|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
olivortex Member (Idle past 4804 days)  Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
olivortex Member (Idle past 4804 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
I'm glad to see that i have provoked some reactions. It seems language is both a mean and an obstacle to communication. It is an obstacle mostly when we decided not to agree on terms at the very start. cf my favourite F.Zappa quote.
There is a difference in science between "proving" a theory and confirming an observation. That you have two legs is an observation, not a theory. If you are going to confuse an observation (data) with a theory (an explanation for data) then we really have no common ground for communication. I agree with Coyote, of course. I'm not one who likes to make some blur just for the fun of blurrying tracks, when we need to clear up the road, and even less when it comes to the evolution topic. Mumbo-jumbo is not my thing (to tell the truth, i hade never heard or read this expression before  ). Pretending to get philosophical on this topic would make me look even more lost in front of some questions about life. Because i can feel like it sometimes. These questions, when discussed, imply honesty and respect of receivable arguments. On other forums I have tried to be as conceding and honest as I could, in order to understand why i couldn't see the same way as creationists do. My fellows from "the other side" (to me there is no side, really) deliberately behaved as if they had forgotten some of the satisfying answers i had given them, as i was asked to give straight answers, that had to constitute...proofs. It's true that it's hard to avoid the rethorical aspect sometimes, but it's part of the discussion not only to show figures, to get conclusive all the way. I myself am not good at figures and science in general so i'll take any instructive info from anybody, no matter they're ID or ET supporters  Well thank you for the feedback. I hope i can keep on browsing the pages of this forum more often. Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
olivortex Member (Idle past 4804 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
olivortex Member (Idle past 4804 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
Sure, it brings us way back, but i actually think many people got it all wrong because of this:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." [p. 217, Charles Darwin, 1859. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London, 1859 (published by Penguin Books, London, England, 1968, reprinted 1986 with an introduction and bibliography by J.W. Burrow] That brings us even earlier, to the starting point of the battle, in fact
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
