Re: [Marxism] Anthro 101 and Apes and Monkeys

[Adam <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Ken Ranney <kranney@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This may be what Behe says, but I disagree.  I suggest only that
> Darwinian
> evolution cannot explain it,

And there you make a leap of faith. There's no reason to suppose that
evolution cannot explain it, only that the data isn't there to make
such a determination. "Unexplained" is not a synonym for
"unexplainable."

Basically, you have three options when confronted with this:

1) These characteristics develop along the same lines that other
characteristics have been observed to develop (evolution), though these
specific processes have yet to be observed.
2) They developed through some yet unknown process.
3) They developed through supernatural involvement ("goddidit").

To me, 1) seems the most reasonable inference to make. There's no
evidence of divine intervention, of course, and neither is there
evidence of some as-yet-unknown process. Lack of data on a particular
characteristics' development is *not* evidence of some new process.

> and therefore as a theory to explain
> life, it
> fails.

It's not *meant* to "explain life," merely life's development.

> >Not all natural advantages lead to the extinction of species
> >without that advantage. Another way of looking at it would be that
> once
> >the double-celled organism evolved, evolving "more" cells came
> rapidly.
>
> With respect, I suggest that this statement is based on faith rather
> than fact.

It's neither--it's supposition. Just as Behe's idea of "well, how did
two-celled organisms compete" is based on supposition.

> >No, it's a logical inference. Evolution has been scientifically
> >observed.
>
> Please help me with this.  When was evolution observed?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

> >Evolutionary theory has described many things
> >that previous were chalked up to "goddidit;" large brains,
> bipedalism,
> >language, to name a few.
>
> True, but there are many facets of life which evolution has no hope
> of
> explaining.

Again, it's not meant to. Evolution (both as a fact and as a theory) is
a description of how life develops over generations. It is not some
grand unified theory to explain the Great Questions of the Universe.
For that, I recommend Douglas Adams' excellent series "The Hitchiker's
Guide to the Galaxy."



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism