Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.correct,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.folklore.urban,alt.christnet.bible,talk.abortion,alt.blasphemy,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.catastrophism,alt.fan.publius,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.atheism,alt.philosophy.debate
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!iglou!news
From: gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman)
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dp1-016.ppp.iglou.com
Message-ID: <DtFp7u.JFy@iglou.com>
Sender: news@iglou.com (News Administrator)
Reply-To: gnewman@iglou.com
Organization: Wormsby Works
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960529130037.7029A-100000@logo.eng.umd.edu> <rdclark-2905961341020001@news.avalon.net> <4oigqd$kmf@crcnis3.unl.edu> <4okfon$bb0_001@ppp.hooked.net> <4ong63$m0g@sloth.swcp.com> <4p7pmf$ivm@daffy.sb.west.net> <31BA1B17.4B76@spindle.net> <31BDB5B2.6E96@genesisnetwork.net> <31BF6390.9D@vnet.ibm.com> <4qh2jf$lfv@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 03:48:45 GMT
Lines: 57
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:183088 sci.lang:56163

On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:17:56 GMT, pperson@ix.netcom.com (Paul S.
Person) wrote:

>Matt Carey <mcarey@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

><immense cuts made>

>>Is evolution a theory, not fact?  Yes.  Does it teach people valuable 
>>lessons?  Yes, it teaches the scientific method--systems based on faith 
>>do not.  Part of the scientific method is to recognize that your basic 
>>precepts might be wrong.  Yes, a biologist should be able to look at 
>>data and say, "this doesn't natch evolution".  Can you say the same 
>>about creationism?  When do you look at creationism and say, "Gee, maybe 
>>god doesn't exist?"  I can see the former happening much sooner than the 
>>latter.

>Although a biologist certainly "should" be able to do so, in fact, I
>know of no conditions under which a biologist actually would "look at
>data and say, 'this doesn't match evolution'." This is because
>Evolution-as-such (as opposed to any specific proposed path from
>organism A to organism B) is non-falsifiable and, in fact, a religious
>statement. It is most unlikely that teaching students a religious
>dogma ("all organisms evolved from prior organisms" might be one
>example) would teach them "the scientific method" in any real sense. 

>If you know of any conditions which, if observed, would falsify
>Evolution (that is, would cause a biologist to say "this doesn't match
>evolution"), I would be happy to hear of them. 

No problem. The definition of evolution is 'change in allele
frequencies (of a population) over time'. Therefore, if we found
that allele frequencies did NOT change over time, we would know
that evolution is false.

For instance, as late as the early 1800's, it was thought that no
species could go extinct. Extinction would mean a missing link in
the Great Chain of Being. DIscivery that species CAN go extinct,
and arise anew, are demonstrations of evolution.

>It would, of course, be
>helpful if they are documented in the relevant literature. Oh, and
>since teaching evolution is supposed to teach "the scientific method",
>a few examples from textbooks explicitly stating these conditions
>would be pertinent.

Look at any journal article on ecology, population genetics,
speciation, extinctions, or allied topics. All of these document
changes in allele frequencies over time.

Demonstrations of other allied theories (natural selection,
common descent, etc.) can be found also.

--  
>>  Greg 'Bonz' Newman
    Would you care for a drink?
     I think not, answered Descartes -- and vanished.

