The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.

quote:

---

maybe the IDistas will come up with a theory that can be used to definitely identify intelligent design, and we can sit back and have our paradigms shift!

---

Point well taken.
I am already sitting back further than most of the rest here.
I dimly see one, I just dont want to do all the deconstruction nessesary to create this place for space.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-06-2005 11:47 AM

Isnt this point about a best vs better theories really just masking the issue of evo as fact vs if there were OTHER ALTERNATIVE THEORIES that evolution could NOT THEN be said to have been a fact, except of course in the sense that a legal theory is in itself (a) fact?So it seems to come up to Not, if there are non-evo alternatives (you name your version of creationism or ID etc) but if there are alternative THEORIES OF EVOLUTION(biological change)!I had not seen the Nelson's reference to Lyell's equilibirum of species deaths and lifes until this past week. It is becoming SOoooo increasingly clear to me that DARWINSVIEW is an elitist construct ONLY. I compare SUNY Fredonia and SUNY Cornell to "see" this (when it is not Cornell Arts and Sciences). Lyell's pre-neodarwinist position is MORE materialistic than Darwin's for if a DEATH is equilibrated with a LIFE then this is only happening with inorganic exchanges. I see the integration of hierachial thermodynamics with macrothermodyanmics to possibly afford this other view. Now this would not have the same history of testing but it seems an alternative THEORY. It describes in these deaths the decleration of evolution.Now I have no truck with the notion that Darwin's rejection of this Lyells' uniformitarianism in the thought that it is not life that equilibrate with death but rather that there are too many babies to be supported by the carrying capacity of the environment but this looks ONLY like elitist fratnerity acceptance (Scottish economic analogy) to me. Besides one could construct a death-life equilibrium ON TOP of Darwin's wedging survival (its not what dies but what survives (the dying are less fit)) if the equilibrium were brought back to the first law of thermodynmaics instead of viewing a potential equilbrium ONLY on Wright's calculations OR Lotka-Votlterra biomaths.I think there clearly are OTHER CONSTRUCTABLE THEORIES OF BIOLOGICAL CHANGE, therefore the "fact" of evolution is not a unified thing as the popular notion of fact is. I learned that fact in law is in fact otherwise as it simply is required for there to exist an allegation for a fact to exist. In that sense every debate post on EVC changes the fact somewhat. That IS silly. So I must disagree with Crashfrog as well and it is my feeling that ICR would not be decrying theories of evolution based on equilibria if this opened the impass the frog is so far luckily able to avoid contracting red leg for holding onto. They are for good science not ones that are this dogmatic where alternatives can not get the hearing because of a lack of ELITIST history (read liberal if you must)( I wouldnt).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-08-2005 07:15 AM

I am going to discuss this difference of how we accept and if we investigate, in response to Wounded King's query on the criticism of the RNA explanation
selection response
@WK's great question
EvC Forum: Mendel wasn't entirely right
I will show that how we investigate will be missed by following
Zimmer's take on the chart in which THE FACT
is simply if a sign is above or below a line (in that case
Mendel's

quote:

---

"The result of the fertilisation may be made clear by putting the signs for the conjoined egg and pollen cells in the form of fractions, those for pollen cells above and those for the egg cells below the line. We then have A/A + A/a+a/A+a/a."

---

for there was a confusion there on the union of the principle of the universal mechanism of matter and the teleological principle in the technique of nature by hypothesis) to consider the material world as mere phenomenon and to this as its substrate being something like a thing in itself which is not a phenomenon), and to attach to this a corresponding intellectual intution(even though it is not ours). The latter is developed by Kant but available as a design duty from Cantor's difference of real and reale numbers for a whole number. Mendel placed in this intuition the pollen above but that was arbitrary for the creos placement of the SAME LINE which was not a plant but the thing like a thing in itself.It is not clear to me that one can not mediate this failure to so investigate and your "how" but we will have to see. I did not mean to say there were no reasons for evos to not use legislative notions of fact but if a particular fact is reduced to HOW, namely what kind of math signs are used and we fail to investigate this seems to be an evo problem not a creo one in the facts of e/c as i see it. In the case I will discuss with WK if he is willing it will not be a matter of acceptance for the relation of the sign's A and a to alleles in biology and the use of the line to represent division IS ALREADY ACCEPTED. That is all i will need. I will simply show how divisions are acceptable divisions. My parents are here for the weekend so it might not be till next week I explain this weird skipping of generations.I hope that wasnt too much of a preview. I made some raw notes but I need to work up the exemplar by taking out my own example of anger.So it would only be directly available in this thread if Mendelism was metaargued as agasint Darwinism (not an impossibility). Hint-its about division by zero and cell death. I hope the data on the plants matches this expectation. In theory it becomes a matter of distributivity not luck. How to disseminate the better theory is a matter of money rather than luck as well.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-08-2005 10:35 AM