�It immediately became evident that, wow, this really helps us understand the evolution of the limb,� Dr. Daeschler said. �The story of the emergence of animals with limbs from their fish ancestors is the sexiest part of what we do.�

Are we absolutely certain this wasn't supposed to come out on April 1st?

Your line of reasoning is reminiscent of Holocaust deniers.

Come now, Peter, big theories about huge, complex events have lots of room for individual pieces of evidence.

You know, I think you've topped yourself this time.

Tell me the presses don't disgorge thousands of new titles a year promising dramatic new evidences of God's intentions for Mankind.

There are several ways of attacking darwinism. This kind if sniping just demonstrates that you don't have any good one.

Jeff:

There are two kinds of Holocaust deniers. the first are the nuts who say it never happened. The second are the ones who use abstract arguments to quibble about the definition of holocaust.

Papaya:

I readily confess to some whimsy here, and also an inability to put this discovery in any kind of context, but please recall we are arguing with people who insist everything that ever happened is not only consistent with their theory, it positively validates it. Recall also Harry's "hundred's of million's" of pieces of evidence and Brit and Jeff's assertions that the matter is now beyond debate. Recall the claims that evolution is a determined fact, made with a defiant and jaundiced eye on religion.

Now, a palm sized bone is found beside a road in Pennsylvania(!!)and reputable scientists assert that, while nothing was known heretofore about this issue, it is proof of the transition from fish to land mammal. As you can see from Jeff's post, those who question are considered to be akin to Holocaust deniers.

Do any questions arise in your mind?

How exciting. I'm waiting for them to explain why the mudskipper, the snakehead, and the climbing perch to name a few haven't yet grown wings. They've been walking on dry land for millennia.

For a theory that claims to be proven, incontrovertible fact, it seems to depend upon an almost daily sustenance of key discoveries and exciting breakthroughs.

In what way does it "depend" on this, exactly?

Peter:

My reference was to the kind of reasoning employed. You have resorted to caricature, misdirection, and strawmen.

That has nothing to do with you being akin to Holocaust deniers. They are most foul, and I know you to be quite the opposite. So I apologize if my offhanded remark caused any offence--I can see in retrospect how it could have.

BTW--when I said some aspects of evolution are beyond doubt, I was referring to the fact of it, not how it happened.

If I have interpreted his comments correctly, OJ agrees evolution happened. His dispute is with a mindless, goalless, recursive process being the sole explanation.

It's a missing link, Peter. Orrin says they don't exist. Well, it's true, none live in his backyard because, duh, they're all dead!

Fossils are the evidence they were once alive.

It really does seem that belief in a capricious deity does deprive people of normal intelligence of their reason.

The thing I love about modern Darwinism is its' modification through the addition of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and stasis. Any fossil found supports one version or another through the use of somewhat imaginative extrapolation. There have only been a few historical examples of such ideological attachment to theories said to be scientific and the results were not very pleasant.

Harry:

Science says it's a fossil from a creature that doesn't exist anymore. Your faith says it is a missing link.

Harry:

There probably hasn't been anything really new written about Christianity in about 450 years.

Broadening to religion itself, that can be extended back to about the 8th century. The fluff of today was around in ancient times, but back then it was a little more substantial (i.e., they built temples to it, whatever it was). But there probably isn't much of a difference between Bourbon St. and the erotic temples in Corinth.

Peter:

At one time, Creationists "proved" Darwinism false because of the absence of "transitional forms" from the fossil record.

Which means a couple things. One, despite assertions that Darwinism isn't provable, it apparently actually is, since the appearance of a transitional form would do just that.

Two, what is this, if not a transitional form?

Jeff:

Darwinism or naturalism can not be "proven" wrong because of the absence of anything. The existence of evidentiary gaps is not a disproof, nor a reason in and of itself to be sceptical or scornful.

The problem is a logical one. Evolutionary biologists are very quick to make connections based upon physical or genetic similarities. But they have to, don't they. Can you imagine a paleontologist discovering a new fossil and saying that it has no connection to any other species? That is no more likely than a fundamentalist saying G-d had no connection to this or that disaster because He was on holiday. The a priori assumptions of natural selection drive the interpretations of the findings (and inspire artists). Aren't you a little uneasy at how the scientists in this story are so quick to visualize and describe a whole new species on the basis of one tiny bone? Do you not see how the likelihood of finding a "missing link" will increase with the determination to find it and conviction it is there?

BTW, get some sleep!

Peter:

Then nothing in science can be proven wrong, because of the virtual impossibility of proving the absence of a negative.

If the connections weren't there, and true, then contradictions, big and small, would quickly appear. The means of reconstructing fossils and using engineering principles to determine function is pretty rigorous.

So, in general, no, I'm not uneasy--as long as science proceeds unimpeded, the truth will out.

Thanks for the suggestion--despite what the experts say, it seems 5 hours a night does it for me. Sometimes they don't all come at once. I got tired of staring a hole in the ceiling, so decided to do something fun, but completely unproductive :-)

Jeff:

"Then nothing in science can be proven wrong, because of the virtual impossibility of proving the absence of a negative."

Isn't that what testable, repetitive experimentation is all about?

Unproductive? Man, we are fighting to save civilization here. Of course, you are on the wrong side, so maybe you have a point. :-)

No, Peter, that's not what science is about.

The theory is not provable by positive evidence, just demonstrable.

It is disprovable by positive evidence -- find a bird fossil older than a thecodont fossil and all darwinists will surrender immediately.

At some point, a bunch of demonstrations start to look an awful lot like proof and most people stop thinking that lack of inconsistency is a problem.

Have you ever put your hand in a candle flame? Twice?

Harry.

Come to think of it, yes I have. My headaches go away when I take aspirin too. I guess that means Darwinism is Truth.

Peter:

I think you misunderstand what I said, which has nothing to do with confirmation through experimentation.

Rather, it has to do with the impossibility of proving a contradiction does not exist.

It is impossible to "prove" no cats have wings. But, after seeing enough cats without wings, and none with, then at some point it makes sense to take it as proven, without conducting any more experiments.

Jeff:

I'm sure I did misunderstand. As you guys never tire of pointing out, my inability to understand is an intractable problem. I completely agree with you about cats and wings. And with Harry about candle fire and burns. So?

So you are deficient in understanding the logic of proof and, even more so, the concept of demonstration.

I bet you only needed one demonstration with the candle flame to draw a conclusion.

With a different question, it might take more demonstations before you feel confident in your hypotheses. But at some point in any system, mere stubbornness in the absence of a counterdemonstration (and, in the case of darwinism, absence of any coherent competing theory) becomes silly.

Well, Harry, if you want to pretend I've gone off the deep end and am now denying natural history, fine. I guess that's why you feel cryptic scorn is a sufficient answer.

Are you telling me there is no difference between drawing conclusions about the effects of natural phenomena we can see and experience repeatedly in our lifetimes and the process of collecting evidence in support of a historical theory?

Peter

Can you clarify: are you sceptical of evolution, or just Darwinism?

ie. are you a firm creationist/Bible literalist, or a firm Intelligent Design-ist, or are you just sceptical about evolution in general with your 'default' position being creationism/ID?

It all gets a bit mixed up so it would help if you could explain your position.

Brit:

I am very sceptical of the theory that naturalism alone is a sufficient expanation for the appearance, nature and history of man. In fact, I think it is hogwash, because they are not even describing the same species whatever the genome says. I am very sceptical on logical grounds about a lot of the claims darwinists make about what their evidence means, but that does not mean I have concluded they are error or have full-blown alternatives. And I think many darwinists are insufferable prigs whose pompous egos are a joy to unsettle. (No, not here).

I may have been careless at times in the heat of battle, but I think any other belief on this subject attributed to me originates in Harry's mind.

Thanks.

I think you summarise the problems most anti-darwinists have with the evolution and natural selection: its application to man.

Hardcore Genesis-literalists aside, I believe Darwinism would be far less controversial if it were just concerned with the evolution of plants and maybe molluscs. Possibly even if it were just concerned with every animal except man.

Given what we know about genes and biogeography, natural selection just makes sense of the historical evidence.

The problems come when darwinists assert that evolution-wise, there is nothing special about man, and that evolution is not human-centric. We're just another branch on the phylogentic tree, no more or less 'special' than dung beetles and cockroaches.

Which is understandable.

But of course, even if we're not 'special' in terms of evolutionary success, man is still unique among all animals, and has special capabilities and responsibilities. Man has unique intelligence, unique self-consciousness and abstract thought, unique capacities for creating and appreciating beaty, art, love, principles, morality and so on.

No Darwinist denies that. We have just found other ways of explaining man's uniqueness. Darwinism is not nihilism.

Brit:

Fair enough, but you would have to go through some tortured logical hoops to explain why man is not included, don't you? What happens to common ancestors? And in terms of the popular darwinism that my children are force-fed, no one seems to make the distinction. Quite the contrary. Goop to man in one straight line.

I don't know if you have any more time for C.S. Lewis than you have for Chesterton, but there is a wonderful passage in "Living in an Atomic Age" in which he argues on the basis of natural principles and the evidence before our eyes that we are not from here and originate somewhere else. Calm down, he doesn't mean it physically or literally. He focus' on man's alienation (which I think is the origin of art and the quest for pleasure). It's beautiful. But the more you contemplate what he is saying, the more you realize that the creature not only darwinists but also economists, behaviouralists, sociologists, etc. describe as a matter of course bears very little ressemblance to you, yourself. It always describes other people perfectly, but never you.

Peter

Yes, you would have to jump through tortuous hoops, which is what the Catholic Church does with it's undefined 'soul infusion' point.

And which is why we Darwinists can't and don't make an exception for man.

And it's also why Intelligent Design has replaced Creationism as the main opponent of Darwinism. Everyone except OT literalists have accepted evolution for plants, bacteria, molluscs etc, but they have to have an exception for man, and thus evolution has to have been 'directed' towards its ultimate goal: the rise of mankind.

We Darwinists can't justify this approach, or any special distinction for man in evolution.

But man is unique, even if materialism is true.

-----

Does this non-dualism, this absence of a 'spirit' describe ME personally?

Yep, there's the rub.

For Darwinists and materialists, we have to accept that although we humans are uniquely creative, intelligent, art-loving etc, when we die there's no afterlife, just an end to consciousness, and physically, a return to dust.

Which is a bit of a bummer if you dwell on it too long, and I suspect THE chief reason that the religious dispute materialism, and consequently Darwinism, so fervently.

I don't know, perhaps you should just leave that loose tooth alone.

After all, nobody enjoys those long dark nights when you feel like this.

(Warning: reading the poetry linked to can lead to prolonged bouts of mournful navel-gazing, for which the only known remedy is a nice cup of tea)

Brit:

"...I suspect THE chief reason that the religious dispute materialism, and consequently Darwinism, so fervently."

Ah, enter the brave atheist, courageously confronting his despair and existential nihilism. Preferably in a Paris cafe with lots of wine and some adoring, comely proteges yearning to comfort him.

You guys pride yourselves on rescuing man from the shackles of religious guilt and oppression and freeing him to fulfill his natural potential. Then you turn around and, in a sudden bout of nostalgia, see the religious as cuddling up to a comforting nanny who tells them she will always take care of them. Now, that's what I call rational!

Peter:

Ouch! That was a bit unnecessary.

But if you're going to throw CS Lewis at me, you can have a bit of Larkin in return.

Instant karma...

It's the difference between telling god how to organize his universe and asking him what he did.

If you ask -- which is what the materialists do -- you might not like the answer. But it doesn't matter what you like.

If there is a god, and if he sits in judgment, and if he's as shorttempered as the Bible says he is, I'd tremble to be an antidarwinian coming before him.

Maybe (I don't think so, but maybe) the darwinian got the wrong answer. But he asked the right question.