Hi CTD.
The alternative? The old false dilemma fallacy.
Well, I'll take "an alternative" if you can show that there really is more than one. Ball in your court.
So much ambiguity packed into so few words. I suppose this is a talent or art of some form. Does 'science' here mean empirical science, or evolutionism, or still something else?
Perhaps if you spent less time confusing yourself over what is evolution and what is other sciences, this would be clear to you.
But here's a hint: I said science. This of course includes evolution along with all the other sciences.
Whence comes this term "basic interpretation"? We know there are several interpretations of things, yet one is to be designated "basic"?
What is basic to all science. The foundational assumptions that are used to logically evaluate evidence. Can I assume that you are familiar with
Popper and the principle of falsification?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.
Please note that this applies to all science, not just evolution, and that he claims that no theory can be proven by any amount of evidence --- I'm still waiting for you to provide substance for your claim that other sciences have proven theories, and that scientists in other fields have proven theories. But I'm not holding my breath either.
Why do you even suggest one shouldn't interpret evidence as truth? OH! I forgot... you're the one who links to conclusions & claims they are evidence.
Sorry, but this is false. I have not said conclusions are evidence, what I have said is that they are testable by the evidence.
And Darwin did say this very thing should happen in the vast majority of cases. He claimed the new species, being more fit, would outcompete the ones they replaced resulting in extinction almost all the time.
Rather than claiming "straw man", you need to emPHAsize that 'almost'.
And your point is? That either an "argument from authority" is a logical falsehood, for the authority can be wrong, or that he was right to use almost? If speciation occurs in isolation and the two daughter populations never come into contact then how does your extinction occur?
Some evolutionists claim not to be racist; it is supposed this is all the evidence one needs that evolutionism isn't racist.
That would be a logical start, for it would be difficult to argue that it wasn't racist if all evolutionists were racist eh? Then if you could show that no non-evolutionist was racist you might begin to make a case. As it sits, my personal opinion is that there are more racist non-evolutionists on a percentage and total number basis than there are racist evolutionists.
Looks like it was no coincidence when RAZD omitted history.
Last time I looked, "
Dumbo" was not listed as an historical document. Or perhaps you have some historical reference that supports Jeanie's fantasy that "[color:"red"] Before that it could be that animals got really really big (as well as men) because things were super nutritious before being diluted so to speak. [/color] " ...
How about in other words, Jeanie agrees with the scientists and/or evolutionists who study these things. Is this not a possibility? Have you bothered to read what they say, or do you go by talkdeceptions & outdated (often retracted) newspaper stories say?
That scientists disagree on
how various hominids are related, and which branches are related to other branches, I am not aware of any that think we are not descended from hominids, nor that all hominids are intermediate between humans and our common ancestor with the chimpanzees, nor am I aware of any scientists that "don't believe in Neanderthals" so no, Jeanie does not agree with scientists on this issue. One wonders what she means by saying she doesn't "believe in neanderthals" -- that they did not exist? that they are not different from humans? that they are apes? None of these is correct, as DNA evidence shows. It reminds me of a comedy routine I heard in childhood, where a guy claimed he didn't "believe in Ohio" as it is just as problematical.
We know there are several interpretations of things, yet one is to be designated "basic"? One wonders if there's a formula, or perhaps a panel of authorities has been appointed... ?
The formula is testing the interpretations against the reality of evidence, and the panel of authorities is the reproduction of experimental results and the discarding of falsified concepts. Notice that one of the basics of the scientific method is the principle that for tests to be valid they must be reproducible by others, and that intrinsic to this, foundational, is the basic interpretation that there is one reality for everyone.
Enjoy.
