talking about aspects of this science. ID starts with assuming a designer and then looking for ways to find evidence of it (in the kindest terms using what it should be instead of what it all too frequently is -- politics).
again the "real scientists" are brought up, the dumb ID scientists are just trying to stir up trouble ? The proper way to respond to the assertion made is to actually show creationists doing good science ...
both sides face serious problems in my opinon. notice the
4) Interpret data and draw conclusions
that is what both sides do in there studys and research. Yes and the better interpretations and conclusions use all the data instead of just ones that support an agenda. But I'm glad you brought up the issue of "both sides" ... ... as I think we need to discuss both sides of the design debate before we go much further.
BUT what if the Evo's are wrong... thats a whole other issue. Yes, that would prove that the Silly Design Theory was correct eh?
we are talking about science not conspiracys, there is diffrance. Yes, and the ID movement was started as a conspiracy to subvert education: see the wedge document quote:
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian values.[4]
Those are political, not scientific motives. Question: are you an IDist OR a christian? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : SDT theory proof
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by Q, posted 09-07-2007 8:33 AM | | Q has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 144 by Q, posted 09-07-2007 11:37 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 153 of 304 (420338)
09-07-2007 1:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 144 by Q
09-07-2007 11:37 AM
|
|
I am a Christian. Yes I believe in ID by God. but why do you ask that question specifically ? Because you can't be both without compromise.
I honestly try to stay away from that area when in the arena of E vs ID. but as I stated in another post, I guess that makes me not your typical Christian IDer. Normally when I am asked about my faith, I simply say I'm a Creationist. Then you are not really an IDist, because your creationist views will always limit and corrupt your ID views. You will fail to take ID to it's logical conclusions. For instance an IDesigner that creates the universe 13.7 billion ago and leaves it to operate based on set universal laws does not invalidate cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, or evolution, but it conflicts with creationism. Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by Q, posted 09-07-2007 11:37 AM | | Q has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: THE GREATNESS OF ... being on topic?
Now that you've had your little rant, how about addressing the topic? (see Message 1) Enjoy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 09-18-2007 4:36 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: THE GREATNESS OF ... being on topic?
The issue of a biologist alligning ToE with a finite universe - is at polar extremities of the determinations derived of a infinite one. Two different animals here. This of course explains the biologists that believe in an infinite universe and have no problems with evolution or the theory or how it occurs.
IOW, is your evolution the same when based on a finite universe? - do all the component pieces fit the big pic? Negative! Actually it does. Evolution does not depend on start or end, but on the process from generation to generation and the continuity of life as we know it from whatever beginning of life there was to the life we know today. We know life has existed on this planet for 3.5 billion years out of the 13.7 billion years of the universe's existence -- ~10 billion years before life on this planet is not a major consequence to biology or evolution. There may or may not be life on other planets, that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution. There may or may not be multiple universes, that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution. This universe may be finite or not, that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution. The universe we know may or may not have been created by a god, and that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution. Biology and evolution are concerned with the life we know and how it developed and changed over time, and those are the major concerns of biology and evolution. In this regard it is a small piece of the entire puzzle, and there is no need for it to be any more than that. But that part fits and is a consistent part of the overall big picture.
But if one does not state the criteria they are alligning with and to (the preamble), they risk their conclusion being directed by their findings (which is back to front), and look for bytes that fit. So your contention is that all the thousands of biologists that actually study biology and evolution come to wrong conclusions because they don't understand something that you - knowing nothing of biology or evolution by comparison - happen to know? They are deluded? Incompetent? Myopic? All of them? Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 164 by IamJoseph, posted 09-18-2007 9:21 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: THE GREATNESS OF ... relevance to evolution
Sure - evolution starts in a mid-point, ... And it deals with life as it is. It deals with the evidence of life as we know it. We are talking about biology and about biological evolution.
But this does not justify evolution: a linear progression which accounts for all life graduations, based on the evolutionary process as defined in ToE: ... Time and space don't need to justify evolution. All that is needed to justify evolution is matching the theory to the facts of life as we know it. The Theory of (Biological) Evolution does that. The theory of (stellar) evolution is a different theory and it doesn't have anything to do with biological life, just as biological life has nothing to do with stellar developments.
the mechanics are not alligned with the first start-up factor, which impacts the mechanics applied to the grads. One can say the nuts and bolts of a car can be illustrated with a wrench - but this does not vindicate the process the wrench came the same way, so did the metal, so did the particles which make up the metal: the process fails when back tracked. This is absolute fantasy that is totally irrelevant to biological life and evolution.
Fine. But those premises are not condusive to a finite universe, and an infinte universe cannot justify what evolution is saying. There is no such thing as 'selective' randomness and 'selective' infinity. This also is absolute fantasy that is totally irrelevant to biological life and evolution.
But there are fulcrum glitches in the conclusions, as well as the intermediary process points of evolution: it does not work when the process is back-tracked and applied in its primal foundation: which is a test of it. It cannot be based on any random at the beginning, nor can it be based on infinity. The science and maths become contradictive and illogical here. And this also is absolute fantasy that is totally irrelevant to biological life and evolution. Evolution is not a cosmology or a philosophy of life, and it certainly is not a religion about origins of everything. It is (a) a process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, (b) a general theory that is a synthesis of validated theories on how hereditary traits change in populations from generation to generation, and (c) the science that applies the theory(ies) to understanding life as we know it, based on the evidence we have for early life 3.5 billion years ago to the diversity of life we know today. Creationists keep trying to inflate evolution into something it is not, mostly because they do not (or don't want to) understand it or because they do not understand the scientific way of thinking. What they don't understand is that when they talk about something that is not in the science of evolution then they are not talking about evolution, but some irrelevant fantasy they have created. This is what your several recent verbose posts have been about -- your fantasy, not evolution. Now can we deal with the issue of all the biologists being right or wrong about the theory of evolution having spent their lives studying it and not finding any other valid explanation for life as we know it?
So your contention is that all the thousands of biologists that actually study biology and evolution come to wrong conclusions because they don't understand something that you - knowing nothing of biology or evolution by comparison - happen to know? They are deluded? Incompetent? Myopic? All of them?
None of the above. I guess they have it right then. Thanks. Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by IamJoseph, posted 09-19-2007 1:12 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Understanding the pervue of scientific theories.
LOL I didn't notice that. You can always edit the post to say "This was really in reply to [msg=-xxx] by IamJoseph"
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 224 of 304 (426528)
10-07-2007 11:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 221 by IamJoseph
10-07-2007 10:35 AM
|
|
Re: Evidence Please
I posted here opinions of the most prominent scientists in the aspect of 'speech' - which does contradict everything held by ToE. Except (1) what you posted doesn't contradict the ToE and (2) until you define "speech" so that it can be evaluated you have no argument. As was amply demonstrated on the speech thread, the one where you were completely incapable of making a point because of the total lack of definition on your part.
There is no doubt, that there are big problems with ToE, agreed even by those who support it: Nope. Care to provide some substantiation for this assertion? List the "big problems" first ...
Aside from being an unproven theory, And aside from every single theory in every single science field and in philosophy being an "unproven theory" ... because otherwise it would be called a FACT instead of a theory ... calling any theory an "unproven theory" is a meaningless redundancy. People ignorant of science make this mistake.
And there is formidable motive to distort and negate the evidences concerning speech's history and background: There is a formidable motive in all of science to invalidate all theories, as that is how science operates, and this is why you need to define what you mean by speech: otherwise it could be held up to scrutiny and you absolutely refuse to evaluate it for veracity. You wouldn't want to have your pet theory actually be evaluated for veracity and invalidated now would you? But that is the difference between science and creationist babble.
... or is biology shakled in a prison and cannot go there? Nope, the "shackle" here is your absolute lack of definition for "speech" -- that is what prevents a rational evaluation of whether your concept has any validity or is just creationist babble. You ran screaming from the speech thread making up excuses and ducking the issue ... my logical conclusion is that you cannot define speech in any way that shows it is a different kind of communication from what other animals use, but just a difference in degree. Inability to define your term leaves you little option eh? Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 221 by IamJoseph, posted 10-07-2007 10:35 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
