Who are you arguing against? No one, to my knowledge has stated that (a) we know everything or (b) we won't know more as time goes on.

Are you a farmer, perchance? 'Cause you're mighty good at making strawmen.

I'm pretty sure now that 'Paul' is a character created to make fun of creationists. Shame on you

At this rate, 2005 will be refered to as 1426 in 3005.

I wonder if the evolutionists are aware of the extremely limited number of mitochondrial DNA strands that exist in the 6 billion inhabitants of our little world. There are only 7 mitochondrial strands for all women of european descent, which means that there were only 7 european women at a point in the not to distant past. The same roughly for African and asian. This is not a debatable point.

What explains it, oozers?

Looking over your continuance of the "oozer" strawman, here's an article on the topic:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

Now, I know, Talk Origins is evil and liberal and all that other muckety-muck, but the bottom line appears to be that the title of Mitochondrial Eve changes "hands."

I suspect DS or Pharyngula can provide a more thorough response, should they still be interested in participating in a discussion with someone like Paul.

Andy, I've never said Talk Origins is evil. I've never said anyone was evil.

I hesitate to type because you will not read this and I know you will never stop to consider if I have a point. But I'll try anyway... (boy I learn slow)

I tell ya what... reread this post (it is short) 5 or 6 times. Now go read everything I have written about the topic as viewed thru the lens of this post.

Andy, if you do that you you find that rather than this being a strawman as you claim, every word I've written was the long way of saying what I am saying above.

I just found a way to say it with a graph.

You can choose to get my point or not. It really is up you.

I've never said anyone was evil. Just that they have missed the point because the simple word "evolution" sends people into a tizzy....

You can choose to look at the larger picture I am painting or you can call it a strawman... Your choice.

Well .. 'Oozer Zealots' would make an excellent name for a garage band.

Paul, you're engaging in the equivalent of Pythagoreans trying to 'squaring the circle'.

Sure - the ratio of the circumference of the circle to its diameter is just so *damned* useful that it has to be planned ... designed really... and oughtn't we really be able to take a circle and unfold it to make a square using only a compass and an unmarked straight edge?

Once you realize that, no matter what approach you try the task falls outside the tools you have, then you're left with belief.

The next 1,000 years of development and expansion of awareness of biodiversity and life's origins won't reveal God's - or what ever energy equivalent you choose - signed original work order.

That knowledge might be extended due to the work of people who believe in ID, much as an understanding of geometry and arithmetic were developed by people who were, by modern standards, religious nut jobs.

I'm all for beating up on strict Darwinian orthodoxy or pointing out that Evolution is a theory. I've seen the ugly side of people who's fundamental beliefs are challenged - try saying 'Ohm's Theory' among a group of electrical engineers -

But ... most ID people are beating up a form of Darwinism, which wasn't the same Darwinism at the time the guy who published his findings and theories died.

There's a bit of a strawman angle to that.

fwiw - I'm all for teaching an ID-involved theories class. Were I the science teacher though, the urge to precede every lecture by playing a tape with a series of harp-riffs to indicate a dream sequence would be strong ... very strong.

But, hey, God would approve.

I have faith in that.

Paul, you could have simply said "we don't know everything about the origin of life or all of the mechanisms behind evolution." I don't think anyone here would have argued with that.

Instead you turned it into a rant against evolutionary theory, a concept which you defined to your own liking in the very post.

That we don't know everything doesn't mean that we don't know enough to have strongly supported scientific theories (keyword: scientific) that best fit our observations and continue to be supported by said observations.

No one claims that evolutionary biology is a static field with all the answers - well, no one except the imaginary boogeymen against whom you argue.

BumperStickerist, I've been 100% consistent arguing against BOTH creationism AND the oozers.

But you have proved my point about people not reading and leaping to stupid conclusions when they see the word "evolution."

thanks

Thank you andy for not reading.

Wow, Paul, just when I thought you couldn't possibly post anything dumber! Anything for traffic, I guess....

So, will you be quoting a source for this graph or is it yet another of your assinine fabrications? Perhaps this would more accurately refer to your [i]own[/i] level of knowledge rather than mankinds'? Oh, but that still wouldn't work--the bar at 2005 is above zero. And the notion that you could learn anything on the subject within a thousand years is utterly ridiculous.

Whoa. You made up some numbers, plugged them into Excel, and made a graph? Not only that, you invented a single-dimensional parameter called "knowledge" (what, by the way, are the units for that?), and made a baseless thousand year forecast?

That graph is a wonderful example of pseudoscience. I'm stealing it.

What I'm getting out of Paul's posts is:
Too many people call Evolution Theory a theory while treating it as proven.

More information might lend strength to the theory, but it could just as easily weaken it. Those who assume that Evolution Theory is just a step or two away from becoming Evolution Law and then argue on the basis of that belief to deride Creationists/IDists are being shortsighted at best, and hypocritical at worst.

Someone truly committed to science would be open to the possibility that ID could just as easily be proven in the next decade as Macro-Evolution, going wherever the actual evidence leads, and would take either result as equally fine. It is clear from the style and substance of responses to Paul's comments that many people would have a negative emotional reaction to the discovery of additional evidence for ID; indeed, they refuse to acknowledge that it has any aspect of accuracy or utility, demanding that it not be taught in school.

Which is an ironic form of censorship, in my opinion, since all ID really does is posit an answer to the several significant problems with Evolution Theory. Refusing to acknowledge the Evolution even has problems, or arguing/assuming that those problems have already been answered/resolved is a reaction remarkably similar to religious faith.

Except that Paul isn't even coming down that strongly on ID's side, and he still gets savaged as if he was.

Please note: I am only arguing for people to be open to all logic and evidence rather than a subset that reinforces their views. I'm no longer arguing for or against Evolution Theory or ID.

What I'm getting out of Paul's posts is:
Too many people call Evolution Theory a theory while treating it as proven.

More information might lend strength to the theory, but it could just as easily weaken it. Those who assume that Evolution Theory is just a step or two away from becoming Evolution Law and then argue on the basis of that belief to deride Creationists/IDists are being shortsighted at best, and hypocritical at worst.

Nathan, please, don't try to make these people think.

They just aren't that good at it.

Why the amount that we know will increase, the unknown and the unknowable are and will always be infinite.

Good lord, Paul... the horse... it's dead... please leave it be.

What a ridiculously obvious strawman argument, Paul!

No one has claimed that we won't know more about the origins of the diversity of life in the future, nor has anyone claimed that the Theory of Evolution may not require modification in the future in response to new evidence.

No one.

Please give it up, Paul. You're only digging yourself in deeper and deeper with each post. I'm suggesting this as friendly advice. I don't like to watch the slow motion train wreck that your posts on evolution have become, and I hate to see a person so thoroughly embarrass himself because he is too proud to reverse course.

The point that Paul seems so hell-bent upon missing is this: a good scientist does not reject, out of hand, new evidence that contradicts current thinking. Indeed, he embraces it. That is the nature of the scientific process.

However, the key word here is "evidence". No scientist is going to take absurd speculation, unfounded in any demonstrable way, seriously. When scientists ignore the babblings of people like this, it isn't because they are not open to new interpretations of their data: it's because these are NOT interpretations, at all, but weird emanations from left field.

It's like this:

Hungry Guy: Look, a delicious ham sandwich!

Scientist (sniffing the sandwich): Actually, judging from the smell, I believe this is a delicious PASTRAMI sandwich.

Paul (who hasn't even looked at the sandwich, since he is occupied with his own lunch): I must disagree. This is a dog's bottom sandwich, no two ways about it. Yes. Definitely dog's bottom.

Hungry Guy and Scientist: No, it's not.

Paul: Hammers! Hammers!

Ye gads.

Paul has been painted virtually as a Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christian for questioning evolution and he's the one creating strawman arguments? Uh, HELLO!!!

Yes, Paul is the one using straw man arguments. His entire post and graph is nothing but one big straw man argument, for the simple reason that no one who has criticized him is claiming that our scientific knowledge won't increase in the future or that the Theory of Evolution won't require modification on the basis of new data someday. He's attacking an argument that no one has actually made.

Paul's argument is also a nonsequitur, because it does not follow from the observation that scientific knowledge will increase by some unknown amount in the future that the present scientific understanding of evolution is incorrect. It's possible, even likely, that some aspects of our understanding are, but simply pointing out that our scientific knowledge is likely to increase over the next millenium doesn't prove that.

Sadly, Paul's a regular font of logical fallacies these days.

I get it Paul, I understand what you are saying and probably why you are saying it. If you're like me you don't know the truth in the matter and all these people attacking you obviously aren't too far removed from swinging in trees themselves. I think your chart is overly optimistic though, the people railing against you now will never advance their understanding and I'm afraid the same will hold true for their offspring. A pie chart might help, if it's a banana cream pie.

"Someone truly committed to science would be open to the possibility that ID could just as easily be proven in the next decade as Macro-Evolution, going wherever the actual evidence leads, and would take either result as equally fine. "

Just note, I would say there is also a third possibility that we are unaware of yet.

I admit my bias is towards the "GOd did it" approach, but I absolutely agree with Paul that there are evolution zealots out there they don't like to hear anyone even suggest there are some serious flaws in the theory, when it comes to explaining how life went from particles to people.

Someone truly committed to science would be open to the possibility that ID could just as easily be proven in the next decade as Macro-Evolution, going wherever the actual evidence leads, and would take either result as equally fine.

Depends what you mean by "ID", I guess. If you mean just harping on quirks and lacunae in evolutionary theory, perhaps. Yes, evolutionary theory may have some holes or exceptions (but we'll only find that out by showing that there's some other mechanism responsible for certain observations; e.g., neutral drift and so on). Evolution doesn't have to be responsible for all observations, nor is it likely to be (although it is apparently responsible for so many that it is scientifically irresponsible to dismiss it). But that's hardly "proving" ID, any more than it's proving the "elephants on turtle backs" theory.

If you mean proposing some other mechanism, involving "intelligent design", and showing that it is responsible for certain observations, and that it holds up to experimental validation, you're going far beyond what any IDers are doing. No one, for instance, has proved that an intelligent designer of any shape or form is capable of designing and creating the bacterial flagellum. Why should we take seriously any "theory" that fails to do what it so stridently complains that the accepted theory does not do?

Cheers,

Paul, I've got some anthills in my yard that could use a good stirring up. ;-)

Paul's argument is also a nonsequitur

Oscar it is not a non-sequitur because it is a graphical representation of what I was trying to say but people did not want to hear. .

Since I presume you agree with my generic point in the post, then if you took the time to read the rests of the posts, you would (thru clinched teeth be forced to) agree with them as well.

In the end, it is easier for the lazy to call me a bible thumper than actually think.

My over-riding point is/was that "we don't know jack" about all "this stuff." (you define "all this stuff") And no amount as tagging me a bible thumper can change that.

Non-sequitur? Nope.

Strawman???? Is calling someone a bible thumper a strawman when that person SPECIFICALLY argued against creationism? You tell me.

My other argument is that when people hear the word "evolution" they make stupid assumptions.

You clearly did that the first time. Care try better the second?

Sigh. *Rolls eyes*

Anybody other than me notice the bottom of the post where Paul picked a Category?

Paul, you're getting addicted to this.

Which is an ironic form of censorship, in my opinion, since all ID really does is posit an answer to the several significant problems with Evolution Theory. . . .

Ummm, no, it doesn't. But feel free to show that I'm mistaken here. What's the "answer"?

. . . Refusing to acknowledge the Evolution even has problems, or arguing/assuming that those problems have already been answered/resolved is a reaction remarkably similar to religious faith.

Care to trot out someone who doesn't acknowledge that evolution is a dynamic field of research, and that the answers aren't all known right now? There's tons of "problems": things that need to be worked out. Lots of areas ripe for investigation. None of this refutes the basic principles of evolutionary theory or the overall explanatory power of evolutionary theory to account for the observations of biology, paleontology, etc.

HTH.

Cheers,

I wonder if the evolutionists are aware of the extremely limited number of mitochondrial DNA strands that exist in the 6 billion inhabitants of our little world. There are only 7 mitochondrial strands for all women of european descent, which means that there were only 7 european women at a point in the not to distant past. The same roughly for African and asian. This is not a debatable point.

What explains it, oozers?

well, 1) you are wrong, 2) the number of "lineages" (not strands) that scientists usually identify are concerned with particular alleles on loci on the mitochondria DNA. in other words: there are "seven lineages identified by sevel common alleles on one locus." that does not exclude the possibility of other lineages/alleles which exist in such low frequencies that they are discarded from the discussion. in any case, if you divided a population into all the unique mtDNA strands, then you would many more lineages.

I get it Paul, I understand what you are saying and probably why you are saying it.

I'm saying it because the zealots give science a bad name. From my first post I predict the nuts would go loco and geeze was I right.

The irony, that they are blind to, is that while they think they are defending science they are turning it into religion. No room for discussion, attack anyone who says anything and label him a bible thumper.

Next they will all be moving to Salem and looking for witches.

And the final bit of twisted humor is that they call me "anti-science" It's funny or sad, not sure which.

Paul's premise that knowledge will increase during the next thousand years is not NECESSARILY true. During that period, we could experience the following:

1. A new Dark Ages presided over by the AntiChrist.

2. The Battle of Armageddon.

3. The return of Christ at the Apacolypse.

4. Judgment Day.

5. The casting of Oozers into the Abyss.

6. The final debunking of Darwinism among the faithful in heaven.

Oh shit, have I outed myself as a Thumper?

I thought you were saying it because the people attacking you have shorter attention spans than the chimps they may or may not be descended from. If a single one of them has actually read your other posts on the subject they must not have understood them. It does make the case for evolution if you look at it that way, but it would make the case for evolution skipping multiple generations in certain families, some of these guys are clearly failing to keep up.

Paul's premise that knowledge will increase during the next thousand years is not NECESSARILY true.

I STAND CORRECTED!

If the oozers burn the heretics at the stake we might regress. I had not considered that.