I thought that might be misunderstood. The statement in question was a facetious reference to volumes of scripture, not contemporary peer-reviewed journals (I might have used a winking smiley). Having explained this, the answer to your question is obvious I think.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Vicky Hollenbeck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:45 PM Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution >A further comment on the post by Neal Bryan about the statement "There > *is* quite a body of supporting literature, misinterpreted as it may be." > I must ask whether this body of literature is recognized by any scientific > community (meaning those who practice science as a profession or who are > recognized themselves as being scientists) as science. Peer-review is an > essential component of the process of what is considered to be valid > science. > > ---------------------------------- > Vicky Hollenbeck > USDA Agricultural Research Service > Corvallis, OR > 541-738-4136 > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Brian?= wrote: > >> I'm not convinced that I understand some of what you have to say here, >> however: >> >> The most basic tenet of most religions is that there is a God of one form >> or >> another. Most go on to claim that this God interacts (or interacted) >> either >> directly or indirectly with humans and/or our world. None of these >> claims >> can be addressed in any way by science. No matter what the result of any >> test is, a believer can always take one step back and claim "God did it." >> There's simply no way to disprove God exists. And falsifiability is, >> after >> all, what science is all about. >> >> Maybe I missed something important in your post. If so I apologize. But >> I >> have yet to come across a major "religious belief" that is testable, much >> less falsifiable. >> >> As to the scientific evidence for evolution being "convincing but not >> incontrovertible" I very much disagree. That life did not evolve is no >> more >> likely than flying pigs playing dueling banjos. >> >> >> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:56:02 -0500, Neal Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> I agree that scientists do not *believe* in, but rather accept >>> evolution. >>> However, I reject the claim there are no evidences of, or testable >>> hypotheses for, religious beliefs. SOME (but not all) religious people >>> "just >>> believe without testing alternative and testable hypotheses." >>> Exercising >>> faith in and acting on a religious principle (pick one) is subjecting it >>> to >>> a test. Consider one's life before application of the treatment as a >>> control. Data are taken by experiencing the effect of the treatment in >>> one's life. Certainly not hard data, but there are academic disciplines >>> not >>> held to hard data either. Why, ecology was once (and is still >>> considered by >>> some to be) a soft science. Once observational and descriptive, we now >>> consider ecology all grown up, with numbers and statistics to manipulate >>> them. Yet we are still grappling with concepts like thresholds of >>> detectability in wildlife ecology. Is religion not afforded type I >>> errors? >>> It is a different paradigm, but cannot, I think, be rejected outright. >>> There *is* quite a body of supporting literature, misinterpreted as it >>> may >>> be. Is the ID argument not logical, *given* that God at least existed >>> at >>> one time? In the extreme interpretation, it is certainly more >>> parsimonious >>> than some of the alternatives. My argument strays from the disproof of >>> evolution by testable hypotheses, and I apologize. However, the >>> scientific >>> evidence for evolution is convincing (I accept it), but is of course not >>> incontrovertible. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "James J. Roper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:28 PM >>> Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution >>> >>> >>>> A comment on this question. >>>> >>>> I would draw to our attention that the question "Why do scientists >>>> believe...?" is phrased in the same context as "Why do people >>>> believe...in >>>> = >>>> a >>>> god". However, this wording falsely put those two questions into the >>>> same >>>> apparent conceptual framework. However, I would say that scientists do >>>> not >>>> "believe" but rather they accept that the evidence for all the testable >>>> hypotheses of origins, adaptations and so on are supported by evolution >>>> by >>>> natural selection (with minor quibbles here and there on details). On >>>> the >>>> other hand, and contrastingly, religious people really do just >>>> "believe" >>>> without testing alternative and testable hypotheses. So, with religion >>>> comes a belief system, with science comes accepting the evidence. >>>> Those >>>> ar= >>>> e >>>> both not the same conceptual thing. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> On 8/27/07, Christie Klimas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron is a good >>>>> introductory textbook that will explain many of your >>>>> questions about the validity of the theory of >>>>> evolution. It is easy to read and interesting and >>>>> should provide a basis for further exploring any other >>>>> questions you have. >>>>> >>>>> Christie >>>>> Forest Resources and Conservation >>>>> University of Florida >>>>> >>>>> --- Johannes J L Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "I do not think evolution is supremely important >>>>>> because it is my specialty. On the contrary, it is >>>>>> my specialty because I think it is supremely >>>>>> important." - /George Gaylord Simpson/ >>>>>> >>>>>> JJ Le Roux >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>> Department for Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences >>>>>> University of Hawai'i at Manoa >>>>>> Hawai'i >>>>>> tel (808) 956 0781 >>>>>> fax (808) 956 3894 >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rubinoffd/jaco.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: Robert Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> Date: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:06 am >>>>>> Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>>> The answer is much simpler. The Theory of >>>>>> Evolution explains those >>>>>>> data.No other theory does. Someone wants to >>>>>> propose another theory >>>>>>> to explain >>>>>>> those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are >>>>>> closed the "theories" >>>>>>> thatare nothing more than criticisms of other >>>>>> theories. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rob Hamilton >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "So easy it seemed once found, which yet >>>>>>> unfound most would have thought impossible" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Milton >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert G. Hamilton >>>>>>> Department of Biological Sciences >>>>>>> Mississippi College >>>>>>> P.O. Box 4045 >>>>>>> 200 South Capitol Street >>>>>>> Clinton, MS 39058 >>>>>>> Phone: (601) 925-3872 >>>>>>> FAX (601) 925-3978 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Russell Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> 8/27/2007 8:09 AM >>> >>>>>>> Carissa: >>>>>>> you've got quite a collection of concerns about >>>>>> evolution here, and >>>>>>> you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all >>>>>> and teach you a >>>>>>> basic >>>>>>> course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one >>>>>> already, then it >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> be possible to start this discussion at some point >>>>>> later than where it >>>>>>> was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced >>>>>> issues now. that's >>>>>>> right, almost every one of your concerns here was >>>>>> familiar to Darwin >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, >>>>>> he didn't ask about >>>>>>> molecular evolution, but replace the molecular >>>>>> terms in your email >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 >>>>>> years ago. ID >>>>>>> arguments are so old hat by now that they're >>>>>> pretty boring. sorry if >>>>>>> that's offensive, I don't mean to be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> except maybe the origin of life question, which is >>>>>> quite separate from >>>>>>> evolution--evolution being change over >>>>>> generations, evolution doesn't >>>>>>> specifically address origin of life. that's a >>>>>> different issue that's >>>>>>> often conflated with evolution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you asked why the scientific community is so >>>>>> convinced of >>>>>>> evolution? >>>>>>> I'd say three main reasons. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, >>>>>> behavioral, >>>>>>> molecular, >>>>>>> and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any >>>>>> basic text book in >>>>>>> evolution and you'll see what I mean. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. it has another characteristic that scientists >>>>>> like: using the >>>>>>> theory >>>>>>> of evolution, we can and do generate testable >>>>>> hypotheses, and by >>>>>>> testing >>>>>>> them, we practice science. in fact, many >>>>>> thousands of tests of >>>>>>> evolution have been performed, and evolution is >>>>>> holding up quite well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory >>>>>> of "how the >>>>>>> biological >>>>>>> world got to be this way" has evidence supporting >>>>>> it and generates >>>>>>> testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes >>>>>> up with an >>>>>>> alternative, you can replace the theory of >>>>>> evolution with your own >>>>>>> ideas >>>>>>> when you produce substantial amounts of data and >>>>>> successfully use it >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> generate and test meaningful hypotheses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> especially given your background and institutional >>>>>> placement, its >>>>>>> surprising that you haven't made better use of the >>>>>> tremendous >>>>>>> resources >>>>>>> at your disposal to educate yourself on the >>>>>> evidence for evolution, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> at least bring your education up to current >>>>>> issues. I'll bet the >>>>>>> people >>>>>>> in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts, >>>>>> and if not, you are >>>>>>> surrounded by resources that can answer your >>>>>> question: "why is the >>>>>>> scientific community so convinced of evolution?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RBurke >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Carissa Shipman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/26/07 >>>>>> 10:08 PM >>> >>>>>>> I am a biology student at Temple University and I >>>>>> have >>>>>>> conducted an NSF funded systematics project for >>>>>> the order >>>>>>> Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural >>>>>> History. My >>>>>>> question is why is the scientific community so >>>>>> convinced of >>>>>>> evolution? There are very few publications >>>>>> concerning >>>>>>> evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. >>>>>> Most >>>>>>> scientists are baffled at how such molecular >>>>>> systems such >>>>>>> as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step >>>>>> manner. >>>>>>> It looks to me like many of the molecular inter >>>>>> workings all >>>>>>> needed to be there simultaneously for the end >>>>>> product to >>>>>>> function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just >>>>>> as >>>>>>> baffling. How could that have happened in a step >>>>>> by step >>>>>>> fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist >>>>>> has the >>>>>>> answer. So if you can not explain how the most >>>>>> nitty gritty >>>>>>> machines of life "molecules" learned to function >>>>>> in the >>>>>>> intricate ways that they do why are you so certain >>>>>> that >>>>>>> everything evolved? Science is looking at the >>>>>> details. All >>>>>>> science textbooks I have read have relayed very >>>>>> little >>>>>>> evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They >>>>>> just say >>>>>>> it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has >>>>>> published very >>>>>>> few papers concerning molecular evolution it >>>>>> should perish. >>>>>>> Systematics addresses genetic similarities between >>>>>> species, >>>>>>> but it does not address exactly how those genetic >>>>>>> differences and similarities came to be. There >>>>>> maybe fossils >>>>>>> and genes, but you need more than this. I am not >>>>>> convinced >>>>>>> of evolution, but still choose to educate myself >>>>>> in what it >>>>>>> teaches and believes. How do scientists explain >>>>>> how even the >>>>>>> slightest mutation in the human genome is highly >>>>>> detrimental >>>>>>> most of the time? If even the slightest change >>>>>> occurs in our >>>>>> >>>>> =3D=3D=3D message truncated =3D=3D=3D >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________________= >>>> ___________Ready >>>>> for the edge of your seat? >>>>> Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. >>>>> http://tv.yahoo.com/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --=20 >>>> James J. Roper, Ph.D. >>>> Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais >>>> de Vertebrados Terrestres >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Caixa Postal 19034 >>>> 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Telefone: 55 41 33857249 >>>> Mobile: 55 41 99870543 >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/> >>>> Personal Pages <http://jjroper.googlespages.com> >> >>
