Re: Michael Ruse's Model

Friar Broccoli wrote:
On Nov 8, 8:47 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I know this effort is a waste of time, but I want to pull
a point out that has just been made by Dr Harshman and reinforce
it:

Good. I'll respond in kind

You are a waste of time. But i'll answer anyway. And BTW, Harshman does
quite well on his own, so your reinforcment is not really needed, it is?


Adman said:
History is filled to the brim with information regarding
biology long before darwin's pipe dream.

Harshman said:
None of which addresses my point. Yes, biology existed before
the theory of evolution. But its various facts had no causal
explanation until Darwin. Why are natural classifications
possible? Why are there different species in Australia than in
Europe?

Common sense tells you that there are classifications above
the "kind" level:


Of course there are. No common sense needed. They are defined. Only somewhat
accurate. So you assume you are begining at the correct starting line.

There are two after the "family/kind". The genus and the species. And guess
what. No darwin needed. Only Carl Linnaeus was needed. He give biology one
of it's "causal explanation(s)" , that John says did not exist before
Darwin's evolution.


You KNOW that foxes are somehow related to dogs even if foxes
are no longer classed as canines.

I never claimed foxes are related to dogs. Nor are hyenas. In fact, you and
i had a discussion about this once. If you ask me, the hyena is a mutant but
still part of the family/kind named borophagines . The fox is actually part
of Hesperocyon which is it's own family/kind claimed to be extinct.
Obviously not. Canines are the family/kind of the wolf and dog. Where the
problem lies is we are told that the canid family is made up of these three.
In actuality, they are three separate families. Why? Can a dog mate and
produce offspring with a hyena? Will fox/dog mixed puppies live to mate? Can
they be concieved in the first place? If the creature (A) cannot sucessfully
produce a fully functional offspring with ceature (B) then it is stupid to
even consider them as part of the same family no matter what tree you use to
define them.


You KNOW that your house cat is related to lions, tigers,
leopards and cheetahs etc. even though they are all clearly
separate species (or "kinds" if you prefer).

You KNOW that all birds are somehow related even though there
are thousands of "kinds" of birds.

You KNOW that all the marsupials in Australia are somehow
related even though they form an almost complete ecology of
hundreds of different species/kinds.

What else can explain these obvious relationships except for
an evolutionary tree of descent?

Evolution explains some of that. As long as it is within the same
"family/kind". But you fail to see my point as well. Biology was making
attempts to categorize plants and their uses thousands of years ago. Biology
would have come up with some sort of "tree" on it's own. With less errors.
Darwin's definition is simply too wide and is not supported by the fossil
record. Darwin himself said there should be much in the way of transitional
fossils to support his ideas. Yet all these years latter the necessary
quintiles in the fossil record to support such wide scale evolution has not
been found. Anyone with a gram of common sense can see this. Evolution
happens. Just not on such a wide scale as it is currently defined.

Some will point to things like horses as proof of evolution. Everything in
the record say the horses are the same family. Or bacteria as proof. Well,
it is still bacteria. Same family.

John is saying that biology was loosely defined and evolution gave biology
clarity. Specifically he said: " But its various facts had no causal
explanation until Darwin."

Darwin's Evolution was not really looked at closely until after 1940. IMO
Biology was well defined by then and did not need evolution for causal
explanation. All it needed to do was connect the dots on it's own.
Eventually, biology would have discovered some of the things that Darwin got
correct and we would probably have a more accurate picture of what the true
origin of species are.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is my CS instructor nuts?
    ... species, homo sapiens sapiens, there are "innate" differences which are ... even those biology texts which don't address the issue, ... contain a single species entry for all humans alive today. ... rather than the science of evolution. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... There is no evolutionary biology associated ... >> pathways for species to invade. ... It's taboo to them. ... evolution is a process that is distinct from biological evolution and that ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Ernst Mayr
    ... Ernst Mayr, the last of the people to have participated in the Modern ... Synthesis and perhaps the greatest evolutionary biology of the 20th ... revived Darwin's theories of evolution and reconciled them with new ... question of how new species originate. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Evolution_is_God=92s_work_=2D=2D_The_Catholic_Herald?=
    ... book On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago on November ... relegating the existence of God to a gratuitous hypothesis. ... Evolution is an immensely complicated subject (and appears more ... not explicable through biology, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Michael Ruses Model
    ... There are two after the "family/kind". ... and the species. ... not exist before Darwin's evolution. ... Linnean rank is not a causal explanation. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading