-Caveat Lector-
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Stokes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ric Carter writes:
>
> << You may believe what you wish, but evolutionary biology is supported
> by a vast amount of data - it's the best, most usable model we have
> thus far. If you have a better explanation, one that's testable and
> more inclusive and parsimonious, please whip it out.>>
>
> I do not believe I have ever heard of Darwin's theory being put to the
> test. I have not read of anyone putting nonorganic chemicals in a bell
> jar and creating organic life . That would be a true test of the theory.
You are confusing evolution [the survival of change over time, driven
by mechanisms such as (but not limited to) natural selection], with
abiogenesis [the origin of life from non-living components]. The
deliberate muddying of these two separate subjects is a favorite
tactic of creationists and other sophists.
Evolution has been observed, can be observed in any microbiology lab,
is indisputable; the mechanisms of evolution are still debatable, and
our understanding of the processes of biological evolution continues
to evolve; but evolution happens. Similarly, gravity exists; there
is a lively debate over the mechanisms of gravity - curved space?
graviton particles and anti-particles? - but as with biological
evolution, there's no doubt that gravity happens. Arguing against
biological evolution is about as useful as arguing against gravity.
Abiogenesis also exists, as been replicated in labs, in work going
back 45 years and continuing today. Urey and Miller showed in 1954
that the chemicals necessary for life can arise in nonbiological
environments - no deities or aliens need be invoked. Priogene
showed in 1976 that prebiological chemicals self-organize into
more complex systems; and other chaos/complexity researchers since
then have shown that systems tend to self-organize into greater
complexity, given an input of energy - no deities or aliens are
necessary. And a German team reported a few weeks ago of non-
living organic structures organizing into reproducing entities -
artificial life. Abiogenesis happens. Your argument is bogus.
> The mathematical probability of this happening is astronomical to
> say the least:
"Everything is unlikely, yet things happen anyway." (me) Arguing
against the unliklihood of abiogenesis is a favorite tactic of
cretinists and other sophists, to instill confusion about the laws
of large numbers. The probability that the sum-over-time of ALL
events in history have occurred so as to give rise to ANY current
event is vanishingly small. But somehow, events manage to occur.
MIRACLE!! MIRACLE!! Nope - given enough events, things happen.
And things tend to happen in more and more complex ways, simply
because there's a lower bound on simplicity but no upper bound on
complexity. That complex systems arise from semi-random processes
is surprising only to those who don't pay attention.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
