Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics.

Posted by dado4 (A) on October 18, 2003 at 20:00:33

In Reply to: Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics. posted by Pat D on October 18, 2003 at 17:20:35:

Your first response makes little sense. Newton's and Einstein's theories are specific cause and effect postulates. Bowlen's statement is one of open ended preference for any naturalistic explanation of life's origin. This is stating a philosophical position, not proffering a theory. This cannot be equivocated with Issac's and Albert's ideas on any level.

Again, how is evolution a fact? Where has it been observed? It exists only as a postulate, not a fact. Natural selection is PART of the theory, not the theory itself. It must work in conjunction with random, favorable mutation. This is the evolution of Guold, Mayr, Futuyma, Huxley, Dawkins and every other apologist. Gould's unique contribution is his reshaping of Goldshmidt's saltus under the new banner of punctuated equilibrium.

Nonsense indeed. Darwin's theoretical mechanisms have never been observed. The burden of proof is on the Darwinist to show his theory in action. Why should we take anyones idea as fact without the presenter proving his case? The same argumentation you attempt could be taken by a creationist in stating that his theory could be falsified, all one has to do is prove God did not create animal kinds ex nilo. This is why Darwin's theory is unprovable/unfaslifiable-it is unobservable. Science is the business end of proof. You are right in one sense that nothing can be proved absolutely, however travelling on this road for very long leads to the pit of philosophical idealism. Let's keep this in perspective; Newton demonstrated entropy and no one has concretely demonstrated that it does not occur. Newton's second law is about as factual as a theory can get. Do we believe it because it sounds good? Because it is clever? No, we accept because it has been demonstrated to be true. Contrast this with Darwin's theory and its acceptance.

The boundaries are obvious and not arbitary. Every dog remains a dog even after 3000 years of intensive selection. Darwin's finches are all finches, Futuyma's fruit flies are all fruit flies and Kettlewell's moths are all moths. In all these textbook examples no evolution occured. Simply variance within types, just like dogs horses, cattle, pigs and sheep after several millenia of deliberate selection. It is pure sepculation to say that selection will work beyond these obseved levels to produce 'something other'. Again, show me (that is an imperial me by the way).

I just cannot see your equivocation of history and science. Please elaborate on this more and point out my misunderstanding.

You invert my argument regarding creation stories. It is not that creation myths are scientific, but rather that Darwin's theory is not. It is, therefore just another in a long line of such stories.

Let me ask you this. You obviously are convinced of the fact of evolution. What evidence have you seen that persuades you of its veracity? What in nature demonstrates the fact of evolution to you. Pick anything at all, I am not particular.

Thanks,
Rob

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---