Don, Do you really want an explanation of mass extinctions and adaptive radiation, or are you just trying to make a blind-faith dig at biology, geology, and systematic ecology as well as climatology, atmospheric science and oceanography? What do you know about these areas? Do you have any education in them past the high-school level? What sort of reading or other self-education have you done in them? I'm asking because it will be difficult to have a meaningful discussion if we can not have a meeting of minds on the fundamental terms and definitions.
So far, I'm sorry to say, you have not exhibited a very thorough understanding of any aspect of the physical or biological sciences. You seem unable to come to grips with the basics of scientific inquiry, its methods or philosophy. And you have difficulty with matters of settled history - cf. our discussion on the history of sexual and marriage mores and practices during the 18th and 19th centuries - when they contradict what you believe.
The fundamental principle of the sciences is that what is, is. If belief and the evidence are in irreconcilable conflict the beliefs must change. The late Richard Feynman (ztl) called it "A way of keeping ourselves honest with ourselves". Now like anything else that involves human beings it is imperfectly practiced. But generally scientists do a very good job of following that dictum.
What follows from this? It's quite simple. What you want is not important. What is true is important. If your cherished belief or pet theory is not substantiated it must be modified or abandoned. That sort of radical honesty is how scientific progress is made and how we get a better understanding of the world.
You seem to argue from faith. And your version of science is to find search for anything that might contradict theories you do not like, whether it be ad hominem attacks against people who espouse them, false dichotomies, cherry-picked research regardless of or provenance, the appeal to authority or the fact that you find the conclusions, as you told me concerning the prevalence of prostitution in the past "offensive". What has been remarkably absent is a statement of precisely what you believe much less evidence for it. Those are not the signs of an intellectually mature argument. It is very difficult for fact or reason to have a place at such a table.
Your intellectual stance is not uncommon. It is typical of those whose beliefs are based on inarguable religious faith whether the religion is based on a Supreme Being, Marxist Dialectical Materialism or The Omnipotent Market. All of these and their kin are characterized by a ratchet mentality, intellectual inflexibility, and a tendency to shoot the arrows and then draw circles around them. That is one reason why I firmly believe that revealed religion of any sort is fundamentally incompatible with scientific inquiry. The basic honesty is lacking. That includes my own religion which is a source of much soul searching on my part. But that's a different topic better suited for a philosophy of science forum.
Your entire laundry list of beliefs may be true. But since they are inarguable matters of faith it is impossible for those of use who aspire to argument from reason and evidence to address them.
So far, I'm sorry to say, you have not exhibited a very thorough understanding of any aspect of the physical or biological sciences. You seem unable to come to grips with the basics of scientific inquiry, its methods or philosophy. And you have difficulty with matters of settled history - cf. our discussion on the history of sexual and marriage mores and practices during the 18th and 19th centuries - when they contradict what you believe.
The fundamental principle of the sciences is that what is, is. If belief and the evidence are in irreconcilable conflict the beliefs must change. The late Richard Feynman (ztl) called it "A way of keeping ourselves honest with ourselves". Now like anything else that involves human beings it is imperfectly practiced. But generally scientists do a very good job of following that dictum.
What follows from this? It's quite simple. What you want is not important. What is true is important. If your cherished belief or pet theory is not substantiated it must be modified or abandoned. That sort of radical honesty is how scientific progress is made and how we get a better understanding of the world.
You seem to argue from faith. And your version of science is to find search for anything that might contradict theories you do not like, whether it be ad hominem attacks against people who espouse them, false dichotomies, cherry-picked research regardless of or provenance, the appeal to authority or the fact that you find the conclusions, as you told me concerning the prevalence of prostitution in the past "offensive". What has been remarkably absent is a statement of precisely what you believe much less evidence for it. Those are not the signs of an intellectually mature argument. It is very difficult for fact or reason to have a place at such a table.
Your intellectual stance is not uncommon. It is typical of those whose beliefs are based on inarguable religious faith whether the religion is based on a Supreme Being, Marxist Dialectical Materialism or The Omnipotent Market. All of these and their kin are characterized by a ratchet mentality, intellectual inflexibility, and a tendency to shoot the arrows and then draw circles around them. That is one reason why I firmly believe that revealed religion of any sort is fundamentally incompatible with scientific inquiry. The basic honesty is lacking. That includes my own religion which is a source of much soul searching on my part. But that's a different topic better suited for a philosophy of science forum.
Your entire laundry list of beliefs may be true. But since they are inarguable matters of faith it is impossible for those of use who aspire to argument from reason and evidence to address them.
