Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:38:53 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.
My Southern Baptist Mother (rest her soul) always said that
the theory of evolution was an atheist conspiracy. :-)
A wonderful lady I'm sure. My mother also did not believe in evolution.
She always said "Man did not descend from Apes" She was right on that
count, but wrong about evolution.

The theory has stood the test of time. So many other concepts and
measurements corroborate with it, and none disprove it. If it is wrong,
then most of what we know about the universe is wrong. There will always
be details that may indicate that something here or there needs an
update. But the basic concept and most of the details has survived much
more rigorous testing than the reference material of those who declare
it wrong.


Those who declare it wrong generally do so from a rigid religious
foundation and then they seek facts - bending them unmercifully in the
process - to support their preconceived objection that the Theory of
Evolution is non- (or even worse, anti-) religious.

It's a battle between objective science and those who believe the
Bible is the literal word of God. Those who believe the Bible is
often allegorical tend to have no real problem with evolution once
they understand it never said that man descended from apes.

One of the most interesting things is that the allegorical nature of
the Bible was an accepted notion, and the so-called fundamentalist ideas
are a relatively new thing, originating in the late 1800's early 1900's.
So I guess it took most of two millenium for them to get it right? Old
time religion apparently started a long time after it started.



And it seems that the theory of evolution has been proved
not to be 100% correct. Man is already, or soon will be,
capable of creating designer species. That's certainly not
random selection. How does manufacturing human blood within
a pig's body fit with the theory of evolution? :-)
I'm not sure how that disproves anything regarding the theory. In fact,
those things we are tinkering with are just an extension of the theory
in the end. Where the pressure to mutate - and therefore change - comes
from is not necessarily important i the end, but say we're talking about
sheep with human organs in them. Ever wonder what happens to the
embryo's and young ones that didn't have the right attributes?


I'd tend to call the whole thing scientific tinkering vs evolution
(natural selection) and I'd characterize Cecil's objections as a near
total non sequitur. You can force fit it if you wish, but I consider
it more charity than anything else to do so. ;-)


I think Cecil's point was more along the line of look at the issues
with this stuff, so how can you be so sure of what you are talking
about. I think that was in response to my noting the interesting
universe we would live in should the law of conservation of energy not
hold sway. (my best guess is that such a universe would be incompatible
with anything living in it, and would immediately destroy itself)

But that conservation of energy law is just about as foundational as you
can get.


How about "string theory", something that cannot even be
tested? Last I heard, there were seven or so competing
string theories - all "logically self-consistent"????
Lots more than that, even. More flavors than Baskin-Robbins. I can't
really speculate a lot on string theory. String always seemed like a
"just so" story to me.


The math - and it's all math at this point - is well beyond something
close to (and probably on the other side of) 99% of mathematicians.
Those at the cutting edge of this field who fully understand the
theory and the underlying math to the extent they can actually add to
current knowledge probably number less than 50, maybe even closer to a
dozen. And it's all complicated by many different theories with not
enough truly capable people sharing one or more theories to mount a
decent peer review effort sufficient to reduce the number of theories
significantly.

It's a work in progress. Even the paintings of the masters looked
like hell at some point before they were finished.

Perhaps. My gut on this is that there are so many flavors, all designed
to "correct" something else. So I'll look into it from time to time, but
I'm not going to hold my breath. 8^) And that math.....

- 73 d eMike KB3EIA -