PZ Myers on Evolution without Natural Selection
backspace
"...For a long time, one of the hypotheses to explain all these eyes
was that they evolved independently, multiple times within the animal
kingdom...."
Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
"evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
What was the mechanism that was responsible for the eye changes. Lets
presume he refered to some definition of natural selection that
directed this eye evolution, would this selection now be in the
pattern or design sense. Remember natural selection and evolution as
Pivar pounted out is not the same thing, thus says he because he never
defined for us which version of "evolution" and "natural selection" he
was refering to .
For example Harshman told us
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/2feef56c7bedd98c/#
"...Nor have you demonstrated that there's anything wrong with either
the term or the concept (which, notice, are not the same thing
anyway)..."
backspace:
> You have also not motivated
> your intent with "non-random NS" and neither has Dawkins and you
> refuse to spell out why are you using the same phrase as Darwin if it
> is not clear wether Darwin had a random or non-random intent with NS.
Harshman:
"Motivated"? It *is* clear that Darwin had a non-random intent. This
would be obvious to anyone who had read the Origin seeking
comprehension
instead of, as you do, isolated phrases that could be used to
perpetuate
confusion. It isn't that you are not even wrong; you are wrong, and
perversely so.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past...
>
> "...For a long time, one of the hypotheses to explain all these eyes
> was that they evolved independently, multiple times within the animal
> kingdom...."
>
> Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
> gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
> "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
> thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"nowhere".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"article".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"mechanism".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"mechanism"
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"morphological".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word "change".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word "label".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"essential".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"undefined".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"incomplete".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word "hang".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word "air".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"responsible".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"definition".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"pattern".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word "design".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word "intent".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"motivation".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"perpetuate".
Nowhere in this post do you define what you mean by the word
"confusion"
Anyone not dogmatically obsessed with trying to create confusion where
it does not exist has any problem at all in understanding the meaning
of the words used in the context of this article.
You're not fooling anyone with this facile nonsense.
RF
<snipped>
David Hare-Scott
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca1c6b8a-34d5-4aff...@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past.php
>
> "...For a long time, one of the hypotheses to explain all these eyes
> was that they evolved independently, multiple times within the animal
> kingdom...."
>
What is your explanation for the different eye structures that are found
amongst animals?
If they eye arose only once how come we observe several different models, how
did one beome many?
If the reason for the different structures is that it arose several times how
did this come about?
David
Friar Broccoli
> Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
> gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
> "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
> thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
Nowhere in his months of posting has BackSpace even tried
to explain how the Kangaroos got back to Australia after Noah's
flood. A migration that is essential to understanding his beliefs
just, hangs in the air.
Oh wait, THAT'S IT!! The kangaroos flew back to Australia.
Tiny Bulcher
God did it by a miracle, no doubt. I don't know why creationists ever
bother saying all the pseudoscientific bafflegab they do, when
everything they say always boils down to the same thing.
wf3h
>
> "...For a long time, one of the hypotheses to explain all these eyes
> was that they evolved independently, multiple times within the animal
> kingdom...."
>
while the creationist 'backspace', suffering from theological
alzheimer's disease, continues to prattle on about how 'god did it' is
science, he refuses to define what 'god' means, how 'god' actually
'does' anything or how we can test the idea
but, you see, he insists it's science...otherwise his view of the
bible is wrong.
Chris Thompson
c5c9cd...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
I think every Qantas airplane has at least two kangaroos on it.
Chris
John Harshman
> http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past.php
>
> "...For a long time, one of the hypotheses to explain all these eyes
> was that they evolved independently, multiple times within the animal
> kingdom...."
>
> Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
> gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
> "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
> thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
Or perhaps natural selection was irrelevant to the point Myers was
trying to make. We can in fact know quite a bit about evolution without
thinking for a minute about natural selection. We can know what happened
without having a clue about why it happened.
> What was the mechanism that was responsible for the eye changes. Lets
> presume he refered to some definition of natural selection that
> directed this eye evolution, would this selection now be in the
> pattern or design sense. Remember natural selection and evolution as
> Pivar pounted out is not the same thing, thus says he because he never
> defined for us which version of "evolution" and "natural selection" he
> was refering to .
Myers never discusses the mechanism responsible for the "eye changes".
Why should he? If you notice that a house was painted, do you have to
describe who painted it? Precisely because natural selection and
evolution are not the same thing, it's possible to discuss one without
discussing the other.
> For example Harshman told us
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/2feef56c7bedd98c/#
>
> "...Nor have you demonstrated that there's anything wrong with either
> the term or the concept (which, notice, are not the same thing
> anyway)..."
For example of what? This has nothing to do with anything that comes
before in your post.
> backspace:
>> You have also not motivated
>> your intent with "non-random NS" and neither has Dawkins and you
>> refuse to spell out why are you using the same phrase as Darwin if it
>> is not clear wether Darwin had a random or non-random intent with NS.
>
> Harshman:
> "Motivated"? It *is* clear that Darwin had a non-random intent. This
> would be obvious to anyone who had read the Origin seeking
> comprehension instead of, as you do, isolated phrases that could be
> used to perpetuate confusion. It isn't that you are not even wrong;
> you are wrong, and perversely so.
As true now as it was originally.
Woland
I think you missed this because of the posting hiccup (not literally,
only living things hiccup, I mean a figurative hiccup). Its not
perfect but we can improve upon it as we go along:
Original thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2801...
I don't understand most of anything you say but I thought I'd go
through this for you from 'first principles', chime in (not literally,
I probably couldn't hear the chime from where ever you are; I'm using
the phrase 'chime in' in a figurative way) where you disagree or don't
understand. I hope others will also show me where I may be wrong or
confused. This is going to be very very very basic and with little
detail into actual mechanics etc.
1) Life exists on Earth. (You can start quibbling here about how we
define 'life' and whatnot but I'm going to use the old "I knows it
when I sees it definition.")
2) All life on Earth uses DNA for protein synthesis. (I'm not going
into details here, we can if you like later but others are certainly
better suited to this as I spend most of my time studying what certain
conglomerates of protein do and think at the macro level)
3) Mutations sometimes occur in DNA. (i.e. one or more of the
bases in a given strand of DNA are changed. This could be an addition,
a deletion, a change from one base to another etc)
4) Sometimes these mutations have an affect on protein synthesis.
(This is only when it is a mutation in an area of the DNA that is
active in protein synthesis or regulation, some DNA just doesn't
appear to be an active player)
5) We can lump mutations into three categories:
(a) neutral(i.e. it has no affect on the survivability of the organism
and/or its offspring
(b) beneficial (i.e. it increases the chances of an organism surviving
and/or producing offspring) Note: Who says its beneficial? I do and so
does everyone else.
(c) deleterious (I.e. it decreases the chances of an organism
surviving and/or producing offspring).
6) Whether a given mutation is beneficial or deleterious is dependent
upon what environment the organism inhabits. (e.g. a bacterium that
has a mutation to digest nylon before nylon exists does not really
gain anything, but acquiring that trait once nylon does exist allows
the bacterium to take advantage of a new food source)
7) Organisms with mutations (we'll call them 'traits' now) that are
beneficial (see above) have a greater chance of surviving and passing
those traits to successive generations.
8) The preservation of beneficial traits and the destruction of
deleterious traits is observed on Earth.
9) Today we call this 'natural selection'.
10) A long time ago this guy named Darwin noticed this pattern. He
didn't Know how traits were passed along, he offered a hypothesis
involving 'pangenes' and 'gemmules'. There was someone else, Mendel
who really liked peas. He discovered that the inheritance of traits
followed predictable rules, but he didn't know about the role of DNA
either.DNA itself was first seen in 1869 by this Swiss guy, Miescher,
he didn't know what it did though. Real, absolute confirmation of the
fact that DNA was responsible for inheritance didn't happen until 1953
but the hypothesis that it was involved goes back (I think) as early
as the 1920's.
Any questions?
Ron O
>
SNIP:
backspace, there is a reason for the delete key too. Don't just go
back over the same bogus crap over and over, but delete it and try
something new that might work.
Ron Okimoto
hersheyh
> http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past...
>
> was that they evolved independently, multiple times within the animal
> kingdom...."
>
> Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
> gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
> "evolved" or "evolution".
He didn't need to. The *only* known (meaning observable and testable)
natural mechanisms that can result in a change in form or function in
populations of organisms over time are 1) pure chance (change that
occurs in the absence of any selection) or 2) differential
reproductive success (aka, natural selection). There are no other
known natural mechanisms that could account for these features.
Since Meierz clearly points out that the function that light-sensing
serves is really, really, really important in many (but, importantly,
not all) organisms, that would clearly mean that selection
(differential reproductive success) is a much more likely reason for
the current existence of these features in current organisms than is
the "pure chance" or "selectively neutral" explanation.
Moreover, there are plenty of actual currently existing eyes with
intermediate structure and function that are useful in the
environments that the organisms having them exist in, demonstrating
that the necessary (to evolutionary explanation) 'functionally useful
intermediate states' can exist. And it is easy to understand
environmental conditions (the dumb, unintelligent environmental seive
or selective conditions) that would favor change to greater (or
lesser, as in the blind cave fish) visual acuity.
Do you have actual independent evidence or even testable hypotheses
for an alternative explanation that would produce the observed
results? Supernatural intelligences, the positing of fairies or gods
or other HYPEs (HYpothetical Posited Entities), does not qualify.
Such explanations are, from a scientific perspective, not worth the
electrons expended on them.
> A word that essentially is undefined and
> thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
As emptyspace twists slowly, slowly in the wind of his own making. I
only wonder why it smells so bad. Beans and cabbage?
> What was the mechanism that was responsible for the eye changes. Lets
> presume he refered to some definition of natural selection that
> directed this eye evolution, would this selection now be in the
> pattern or design sense. Remember natural selection and evolution as
> Pivar pounted out is not the same thing, thus says he because he never
> defined for us which version of "evolution" and "natural selection" he
> was refering to .
Evolution can (indeed, must) occur whether there is natural selection
at work or not. In fact, it is only natural selection that *prevents*
change by *selectively* preserving that which is useful in the current
environment. Remember that NS is largely a *conservative* mechanism.
What cannot exist in the real world is "designed stasis" where genes
are frozen and cannot change over time.
> For example Harshman told ushttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/2feef56...
>
> "...Nor have you demonstrated that there's anything wrong with either
> the term or the concept (which, notice, are not the same thing
> anyway)..."
>
> backspace:
>
> > You have also not motivated
> > your intent with "non-random NS" and neither has Dawkins and you
> > refuse to spell out why are you using the same phrase as Darwin if it
> > is not clear wether Darwin had a random or non-random intent with NS.
>
> Harshman:
> "Motivated"? It *is* clear that Darwin had a non-random intent.
As, perhaps, would be indicated by the use of the word "selection".
*Most* people of normal intelligence who are familiar with English do
understand that events that undergo "selective" or "directional"
changes are not "random" events. What is your excuse for not
understanding this? Lack of familiarity with English? Or lack of
normal intelligence?
Victor Eijkhout
> http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past.php
Why is it that the creationinsts in this group always link to
interesting science writing, while the biologically informed only
provide us with links to ludicrous letters to editors and other
execrable nonsense?
Victor "gross generalizations R us"
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Tiny Bulcher
I dunno about other marsupials, but the stewards are a bunch of numbats,
certainly.
(Never Again ... at least not in cattle class).
John Wilkins
On Qantas.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
backspace
> On Mar 9, 6:47 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
> > gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
> > "evolved" or "evolution".
>
> He didn't need to. The *only* known (meaning observable and testable)
> natural mechanisms that can result in a change in form or function in
> populations of organisms over time are 1) pure chance (change that
> occurs in the absence of any selection) or 2) differential
> reproductive success (aka, natural selection). There are no other
> known natural mechanisms that could account for these features.
This RS business, we have discussed it and you still haven't told me
where did you get the definition of RS from. Even Greg Leach said it
wasn't defined so then he defined it http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/ReproductiveSuccess.
The only problem is he formulated a tautology which is independent of
any label you might attach to it, RS was arbitrary. The same problem
on Wikipedia where it states that "... RS is defined as ...." But if
it is defined then who defined it ? I am serious who defined it, for
all we know somebody's cat could have walked over his keyboard.
Materialists seems to be under the strange delusion that things define
themselves. The person who defined it, had a specific intent , what
was his intent with RS.
Harshman and Wilkins for example both differ on the validity of Punk-
eek as they discussed around post nr.26 here
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8d8d9c46941f85cd#
but they both use RS and NS, but their intent differs. JH thinks Punk-
eek is wrong while Wilkins differs. How is it possible that Gould,
Wilkins and JH could have projected the same intent with natural
selection and reproductive success if they so fundamentally differ ?
> Since Meierz clearly points out that the function that light-sensing
> serves is really, really, really important in many (but, importantly,
> not all) organisms, that would clearly mean that selection
> (differential reproductive success) is a much more likely reason for
Again where did you get the notion that "selection" in either the
patter or design sense has got something to do with a yet to be
defined concept labeled Reproductive success ?
> In fact, it is only natural selection that *prevents*
> change by *selectively* preserving that which is useful in the current
> environment.
How was the usefulness derived other than noting it was preserved ?
> Remember that NS is largely a *conservative* mechanism.
But Uncle Provine at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/WilliamProvinePragmatics
told us that NS does nothing, why should I believe you and not him ?
> What cannot exist in the real world is "designed stasis" where genes
> are frozen and cannot change over time.
> As, perhaps, would be indicated by the use of the word "selection".
> *Most* people of normal intelligence who are familiar with English do
> understand that events that undergo "selective" or "directional"
> changes are not "random" events.
Which depends wether you use the word in the design or pattern sense,
only you know what sense and must clearly communicate your intent with
it each relevant time you use it where the intent isn't clear.
Walter Bushell
"Tiny Bulcher" <alyc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Yes, why go to the drama of the flood, just zap the bad guys, and
straighten the genes of those you want to save. Maybe He did that and
gave the one family that remained the memories of the boat ride.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
Steven J.
> hersheyh wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 6:47 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
> > > gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
> > > "evolved" or "evolution".
>
> > He didn't need to. The *only* known (meaning observable and testable)
> > natural mechanisms that can result in a change in form or function in
> > populations of organisms over time are 1) pure chance (change that
> > occurs in the absence of any selection) or 2) differential
> > reproductive success (aka, natural selection). There are no other
> > known natural mechanisms that could account for these features.
>
> This RS business, we have discussed it and you still haven't told me
> where did you get the definition of RS from. Even Greg Leach said it
> The only problem is he formulated a tautology which is independent of
> any label you might attach to it, RS was arbitrary. The same problem
> on Wikipedia where it states that "... RS is defined as ...." But if
> it is defined then who defined it ? I am serious who defined it, for
> all we know somebody's cat could have walked over his keyboard.
> Materialists seems to be under the strange delusion that things define
> themselves. The person who defined it, had a specific intent , what
> was his intent with RS.
>
organisms with some traits are more likely to leave more offspring
than are cospecifics with different traits" is a tautology. I have no
idea who defined "reproductive success." What difference does it
make? What matters is how the term is commonly used now, and there is
very little ambiguity about that.
>
> Harshman and Wilkins for example both differ on the validity of Punk-
> but they both use RS and NS, but their intent differs. JH thinks Punk-
> eek is wrong while Wilkins differs. How is it possible that Gould,
> Wilkins and JH could have projected the same intent with natural
> selection and reproductive success if they so fundamentally differ ?
>
Gould first proposed punctuated equilibria, the question has been how
much of evolution is phyletic gradualism vs. punctuated equilibria,
and how far can you tell from the evidence at hand? The view that
natural selection changes a population rapidly when the environment
first changes, and thereafter keeps the population from changing,
doesn't mean that one needs a different view of what natural selection
is than the contrary view that, normally, natural selection keeps
changing a population very slowly over very long stretches of time.
The difference is over what natural selection can normally be expected
to accomplish, not over what natural selection is.
>
> > Since Meierz clearly points out that the function that light-sensing
> > serves is really, really, really important in many (but, importantly,
> > not all) organisms, that would clearly mean that selection
> > (differential reproductive success) is a much more likely reason for
>
> Again where did you get the notion that "selection" in either the
> patter or design sense has got something to do with a yet to be
> defined concept labeled Reproductive success ?
>
reproductive success (that is, on average, they will have different
numbers of surviving offspring) in different environments, since their
particular set of traits works better in some environments than in
others. Conversely, organisms in the same environment with different
traits will tend to have different numbers of surviving offspring.
"Selection" is just this principle.
>
> > In fact, it is only natural selection that *prevents*
> > change by *selectively* preserving that which is useful in the current
> > environment.
>
> How was the usefulness derived other than noting it was preserved ?
>
useful; this may take the form of being white in a snowy environment,
or striped or spotted in a forest or jungle environment, for example.
Note that what traits are "useful for camoflage" is very dependent on
the environment; you want to look like other things in the
environment, so what other things are around (snow, or dappled
sunlight, or sticks) will determine what sorts of appearances are
"better camoflaged." By the same token, being better able to fight
off parasites or diseases is widely beneficial, but of course there
are so many different parasites and diseases; an adaption that
protects one against some of these will leave one wide open to others,
so different environments, again, make different sorts of resistance
useful. Flying is often useful, but on a small island without
predators and with lots of food at ground level, it may well be a
waste of energy, so it is "useful" to many birds in such environments
to lose the ability to fly.
Note that "usefulness" exists before it is preserved, and is preserved
because it is useful. To take the classic textbook example, on sooty
tree branches, black moths are better camoflaged than specked grey
ones; this usefulness (it helps keep black moths from being eaten
before they have offspring) is why the black color morph survives in
such environments, but not in environments where the trees are covered
with pale lichens.
>
> > Remember that NS is largely a *conservative* mechanism.
>
> But Uncle Provine athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/WilliamProvinePragmatics
> told us that NS does nothing, why should I believe you and not him ?
>
We are not trying to get you to "believe;" we are trying to get you to
understand. Provine's point is that there is no single general cause
"natural selection;" "natural selection" is the effect of many
different causes (arctic bears can sneak up on prey better if they're
white; marine iguanas can paddle through the water better if their
tails are tall and thin side-to-side) operating on variations within
populations. Hershey's point is that in most cases, populations are
already well-fitted to their environments, so that most changes won't
make individuals better fitted and more likely to pass those new
traits on to future generations.
>
> > What cannot exist in the real world is "designed stasis" where genes
> > are frozen and cannot change over time.
> > As, perhaps, would be indicated by the use of the word "selection".
> > *Most* people of normal intelligence who are familiar with English do
> > understand that events that undergo "selective" or "directional"
> > changes are not "random" events.
>
> Which depends wether you use the word in the design or pattern sense,
> only you know what sense and must clearly communicate your intent with
> it each relevant time you use it where the intent isn't clear.
>
No one is under an obligation to make his "intent" clear to the
willfully ignorant and obscurantist.
-- Steven J.
Tiny Bulcher
> In article <q8CdnS2xUed...@bt.com>,
> "Tiny Bulcher" <alyc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Thus cwaeth Friar Broccoli :
>>> On Mar 9, 5:47 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he
>>>> never gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which
>>>> he labeled "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is
>>>> undefined and thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
>>>
>>> Nowhere in his months of posting has BackSpace even tried
>>> to explain how the Kangaroos got back to Australia after Noah's
>>> flood. A migration that is essential to understanding his beliefs
>>> just, hangs in the air.
>>>
>>> Oh wait, THAT'S IT!! The kangaroos flew back to Australia.
>>
>> God did it by a miracle, no doubt. I don't know why creationists ever
>> bother saying all the pseudoscientific bafflegab they do, when
>> everything they say always boils down to the same thing.
>
> Yes, why go to the drama of the flood, just zap the bad guys, and
> straighten the genes of those you want to save. Maybe He did that and
> gave the one family that remained the memories of the boat ride.
Why create the bad guys in the first place?
Cheezits
> Why is it that the creationinsts in this group always link to
Like answersingenesis.org? :-D
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Tiny Bulcher"
<alyc...@btinternet.com>:
The Devil made him do it.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
<snip>
>This RS business, we have discussed it and you still haven't told me
>where did you get the definition of RS from. Even Greg Leach said it
>wasn't defined so then he defined it http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/ReproductiveSuccess.
>The only problem is he formulated a tautology which is independent of
>any label you might attach to it, RS was arbitrary. The same problem
>on Wikipedia where it states that "... RS is defined as ...." But if
>it is defined then who defined it ? I am serious who defined it, for
>all we know somebody's cat could have walked over his keyboard.
>Materialists seems to be under the strange delusion that things define
>themselves. The person who defined it, had a specific intent , what
>was his intent with RS.
This tautology business; we've discussed it and you haven't
said where you got the definition of tautology from. Who
defined "tautology"? Words don't define themselves, so
before we can accept any such claim we must know where and
when it was defined, and who defined it. The person who
defined it had a specific intent; what was his intent with
tautology? For all we know a jabberwock could have walked
over his keyboard.
<snip>
John Wilkins
It was a bar bet.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past...
>
> "...For a long time, one of the hypotheses to explain all these eyes
> was that they evolved independently, multiple times within the animal
> kingdom...."
>
> Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
> gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
> "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
> thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
>
> What was the mechanism that was responsible for the eye changes. Lets
> presume he refered to some definition of natural selection that
> directed this eye evolution, would this selection now be in the
> pattern or design sense. Remember natural selection and evolution as
> Pivar pounted out is not the same thing, thus says he because he never
> defined for us which version of "evolution" and "natural selection" he
> was refering to .
>
>
> "...Nor have you demonstrated that there's anything wrong with either
> the term or the concept (which, notice, are not the same thing
> anyway)..."
>
> backspace:
>
> > You have also not motivated
> > your intent with "non-random NS" and neither has Dawkins and you
> > refuse to spell out why are you using the same phrase as Darwin if it
> > is not clear wether Darwin had a random or non-random intent with NS.
>
> Harshman:
> "Motivated"? It *is* clear that Darwin had a non-random intent. This
> would be obvious to anyone who had read the Origin seeking
> comprehension
> instead of, as you do, isolated phrases that could be used to
> perpetuate
> confusion. It isn't that you are not even wrong; you are wrong, and
> perversely so.
You certainly have a unique way or masturbating.
John Harshman
My spider-sense tingled:
> Harshman and Wilkins for example both differ on the validity of Punk-
> eek as they discussed around post nr.26 here
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8d8d9c46941f85cd#
> but they both use RS and NS, but their intent differs. JH thinks Punk-
> eek is wrong while Wilkins differs. How is it possible that Gould,
> Wilkins and JH could have projected the same intent with natural
> selection and reproductive success if they so fundamentally differ ?
Only backspace could post gibberish like this. Because Wilkins and I
differ on some point or other (and I'm not bothering to look up what it
is), we must also differ on what natural selection and reproductive
success mean?
What a maroon.
[snip]
er...@swva.net
Back then, there was more oxygen in the atmosphere, plus the gravity
constant (TM) was different, so the kangaroos were able to simply
"island-hop" there.
Eric Root
David Hare-Scott
So what does account for the different eye structures found in animals?
David
John Wilkins
> backspace wrote:
>
> My spider-sense tingled:
>
> > Harshman and Wilkins for example both differ on the validity of Punk-
> > eek as they discussed around post nr.26 here
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8d8d9c4694
> > 1f85cd# but they both use RS and NS, but their intent differs. JH
> > thinks Punk- eek is wrong while Wilkins differs. How is it possible that
> > Gould, Wilkins and JH could have projected the same intent with natural
> > selection and reproductive success if they so fundamentally differ ?
>
> Only backspace could post gibberish like this. Because Wilkins and I
> differ on some point or other (and I'm not bothering to look up what it
> is), we must also differ on what natural selection and reproductive
> success mean?
>
> What a maroon.
>
> [snip]
I thought it was because we differed on the utility of the Prius that
evolution was wrong.
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> backspace wrote:
>>
>> My spider-sense tingled:
>>
>>> Harshman and Wilkins for example both differ on the validity of Punk-
>>> eek as they discussed around post nr.26 here
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8d8d9c4694
>>> 1f85cd# but they both use RS and NS, but their intent differs. JH
>>> thinks Punk- eek is wrong while Wilkins differs. How is it possible that
>>> Gould, Wilkins and JH could have projected the same intent with natural
>>> selection and reproductive success if they so fundamentally differ ?
>> Only backspace could post gibberish like this. Because Wilkins and I
>> differ on some point or other (and I'm not bothering to look up what it
>> is), we must also differ on what natural selection and reproductive
>> success mean?
>>
>> What a maroon.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> I thought it was because we differed on the utility of the Prius that
> evolution was wrong.
You don't like the Prius?
David Canzi -- non-mailable
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past.php
>
>was that they evolved independently, multiple times within the animal
>kingdom...."
>
>gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
>"evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
>thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
The forecast I just checked predicts cooler weather tonight
than during the day. Nowhere does it use the word "radiation".
It never gives us a mechanism for this weather change called
"cooling". A word that essentially is undefined and thus the
weather forecast is incomplete , it just hangs in the air.
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
John Wilkins
Walter Bushell
<7f76ebff-9363-43a5...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
er...@swva.net wrote:
That joke is not worth a Continental.
Cj
You really are confused. I hope it doesn't give you headaches. Take your
medications and rest for a while.
Cj
backspace
> I have no idea who defined "reproductive success."
Exactly nobody defined it, this is just the whole joke about it.
Somehow the powers that be bring in these terms such as allele,
phenotype, RS, genetic drift, allele frequencies etc. and nobody
can tell me where was it defined. On Wikipedia there are endless
revisions to the articles that deal with these topics, precisely
because "allele" isn't defined. This means that we have a huge amount
of wasted ink as Fodor put in on NS where people will have to rewrite
what they wrote every time they used "allele" or NS.
> What difference does it make? What matters is how the term is commonly used now, and there is
> very little ambiguity about that.
Who says so, Miller and Dennett differs from Provine and Fodor on
the usage of natural selection.
> The difference is over what natural selection can normally be expected
> to accomplish, not over what natural selection is.
Who says so, who are you interpreting or are you inventing your own
reality based on the direction the atoms are bouncing in your head,
how could anything be the "truth" or "real" if you believe your mind
consists of illusions as you have to believe since your thoughts are
just matter in motion.
> > Again where did you get the notion that "selection" in either the
> > patter or design sense has got something to do with a yet to be
> > defined concept labeled Reproductive success ?
> Organisms with identical traits will experience different levels of
> reproductive success (that is, on average, they will have different
> numbers of surviving offspring) in different environments,
Which is just a pattern not a design, there was no motive for this
happen.
> since their particular set of traits works better in some environments than in
> others.
Yet another pattern.
> Conversely, organisms in the same environment with different
> traits will tend to have different numbers of surviving offspring.
Yet another pattern and not a design, motive or will.
> "Selection" is just this principle.
Or "Ninja" is just the principle , "selection" is used by you in the
pattern sense and not the design sense right ? Furthermore the word
"selection" doesn't clarify what we already know : a pattern took
place.
> > > In fact, it is only natural selection that *prevents*
> > > change by *selectively* preserving that which is useful in the current
> > > environment.
> > How was the usefulness derived other than noting it was preserved ?
> It differs in different situations. Being better camoflaged is widely
> useful; this may take the form of being white in a snowy environment,
> or striped or spotted in a forest or jungle environment, for example.
Which is another pattern, not a design.
> Note that what traits are "useful for camoflage" is very dependent on
> the environment; you want to look like other things in the
> environment, so what other things are around (snow, or dappled
> sunlight, or sticks) will determine what sorts of appearances are
> "better camoflaged."
Sure and it is just a pattern.
> By the same token, being better able to fight
> off parasites or diseases is widely beneficial, but of course there
> are so many different parasites and diseases; an adaption that
> protects one against some of these will leave one wide open to others,
> so different environments, again, make different sorts of resistance
> useful.
Yet another pattern and you would tell me the same thing in all
situations wouldn't you ? As I explained on the Peppered moth pattern
or design thread, the birds had no intent to eat the light colored
moths , it was just a pattern. Had soot been white then the black
moths would have been eaten, making the whole evolutionist story
surrounding it unfalsifiable.
> Note that "usefulness" exists before it is preserved, and is preserved
> because it is useful.
Do you understand the concept of a tautology ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29
"....In colloquial terms a logical tautology can also be defined as a
series of statements that comprise an argument, which statements are
constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is
guaranteed. Consequently the statement conveys no useful information
regardless of its length or complexity. Thus, for a simple example,
the statement "if you can't find something (that you lost), you are
not looking in the right place" is tautological. It is also true, but
conveys no useful information. As a physical example, to play a game
of darts where the dart board was full of bullseyes, could be called a
"tautological" game. You can't lose. Any argument containing a
tautological statement is thus flawed logically and must be considered
erroneous. A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological
game is not a game. Mathematical equations, such as e = mc2, are not
tautologies. The terms on both sides of the equation are defined
elsewhere independently, and thus the equal sign does not mean "is
defined by" but rather equal to, thus establishing an equivalence...."
> To take the classic textbook example, on sooty
> tree branches, black moths are better camoflaged than specked grey
> ones; this usefulness (it helps keep black moths from being eaten
> before they have offspring) is why the black color morph survives in
> such environments, but not in environments where the trees are covered
> with pale lichens.
Just another pattern.
backspace
wrote:
> backspace wrote:
>
> My spider-sense tingled:
>
> > Harshman and Wilkins for example both differ on the validity of Punk-
> > eek as they discussed around post nr.26 here
> > but they both use RS and NS, but their intent differs. JH thinks Punk-
> > eek is wrong while Wilkins differs. How is it possible that Gould,
> > Wilkins and JH could have projected the same intent with natural
> > selection and reproductive success if they so fundamentally differ ?
>
> Only backspace could post gibberish like this. Because Wilkins and I
> differ on some point or other (and I'm not bothering to look up what it
> is), we must also differ on what natural selection and reproductive
> success mean?
>
> What a maroon.
>
> [snip]
dear Dr.Harshman allow this "maroon" to point out to you that Darwin's
background and intent with natural selection was in the slow extremely
gradual sense and he said that the fossils don't support his view yet,
since we haven't dug enough. Well 150 years later and fossils still
don't show gradual change.
What one can't do is use NS if one is a Punk-eek because Darwin never
had such intent. It is the same thing as labeling every theory in
physics phlogiston theory.
Woland
Wrong. Let me say this one more time: It does not matter what Darwin's
'intent' was today. "Punk-eek' still proposes that the same mechanism
is at work, that is differential reproductive success (we don't need
to define this because only an idiot can't tell what it means based on
context).
Let me also remind you that what we are talking about exists
independently of the words we are using. This is one of the reasons
(some other reasons include things like you don't understand how words
work and that you're completely insane) that your word games are
entirely meaningless.
wf3h
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > backspace wrote:
>
> > My spider-sense tingled:
>
> > > Harshman and Wilkins for example both differ on the validity of Punk-
> > > eek as they discussed around post nr.26 here
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8d8d9c4...
> > > but they both use RS and NS, but their intent differs. JH thinks Punk-
> > > eek is wrong while Wilkins differs. How is it possible that Gould,
> > > Wilkins and JH could have projected the same intent with natural
> > > selection and reproductive success if they so fundamentally differ ?
>
> > Only backspace could post gibberish like this. Because Wilkins and I
> > differ on some point or other (and I'm not bothering to look up what it
> > is), we must also differ on what natural selection and reproductive
> > success mean?
>
> > What a maroon.
>
> > [snip]
>
> dear Dr.Harshman allow this "maroon" to point out to you that Darwin's
> background and intent with natural selection was in the slow extremely
> gradual sense and he said that the fossils don't support his view yet,
> since we haven't dug enough. Well 150 years later and fossils still
> don't show gradual change.
the speed of evolution is irrelevant to the fact it happens
if you concede evolution happens, i'll concede darwin was wrong about
its speed.
>
> What one can't do is use NS if one is a Punk-eek because Darwin never
> had such intent.
?? doesn't matter what darwin's intent was. einstein invented
relativity but he never conceived of 'space-time' as a 4th dimension
even though it follows from his theory
you seem to think a scientist who invents a theory has to conceive of
ALL the ramifications of that theory
that's not how science works. you're a creationist, so you're
scientifically illiterate. but a fact is a fact.
hersheyh
> On Mar 9, 10:19 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > I have no idea who defined "reproductive success."
>
> Exactly nobody defined it, this is just the whole joke about it.
> Somehow the powers that be bring in these terms such as allele,
Allele was used by Mendel. Gene came later.
> phenotype, RS, genetic drift, allele frequencies etc. and nobody
> can tell me where was it defined. On Wikipedia there are endless
> revisions to the articles that deal with these topics, precisely
> because "allele" isn't defined.
Allele is now used to mean a specific form of a gene locus. In
Mendel's original usage, it was a little more like what we call a
"gene locus" or "gene" today.
> This means that we have a huge amount
> of wasted ink as Fodor put in on NS where people will have to rewrite
> what they wrote every time they used "allele" or NS.
Instead of wasting our time, you could always look up these terms in
something called a "dictionary" or, for a longer and more complete
understanding of genetic terms, there are specialized textbooks and
specialized dictionaries.
>
> > What difference does it make? What matters is how the term is commonly used now, and there is
> > very little ambiguity about that.
>
> Who says so, Miller and Dennett differs from Provine and Fodor on
> the usage of natural selection.
>
> > The difference is over what natural selection can normally be expected
> > to accomplish, not over what natural selection is.
>
> Who says so, who are you interpreting or are you inventing your own
> reality based on the direction the atoms are bouncing in your head,
> how could anything be the "truth" or "real" if you believe your mind
> consists of illusions as you have to believe since your thoughts are
> just matter in motion.
*You* are the one who doesn't believe that "reality" exists unless
someone defines it for you.
> > > Again where did you get the notion that "selection" in either the
> > > patter or design sense has got something to do with a yet to be
> > > defined concept labeled Reproductive success ?
> > Organisms with identical traits will experience different levels of
> > reproductive success (that is, on average, they will have different
> > numbers of surviving offspring) in different environments,
>
> Which is just a pattern not a design, there was no motive for this
> happen.
Design is (and always has been) a subset of pattern. Why do you keep
repeating your mantra that design and pattern are opposites when you
know that they are not opposites (unless your 'intent' is to use words
to mislead)? What you are trying to compare would be "designed
patterns" and "non-designed patterns". And I would then point out
that the only way to distinguish between the two is that in one case
we must have independent evidence that it was manufactured by an
animate agent. Other than that there are no clearly distinguishing
differences between "designed patterns" and "non-designed patterns".
> > since their particular set of traits works better in some environments than in
> > others.
>
> Yet another pattern.
Of course. But since 'pattern' *includes* 'design patterns', that
isn't saying anything unless your 'intent' is to use words
misleadingly for propogandistic purposes.
> > Conversely, organisms in the same environment with different
> > traits will tend to have different numbers of surviving offspring.
>
> Yet another pattern and not a design, motive or will.
Of course it is a pattern. But since 'pattern' *includes* 'design
patterns', that isn't saying anything unless your 'intent' is to use
words misleadingly for propogandistic purposes. OTOH, 'motive' and
'will' are not synonyms for 'pattern' or 'design'. For someone whose
whole argument is the post-modernist idea that words are magical and
reality itself bends to the meaning of words, you sure don't
understand language very well.
> > "Selection" is just this principle.
>
> Or "Ninja" is just the principle , "selection" is used by you in the
> pattern sense and not the design sense right ? Furthermore the word
> "selection" doesn't clarify what we already know : a pattern took
> place.
'Design' *is* a form of 'pattern'. Are you really this dense?
> > > > In fact, it is only natural selection that *prevents*
> > > > change by *selectively* preserving that which is useful in the current
> > > > environment.
> > > How was the usefulness derived other than noting it was preserved ?
> > It differs in different situations. Being better camoflaged is widely
> > useful; this may take the form of being white in a snowy environment,
> > or striped or spotted in a forest or jungle environment, for example.
>
> Which is another pattern, not a design.
'Design' is a type of 'pattern'. Again, rather than misuse the words
'design' and 'pattern', I suggest you use 'design pattern' and 'non-
design pattern' to accurately describe the distinction you want to
make. And then present your evidence that the 'pattern' you describe
as 'design pattern' actually is 'design pattern' rather than 'non-
design pattern'. Remember that any possible arrangement of any set of
things or ideas, including random arrangements, are 'patterns'.
> > Note that what traits are "useful for camoflage" is very dependent on
> > the environment;
It is also dependent on the capacities of the seeker. Vision in the
visible range is not the only way to 'see' a sought object.
> > you want to look like other things in the
> > environment, so what other things are around (snow, or dappled
> > sunlight, or sticks) will determine what sorts of appearances are
> > "better camoflaged."
>
> Sure and it is just a pattern.
'Design' is a type of 'pattern'. Again, rather than misuse the words
'design' and 'pattern', I suggest you use 'design pattern' and 'non-
design pattern' to accurately describe the distinction you want to
make. And then present your evidence that the 'pattern' you describe
as 'design pattern' actually is 'design pattern' rather than 'non-
design pattern'. Remember that any possible arrangement of any set of
things or ideas, including random arrangements, are 'patterns'.
In this particular case, however, wouldn't you actually *want* the
trait of being camoflaged to be 'design pattern' rather than 'non-
design pattern'? Agreeing that this trait "is just a pattern" means
(if I got your 'intent' that 'pattern' is the opposite of 'design'
correct) that you think that such features of organisms are NOT
designed by your favorite HYPE. Is that really what you think?
> > By the same token, being better able to fight
> > off parasites or diseases is widely beneficial, but of course there
> > are so many different parasites and diseases; an adaption that
> > protects one against some of these will leave one wide open to others,
> > so different environments, again, make different sorts of resistance
> > useful.
>
> Yet another pattern and you would tell me the same thing in all
> situations wouldn't you?
'Design' is a type of 'pattern'. Again, rather than misuse the words
'design' and 'pattern', I suggest you use 'design pattern' and 'non-
design pattern' to accurately describe the distinction you want to
make. And then present your evidence that the 'pattern' you describe
as 'design pattern' actually is 'design pattern' rather than 'non-
design pattern'. Remember that any possible arrangement of any set of
things or ideas, including random arrangements, are 'patterns'.
In this particular case, however, wouldn't you actually *want* the
trait of being camoflaged to be 'design pattern' rather than 'non-
design pattern'? Agreeing that this trait "is just a pattern" means
(if I got your 'intent' that 'pattern' is the opposite of 'design'
correct) that you think that such features of organisms are NOT
designed by your favorite HYPE. Is that really what you think?
> As I explained on the Peppered moth pattern
> or design thread, the birds had no intent to eat the light colored
> moths , it was just a pattern. Had soot been white then the black
> moths would have been eaten, making the whole evolutionist story
> surrounding it unfalsifiable.
>
> > Note that "usefulness" exists before it is preserved, and is preserved
> > because it is useful.
>
> Do you understand the concept of a tautology ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29
> "....In colloquial terms a logical tautology can also be defined as a
> series of statements that comprise an argument, which statements are
> constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is
> guaranteed. Consequently the statement conveys no useful information
> regardless of its length or complexity. Thus, for a simple example,
> the statement "if you can't find something (that you lost), you are
> not looking in the right place" is tautological. It is also true, but
> conveys no useful information. As a physical example, to play a game
> of darts where the dart board was full of bullseyes, could be called a
> "tautological" game. You can't lose. Any argument containing a
> tautological statement is thus flawed logically and must be considered
> erroneous. A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological
> game is not a game. Mathematical equations, such as e = mc2, are not
> tautologies. The terms on both sides of the equation are defined
> elsewhere independently, and thus the equal sign does not mean "is
> defined by" but rather equal to, thus establishing an equivalence...."
Explain to me why "NS exists when |rs1 - rs2| > 0" (rs1 and rs2 being
some measure of reproductive success, rs, of organisms with alternate
phenotypes 1 and 2, respectively) is a tautology rather than an
equation? NS is clearly not the same thing as rs1. NS is clearly not
the same thing as rs2. So, NS is not merely a repetition of terms
that mean the same thing. NS, moreover, does not always exist
according to this equation, since its existence is determined by the
relationship between rs1 and rs2. Specifically, when |rs1 - rs2| = 0,
NS does not exist. That makes it different from what the above
paragraph says is a tautology. In fact, the above paragraph tells us
precisely the opposite of what you claim. It explicitly says that
equations are not tautologies because the terms (like m and c in the
equation E = mc^2 or m and a in F = ma) are independently defined. If
you really understand the term tautology, as it is described above,
you should understand that NS is NOT a tautology.
>
> > To take the classic textbook example, on sooty
> > tree branches, black moths are better camoflaged than specked grey
> > ones; this usefulness (it helps keep black moths from being eaten
> > before they have offspring) is why the black color morph survives in
> > such environments, but not in environments where the trees are covered
> > with pale lichens.
>
> Just another pattern.
Don't you mean "Just another non-designed pattern."? And how does
agreeing that these patterns are 'non-designed' lead you to think that
organismal features ARE 'designed'?
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> backspace wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My spider-sense tingled:
>>>>
>>>>> Harshman and Wilkins for example both differ on the validity of Punk-
>>>>> eek as they discussed around post nr.26 here
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8d8d9c4694
>>>>> 1f85cd# but they both use RS and NS, but their intent differs. JH
>>>>> thinks Punk- eek is wrong while Wilkins differs. How is it possible that
>>>>> Gould, Wilkins and JH could have projected the same intent with natural
>>>>> selection and reproductive success if they so fundamentally differ ?
>>>> Only backspace could post gibberish like this. Because Wilkins and I
>>>> differ on some point or other (and I'm not bothering to look up what it
>>>> is), we must also differ on what natural selection and reproductive
>>>> success mean?
>>>>
>>>> What a maroon.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>> I thought it was because we differed on the utility of the Prius that
>>> evolution was wrong.
>> You don't like the Prius?
>
> Of course I do, but it's as relevant to the topic.
So we don't differ on the utility of the Prius. Therefore evolution is
correct.
John Harshman
> On Mar 10, 2:43 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>>
>> My spider-sense tingled:
>>
>>> Harshman and Wilkins for example both differ on the validity of Punk-
>>> eek as they discussed around post nr.26 here
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8d8d9c4...
>>> but they both use RS and NS, but their intent differs. JH thinks Punk-
>>> eek is wrong while Wilkins differs. How is it possible that Gould,
>>> Wilkins and JH could have projected the same intent with natural
>>> selection and reproductive success if they so fundamentally differ ?
>> Only backspace could post gibberish like this. Because Wilkins and I
>> differ on some point or other (and I'm not bothering to look up what it
>> is), we must also differ on what natural selection and reproductive
>> success mean?
>>
>> What a maroon.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> dear Dr.Harshman allow this "maroon" to point out to you that Darwin's
> background and intent with natural selection was in the slow extremely
> gradual sense and he said that the fossils don't support his view yet,
> since we haven't dug enough. Well 150 years later and fossils still
> don't show gradual change.
Let me point out that you are indeed a maroon, and that you know nothing
about Darwin, what "gradual" means, and what fossils show.
> What one can't do is use NS if one is a Punk-eek because Darwin never
> had such intent. It is the same thing as labeling every theory in
> physics phlogiston theory.
Considering that nobody involved in PE has a problem with natural
selection, and that natural selection is a necessary part of PE, it
should be obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.
John Wilkins
> On Mar 10, 4:01 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 10:19 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have no idea who defined "reproductive success."
> >
> > Exactly nobody defined it, this is just the whole joke about it.
> > Somehow the powers that be bring in these terms such as allele,
>
> Allele was used by Mendel. Gene came later.
Mendel used "factors". Allele is a shortening of allelomorph, and I
think it was coined by Bateson in 1901. Gene was coined by Johannson in
1909.
>
> > phenotype, RS, genetic drift, allele frequencies etc. and nobody
> > can tell me where was it defined. On Wikipedia there are endless
> > revisions to the articles that deal with these topics, precisely
> > because "allele" isn't defined.
...
John Wilkins
Rusty Sites
So you don't think the Prius was intelligently designed.
Steven J.
> On Mar 9, 10:19 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > I have no idea who defined "reproductive success."
>
> Exactly nobody defined it, this is just the whole joke about it.
> Somehow the powers that be bring in these terms such as allele,
> phenotype, RS, genetic drift, allele frequencies etc. and nobody
> can tell me where was it defined. On Wikipedia there are endless
> revisions to the articles that deal with these topics, precisely
> because "allele" isn't defined. This means that we have a huge amount
> of wasted ink as Fodor put in on NS where people will have to rewrite
> what they wrote every time they used "allele" or NS.
>
all time, the meanings of words when He gave language to Adam? Now,
with the arrogance typical of creationists, you assume that you are
infallible when it comes to deciphering the will of God, so you assume
that God could not have given to "selection" the meaning used
consistently by evolutionists, but you have no reason for this
confidence. On your own grounds, I ought to just tell you that God
defined "reproductive success," and your failure to grasp what is
meant by the concept merely shows your own sinful and foolish nature,
which is beyond my poor power to cure.
Of course, *I* am not the person who said that God fixed, for all
time, the meaning of every word. I'm the person who keeps pointing
out that words change meaning over time, and that when a majority of
educated speakers of a language use a word or phrase to mean "A,"
there's little to be gained for anyone by pointing out that the first
person to use or define the term actually meant "B." So it doesn't
matter who "defined" reproductive success, nor does this prevent it
from having a knowable and consistent meaning.
>
> > What difference does it make? What matters is how the term is commonly used now, and there is
> > very little ambiguity about that.
>
> Who says so, Miller and Dennett differs from Provine and Fodor on
> the usage of natural selection.
>
You keep saying that, but I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.
>
> > The difference is over what natural selection can normally be expected
> > to accomplish, not over what natural selection is.
>
> Who says so, who are you interpreting or are you inventing your own
> reality based on the direction the atoms are bouncing in your head,
> how could anything be the "truth" or "real" if you believe your mind
> consists of illusions as you have to believe since your thoughts are
> just matter in motion.
>
First of all, if you want to complain that "bouncing atoms" cannot
possibly convey "meaning," then it hardly matters whether I am making
up my own definitions or interpreting the usage of others, does it?
Bouncing atoms would presumably be as good at the one as at the
other. Second, it is pure substance dualist superstition to imagine
that this problem is eliminated by attributing thought to "spirit" or
some sort of disembodied mind-stuff that somehow, for some reason, is
assumed to be magically immune to the limitations of bouncing atoms.
If bouncing atoms can't construct a useful representation of reality,
there's no reason to suppose that magic mind-stuff can do better;
spirit can presumably conjure up illusions and errors as readily as
atoms can.
Third, you yourself seem to imagine that "meaning" comes from
particular arrangements of words, which means, in practice, particular
arrangements of atoms or electromagnetic charges (in the printed or
electronic documents you consult). This seems perverse, as does
assuming that different arrangements of words cannot mean the same
thing. I do not know what I am to make of your rather odd mental
processes.
>
> > > Again where did you get the notion that "selection" in either the
> > > patter or design sense has got something to do with a yet to be
> > > defined concept labeled Reproductive success ?
>
-- [snip of ramblings better refuted by Howard Hershey]
>
> > Note that "usefulness" exists before it is preserved, and is preserved
> > because it is useful.
>
> Do you understand the concept of a tautology ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29
> "....In colloquial terms a logical tautology can also be defined as a
> series of statements that comprise an argument, which statements are
> constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is
> guaranteed. Consequently the statement conveys no useful information
> regardless of its length or complexity. Thus, for a simple example,
> the statement "if you can't find something (that you lost), you are
> not looking in the right place" is tautological. It is also true, but
> conveys no useful information. As a physical example, to play a game
> of darts where the dart board was full of bullseyes, could be called a
> "tautological" game. You can't lose. Any argument containing a
> tautological statement is thus flawed logically and must be considered
> erroneous. A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological
> game is not a game. Mathematical equations, such as e = mc2, are not
> tautologies. The terms on both sides of the equation are defined
> elsewhere independently, and thus the equal sign does not mean "is
> defined by" but rather equal to, thus establishing an equivalence...."
>
First of all, a tautological statement is not erroneous. How could it
be? You are asserting that a statement that is necessarily true is
necessarily false; could "bouncing atoms" possibly give rise to a more
absurd assertion that that?
Secondly, my statement that useful traits exist before they are
preserved, and are preserved because they are useful, is *not*
tautological. In principle, all variant traits could be equally
useful or useless, so that survival is utterly random. Or we could
imagine some perverse "reverse selection," whereby white moths
managed, on soot-covered branches, to nonetheless propagate faster
than black, camoflaged moths.
Third, if all equations are tautologies, and tautologies are so damned
useless, why do engineers resort so often to equations when trying to
accomplish goals like building bridges? Why do physicists use them
when trying to model reality? Your objections here are self-
contradictory and profoundly silly.
>
> > To take the classic textbook example, on sooty
> > tree branches, black moths are better camoflaged than specked grey
> > ones; this usefulness (it helps keep black moths from being eaten
> > before they have offspring) is why the black color morph survives in
> > such environments, but not in environments where the trees are covered
> > with pale lichens.
>
> Just another pattern.
>
Enough of that pattern, and one can explain all the complexity and
diversity of nature without resort to whatever you're calling
"design."
-- Steven J.
backspace
> Third, you yourself seem to imagine that "meaning" comes from
> particular arrangements of words, which means, in practice, particular
> arrangements of atoms or electromagnetic charges (in the printed or
> electronic documents you consult). This seems perverse, as does
> assuming that different arrangements of words cannot mean the same
> thing. I do not know what I am to make of your rather odd mental
> processes.
Information is separate from matter, read http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com
- I can't do it for you.
> First of all, a tautological statement is not erroneous. How could it
> be?
I never said they were, I said arguments based on tautologies are
erroneous. Tautologies are true by definition, hence how could it be
erroneous? The major mistake made is the formulation of tautologies
and then labeling it NS, thus when I attack the tautology some think I
am saying that the arbitrary term usually NS was itself wrong. NS as
a standalone term just like AS is a semantic impossibility no matter
in what context you use it. There never was anything "artificial"
about breeding cows not now not ever, no matter what intent Darwin had
with calling a contemplated decision making process "artificial". When
I stroke the dog I am not doing anything "artificial".
> Secondly, my statement that useful traits exist before they are
> preserved, and are preserved because they are useful, is *not*
> tautological. In principle, all variant traits could be equally
> useful or useless, so that survival is utterly random. Or we could
> imagine some perverse "reverse selection," whereby white moths
> managed, on soot-covered branches, to nonetheless propagate faster
> than black, camoflaged moths.
Did the white moths have some sort of goal to outbreed the black moths
or was whatever moth population either above or below the other simply
a pattern ?
backspace
> Allele is now used to mean a specific form of a gene locus. In
Where exactly is this locus, show it for me on Wikipedia, if you can't
get your view past the editors of Wikipedia, why should I bother with
it ?
> Design is (and always has been) a subset of pattern. ...
Your sentence has no grammar, you left out "a". To a or not to a that
is the question.
Should I rephrase ? Let me try:
Design is (and always has been) a subset of A pattern. ...
Now what would be your intent with "pattern"? Given your premises I
presume that design is an illusion created by the random patterns in
your brain.
backspace
wrote:
> Let me point out that you are indeed a maroon, and that you know nothing
> about Darwin, what "gradual" means, and what fossils show.
>
> > What one can't do is use NS if one is a Punk-eek because Darwin never
> > had such intent. It is the same thing as labeling every theory in
> > physics phlogiston theory.
>
> Considering that nobody involved in PE has a problem with natural
> selection, and that natural selection is a necessary part of PE, it
> should be obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Natural Selection is the semantics, the term itself has no intent only
an individual either Miller or Provine or Fodor or Pinker with some
sort of intent uses NS to project their intent. I am pointing out
that this is leading to massive confusion because their intent differs
yet they use the same term. I can't think of any other scientific
discipline with such chaos, imagine if each engineer had his own
little personal fantasy world of intent with "Eigen vector", the
bridges will all collapse! But Dr. Harshman nobody actually expects
you to design and make something like an egg turn into a chicken,
because we can't define the problem as to how this happens, which is
why these senseless meaningless debates will continue for another 300
years: LIfe, Allele, natural selection, artificial selection,
phenotype, Reproductive Success, directional selection, automatic
selection, higher-level selection, lower-level selection etc. isn't
defined.
And thus the insanity continues as YEC, Casey Lusking and materialists
all debate using terms that nobody has defined.
Am I the only person around here who gets this?
John Harshman
> On Mar 10, 5:40 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Let me point out that you are indeed a maroon, and that you know nothing
>> about Darwin, what "gradual" means, and what fossils show.
>>
>>> What one can't do is use NS if one is a Punk-eek because Darwin never
>>> had such intent. It is the same thing as labeling every theory in
>>> physics phlogiston theory.
>> Considering that nobody involved in PE has a problem with natural
>> selection, and that natural selection is a necessary part of PE, it
>> should be obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> Natural Selection is the semantics, the term itself has no intent only
> an individual either Miller or Provine or Fodor or Pinker with some
> sort of intent uses NS to project their intent. I am pointing out
> that this is leading to massive confusion because their intent differs
> yet they use the same term.
No, you are making that claim without evidence. You are unqualified to
judge the intent of any author. You are a nutcase. And I make that claim
with abundant evidence.
> I can't think of any other scientific
> discipline with such chaos, imagine if each engineer had his own
> little personal fantasy world of intent with "Eigen vector", the
> bridges will all collapse!
Fortunately, there is no such problem in biology. It exists only within
your personal head, and I'll thank you to keep the contents of your head
to yourself.
> But Dr. Harshman nobody actually expects
> you to design and make something like an egg turn into a chicken,
> because we can't define the problem as to how this happens, which is
> why these senseless meaningless debates will continue for another 300
> years: LIfe, Allele, natural selection, artificial selection,
> phenotype, Reproductive Success, directional selection, automatic
> selection, higher-level selection, lower-level selection etc. isn't
> defined.
All these are defined. They have been defined for you here many times.
You ignore the definitions.
> And thus the insanity continues as YEC, Casey Lusking and materialists
> all debate using terms that nobody has defined.
>
> Am I the only person around here who gets this?
Yes. Fortunately, it's not contagious.
Victor Eijkhout
> s...@sig.for.address (Victor Eijkhout) wrote:
> > Why is it that the creationinsts in this group always link to
> > interesting science writing...
>
> Like answersingenesis.org? :-D
Ok, that one is interesting in the chinese sense.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Gary Bohn
news:fd7a83c1-f480-451f...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> I think you missed this because of the posting hiccup (not literally,
> only living things hiccup, I mean a figurative hiccup). Its not
> perfect but we can improve upon it as we go along:
> Original thread:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2801..
> .
>
> I don't understand most of anything you say but I thought I'd go
> through this for you from 'first principles', chime in (not literally,
> I probably couldn't hear the chime from where ever you are; I'm using
> the phrase 'chime in' in a figurative way) where you disagree or don't
> understand. I hope others will also show me where I may be wrong or
> confused. This is going to be very very very basic and with little
> detail into actual mechanics etc.
>
> 1) Life exists on Earth. (You can start quibbling here about how we
> define 'life' and whatnot but I'm going to use the old "I knows it
> when I sees it definition.")
>
> 2) All life on Earth uses DNA for protein synthesis. (I'm not going
> into details here, we can if you like later but others are certainly
> better suited to this as I spend most of my time studying what certain
> conglomerates of protein do and think at the macro level)
>
> 3) Mutations sometimes occur in DNA. (i.e. one or more of the
> bases in a given strand of DNA are changed. This could be an addition,
> a deletion, a change from one base to another etc)
>
> 4) Sometimes these mutations have an affect on protein synthesis.
> (This is only when it is a mutation in an area of the DNA that is
> active in protein synthesis or regulation, some DNA just doesn't
> appear to be an active player)
>
> 5) We can lump mutations into three categories:
> (a) neutral(i.e. it has no affect on the survivability of the organism
> and/or its offspring
>
> (b) beneficial (i.e. it increases the chances of an organism surviving
> and/or producing offspring) Note: Who says its beneficial? I do and so
> does everyone else.
>
> (c) deleterious (I.e. it decreases the chances of an organism
> surviving and/or producing offspring).
>
> 6) Whether a given mutation is beneficial or deleterious is dependent
> upon what environment the organism inhabits. (e.g. a bacterium that
> has a mutation to digest nylon before nylon exists does not really
> gain anything, but acquiring that trait once nylon does exist allows
> the bacterium to take advantage of a new food source)
>
> 7) Organisms with mutations (we'll call them 'traits' now) that are
> beneficial (see above) have a greater chance of surviving and passing
> those traits to successive generations.
>
> 8) The preservation of beneficial traits and the destruction of
> deleterious traits is observed on Earth.
>
> 9) Today we call this 'natural selection'.
>
> 10) A long time ago this guy named Darwin noticed this pattern. He
> didn't Know how traits were passed along, he offered a hypothesis
> involving 'pangenes' and 'gemmules'. There was someone else, Mendel
> who really liked peas. He discovered that the inheritance of traits
> followed predictable rules, but he didn't know about the role of DNA
> either.DNA itself was first seen in 1869 by this Swiss guy, Miescher,
> he didn't know what it did though. Real, absolute confirmation of the
> fact that DNA was responsible for inheritance didn't happen until 1953
> but the hypothesis that it was involved goes back (I think) as early
> as the 1920's.
>
> Any questions?
>
>
Yah, what definition of 'any' do you mean when you ask 'any questions'?
--
Gary Bohn
Woland
> On Mar 10, 7:43 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > Third, you yourself seem to imagine that "meaning" comes from
> > particular arrangements of words, which means, in practice, particular
> > arrangements of atoms or electromagnetic charges (in the printed or
> > electronic documents you consult). This seems perverse, as does
> > assuming that different arrangements of words cannot mean the same
> > thing. I do not know what I am to make of your rather odd mental
> > processes.
>
> - I can't do it for you.
>
> > First of all, a tautological statement is not erroneous. How could it
> > be?
>
> I never said they were, I said arguments based on tautologies are
> erroneous. Tautologies are true by definition, hence how could it be
> erroneous? The major mistake made is the formulation of tautologies
> and then labeling it NS, thus when I attack the tautology some think I
> am saying that the arbitrary term usually NS was itself wrong. NS as
> a standalone term just like AS is a semantic impossibility no matter
> in what context you use it. There never was anything "artificial"
> about breeding cows not now not ever, no matter what intent Darwin had
> with calling a contemplated decision making process "artificial". When
> I stroke the dog I am not doing anything "artificial".
If both were semantically impossible then other people would also have
the same insane inability to communicate and understand each other
that you have. However, given that everyone else understands what they
mean and given that we never have to go around saying "What is your
intent?" you may want to realize that you are the person with the
problem.
Also, for thousands of years some people have made a distinction
between the 'natural world' and we humans. I'd guess that it began
sometime during the transition from hunter/gatherer to horticulture/
agriculture (the Yanamomo Actually differentiate things like this:
"things of the village" vs "things of the forest" and they (well 'did'
I guess now) practiced horticulture.
This is why we distinguish between NS (differential reproductive
success that does not involve human interference) ans AS (differential
reproductive success that does involve human interference). To
everyone else this is obvious and you're crazy.
Ernest Major
<fd7a83c1-f480-451f...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Woland <jerr...@gmail.com> writes
>10) A long time ago this guy named Darwin noticed this pattern. He
>didn't Know how traits were passed along, he offered a hypothesis
>involving 'pangenes' and 'gemmules'. There was someone else, Mendel who
>really liked peas. He discovered that the inheritance of traits
>followed predictable rules, but he didn't know about the role of DNA
>either.DNA itself was first seen in 1869 by this Swiss guy, Miescher,
>he didn't know what it did though. Real, absolute confirmation of the
>fact that DNA was responsible for inheritance didn't happen until 1953
>but the hypothesis that it was involved goes back (I think) as early as
>the 1920's.
Depending on what you consider adequate confirmation 1953 should be 1928
(Griffith), 1943 (Avery et al) or 1952 (Hershey & Chase).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History
1953 was when we discovered the basics of the mechanics of how DNA was
responsible for inheritance.
--
alias Ernest Major
Steven J.
>
> > Third, you yourself seem to imagine that "meaning" comes from
> > particular arrangements of words, which means, in practice, particular
> > arrangements of atoms or electromagnetic charges (in the printed or
> > electronic documents you consult). This seems perverse, as does
> > assuming that different arrangements of words cannot mean the same
> > thing. I do not know what I am to make of your rather odd mental
> > processes.
>
> - I can't do it for you.
>
> > First of all, a tautological statement is not erroneous. How could it
> > be?
>
> I never said they were, I said arguments based on tautologies are
> erroneous. Tautologies are true by definition, hence how could it be
> erroneous? The major mistake made is the formulation of tautologies
> and then labeling it NS, thus when I attack the tautology some think I
> am saying that the arbitrary term usually NS was itself wrong. NS as
> a standalone term just like AS is a semantic impossibility no matter
> in what context you use it. There never was anything "artificial"
> about breeding cows not now not ever, no matter what intent Darwin had
> with calling a contemplated decision making process "artificial". When
> I stroke the dog I am not doing anything "artificial".
>
equip Adam with a word that had no meaning? I've read descriptions of
cattle breeding as it is done today, and trust me, no cow and bull
ever did anything like that before we got our hands on (and our tubing
in) them! Even before "artificial" (if the word means anything)
insemination, preventing a dog from mating with any female canine in
sight and inducing him to mate only with particular picked females is
not the way the dog would do it without human intervention. And let's
not even get into the things we do (that humanly-unguided nature never
did) in plant breeding. Yes, at one level, all human artifacts are
"natural" in the sense that they conform to the laws of nature, but we
interfere and impose our own purposes on all manner of natural
phenomena -- including reproduction.
Some traits are favored in breeding because humans prefer them and
control breeding to get them (artificial selection), and others
propagate because they just help the organisms find mates, or find
food, or avoid becoming food, or make them more attractive to
potential mates (natural selection).
>
> > Secondly, my statement that useful traits exist before they are
> > preserved, and are preserved because they are useful, is *not*
> > tautological. In principle, all variant traits could be equally
> > useful or useless, so that survival is utterly random. Or we could
> > imagine some perverse "reverse selection," whereby white moths
> > managed, on soot-covered branches, to nonetheless propagate faster
> > than black, camoflaged moths.
>
> Did the white moths have some sort of goal to outbreed the black moths
> or was whatever moth population either above or below the other simply
> a pattern ?
>
Since I do not concede that having a goal is relevant to whether
something is "selection" in the biological sense, it does not matter.
I reject your views that words can never alter, broaden, or narrow
their meanings.
-- Steven J.
hersheyh
> On Mar 10, 7:43 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > Third, you yourself seem to imagine that "meaning" comes from
> > particular arrangements of words, which means, in practice, particular
> > arrangements of atoms or electromagnetic charges (in the printed or
> > electronic documents you consult). This seems perverse, as does
> > assuming that different arrangements of words cannot mean the same
> > thing. I do not know what I am to make of your rather odd mental
> > processes.
>
> - I can't do it for you.
>
> > First of all, a tautological statement is not erroneous. How could it
> > be?
>
> I never said they were, I said arguments based on tautologies are
> erroneous. Tautologies are true by definition,
But *only* if the "statement conveys no useful information regardless
of its length or complexity." Real definitions do add useful
information. Equations, for example, are NOT tautologies. And NS is
easily represented by an equation: NS exists when |rs1 - rs2| > 0.
Neither the terms rs1 nor rs2, by themselves, are identical to NS.
You can measure rs1 and rs2 and *still* not have NS.
> hence how could it be
> erroneous? The major mistake made is the formulation of tautologies
> and then labeling it NS, thus when I attack the tautology some think I
> am saying that the arbitrary term usually NS was itself wrong.
If you claim that the term NS does not convey useful information, you
are wrong. If someone says that NS occurred, that tells me something
useful. Claiming that it doesn't is equivalent to claiming that if I
say that a force was applied to the trigger of a loaded gun aimed at
your head (I don't want to hurt you by aiming at a vital organ you
might be capable of using) that doesn't tell me anything useful
because F = ma is a tautology and thus doesn't exist.
> NS as
> a standalone term just like AS is a semantic impossibility no matter
> in what context you use it. There never was anything "artificial"
> about breeding cows not now not ever, no matter what intent Darwin had
> with calling a contemplated decision making process "artificial". When
> I stroke the dog I am not doing anything "artificial".
"Artificial" comes from artifice and *means* "made by humans". The
different breeds of *domesticated* cows are "made by human artifice".
"Natural", OTOH, refers, in this context, to that which happens in the
absence of human artifice. In a handy dictionary I have (you might
try looking at one before you say even more stupid things about words
you are ignorant of the meaning of), the very first definition of
"artificial" says that the 'intent' or 'meaning' of the word
"artificial" is something that is "made or contrived by art, or by
human skill and labor; in opposition to natural." Domesticated
*breeds* of animals are 'contrived by art' or 'made' by human skill
and labor. Ergo, the *breeds* are artificial. This can be easily
shown in that feral domesticated cattle and/or pigs do not retain
their 'artificial' form over even a few generations.
Since your stroking your dog does not "make" anything "by human skill
or labor", that action would not be 'artificial'. The breed of dog
you stroke, its friendliness to you, and its utility to humans,
however, is an artifice that would not exist without human "art or
contrivance" and generations of "human skill and labor".
> > Secondly, my statement that useful traits exist before they are
> > preserved, and are preserved because they are useful, is *not*
> > tautological. In principle, all variant traits could be equally
> > useful or useless, so that survival is utterly random. Or we could
> > imagine some perverse "reverse selection," whereby white moths
> > managed, on soot-covered branches, to nonetheless propagate faster
> > than black, camoflaged moths.
>
> Did the white moths have some sort of goal to outbreed the black moths
> or was whatever moth population either above or below the other simply
> a pattern ?
Design pattern or non-design pattern? Both are patterns.
hersheyh
> On Mar 10, 5:24 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Allele is now used to mean a specific form of a gene locus. In
>
> Where exactly is this locus, show it for me on Wikipedia, if you can't
> get your view past the editors of Wikipedia, why should I bother with
> it ?
>
> > Design is (and always has been) a subset of pattern. ...
>
> Your sentence has no grammar, you left out "a". To a or not to a that
> is the question.
> Should I rephrase ? Let me try:
>
> Design is (and always has been) a subset of A pattern. ...
No. Design patterns are a subset of the universe of all patterns.
Or, more briefly, design is a subset of pattern. I meant what I
said. Substituting the very similar word "model", design is a subset
of all models or perceptual structures that can be copied. In the
absence of design, you still have models or perceptual structures that
can be copied. Random models do have a perceptual structure. In
fact, many random events can form, with sufficient trials, quite
specific and identifiable perceptual structures (vide the bell curve).
>
> Now what would be your intent with "pattern"? Given your premises I
> presume that design is an illusion created by the random patterns in
> your brain.
No. Pattern is defined here as the relationship that things or ideas
have relative to one another. Specifically, in the dictionary (again,
a useful book to have), a pattern is a "model to be copied", but the
definition closest to the meaning here is that a pattern is "a
perceptual structure (Example: "A visual pattern must include not only
objects but the spaces between them")." Since that requires
'perception', perhaps that is why you have so much trouble with this
concept.
Gary Bohn
news:fr236a$gaq$1...@aioe.org:
> "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3610c12c-6208-4b84-a850-
>
> So what does account for the different eye structures found in
> animals?
>
> David
>
>
Bananas. It's all about bananas.
--
Gary Bohn
hersheyh
> On Mar 10, 5:40 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> Am I the only person around here who gets this?
Let me rephrase: "Why are you the only person around here who
*doesn't* get it." Why do you arrogantly assume that everyone else
(including many, if not most, YEC creationists) is ignorant and
stupid? Why do you assume that you are the real genius who has the
magic words to deny reality?
Remember that when all about you are in panic and running away, the
first question to ask is, "Why the bloody hell am *I* standing here?"
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
<snip>
>... I said arguments based on tautologies are
>erroneous.
Who defined "tautology"? Words don't define themselves, so
before we can accept any such claim we must know where and
when it was defined, and who defined it. The person who
defined it had a specific intent; what was his intent with
tautology?
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Vreeland
opined:
>In article
><7f76ebff-9363-43a5...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> er...@swva.net wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 8:50 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mar 9, 5:47 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
>> > > gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
>> > > "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
>> > > thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
>> >
>> > Nowhere in his months of posting has BackSpace even tried
>> > to explain how the Kangaroos got back to Australia after Noah's
>> > flood. A migration that is essential to understanding his beliefs
>> > just, hangs in the air.
>> >
>> > Oh wait, THAT'S IT!! The kangaroos flew back to Australia.
>>
>> Back then, there was more oxygen in the atmosphere, plus the gravity
>> constant (TM) was different, so the kangaroos were able to simply
>> "island-hop" there.
>>
>> Eric Root
>
>That joke is not worth a Continental.
Not only is that weak, but isn't it a 220--year-old reference? How
long is that in Bible years?
--
Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one of them is a sock puppet.
---John Vreeland(IEEE.org)
Woland
> In message
> <fd7a83c1-f480-451f-a0f9-836e5a0e1...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> writes
Thanks. I was going from memory and the first real example I could
recall was from '53.
Woland
> On Mar 10, 5:24 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Allele is now used to mean a specific form of a gene locus. In
>
> Where exactly is this locus, show it for me on Wikipedia, if you can't
> get your view past the editors of Wikipedia, why should I bother with
> it ?
*sigh* Locus comes from the latin for 'place.' Think of 'location.' In
this context he's talking about where a specific gene is on a
chromosome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_%28genetics%29
Seriously, invest in an unabridged copy of the OED.
> > Design is (and always has been) a subset of pattern. ...
>
> Your sentence has no grammar, you left out "a". To a or not to a that
> is the question.
> Should I rephrase ? Let me try:
Actually the 'a' could be left out in this case. Either way, I see you
don't know what grammar is either.
wf3h
> erroneous. Tautologies are true by definition, hence how could it be
> erroneous? The major mistake made is the formulation of tautologies
> and then labeling it NS, thus when I attack the tautology some think I
> am saying that the arbitrary term usually NS was itself wrong. NS as
> a standalone term just like AS is a semantic impossibility no matter
> in what context you use it.
not a scientist in the world agrees with this. you can't understand
what NS is because of your religion. that's your problem, not one for
science
as to your religion, we've waited in vain for an explanation about how
'god did it' tells us anything about nature at all.
Shearwater
>>>>
>>>>> Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he
>>>>> never gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which
>>>>> he labeled "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is
>>>>> undefined and thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
>>>>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>> Nowhere in his months of posting has BackSpace even tried
>>>> to explain how the Kangaroos got back to Australia after Noah's
>>>> flood. A migration that is essential to understanding his beliefs
>>>> just, hangs in the air.
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait, THAT'S IT!! The kangaroos flew back to Australia.
>>>Tiny Bulcher" wrote:
>>> God did it by a miracle, no doubt. I don't know why creationists ever
>>> bother saying all the pseudoscientific bafflegab they do, when
>>> everything they say always boils down to the same thing.
>>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>> Yes, why go to the drama of the flood, just zap the bad guys, and
>> straighten the genes of those you want to save. Maybe He did that and
>> gave the one family that remained the memories of the boat ride.
> "Tiny Bulcher" wrote:
> Why create the bad guys in the first place?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To make gawd look good. Apparently he needs a little help.
Llanzlan Klazmon
> On Mar 9, 5:47 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
> > gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
> > "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
> > thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
>
> to explain how the Kangaroos got back to Australia after Noah's
> flood. A migration that is essential to understanding his beliefs
> just, hangs in the air.
>
> Oh wait, THAT'S IT!! The kangaroos flew back to Australia.
Don't be silly! Kangaroos could jump much further in those days and
had big pouches to carry the other Australian fauna too. They have of
course since lost this capability through evilushun removing
information.
Knuje
> "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca1c6b8a-34d5-4aff...@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past...
>
> > "...For a long time, one of the hypotheses to explain all these eyes
> > was that they evolved independently, multiple times within the animal
> > kingdom...."
>
> What is your explanation for the different eye structures that are found
> amongst animals?
>
> If they eye arose only once how come we observe several different models, how
> did one beome many?
>
> If the reason for the different structures is that it arose several times how
> did this come about?
>
> David
That's easy to explain, but first you have to understand exactly what
an "eye" is.... certain chemicals react when exposed to light.... a
plant or animal with those chemicals is therefore able to react when
exposed to light -- even the tiniest ability to detect changes in
light is better than no ability at all, it can help an animal find
food or avoid becoming it.... an animal with a slight more focused
ability to sense light will do even better, so a mutation that
provides a slight advantage in this respect will bring success which
is passed on and on....
So at some point in the past some wee beastie developed a particularly
focused ability to detect light.... now it just happens that the most
effective way to gauge the distance of an object is to have two or
more detectors spaced apart a little bit, so changes in the light hit
them a bit differently; and since an animal that uses the minimal
amount of resources to survive will do better than one that requires
more, the beastie that grows exactly two eyes pointing in roughly the
same direction will prevail....
This probably happened very early on, with the sea-dwelling creatures
that preceded all life on land....
It only had to happen once, tho-- this is where geographic separation
and speciation come in.... say you take two groups of fish from the
same species, and have one migrate East and the other West, until they
are so far apart that they can no longer even conceivably breed with
each other.... each will continue breeding and evolving and adapting
to its peculiar conditions.... maybe one moves to deeper waters, and
stays the same (or, over generations, evolves for deep water
features), it's eyes are less useful where there is no light and so
they atrophy over time.... the other moves to shallower waters, where
light is more important, and they select for stronger vision over
time.... and then, one day, a subgroup of the descendants of that
initial group, moves into even shallower waters and spends a portion
of each day exposed to dry air....
Here's the key thing to remember: speciation is not an all or nothing
thing; it is not necessary for all the fish to evolve, so there are
suddenly no more fish but instead a group of amphibians; any given
colony of animals, if successful, will spread to cover as much
geographic territory as it can....a single colony of fish may
eventually split into fifty subcolonies, each constantly adapting with
each generation to survive better in its own environment; over a few
thousand generations, two of these subcolonies might not only have
become genetically distinct so that they can not interbreed; they may
have assumed completely different roles, with one being a predator
that preys on the other!! In such a case, both predator and prey adapt
not only to their environment, but to the challenge that the other
poses; the predator that is best at catching survives; so does the
prey that is best at eluding capture....
This plays out all over the globe, and with every kind of animal....
bears began from one common ancestor and spread out into several
groups with specific geographic range, each group adapting over
generations to its own surroundings.... so we end up with polar bears,
grizzly bears, brown bears, black bears.... and before they were
bears, they were some mammalian proto-carnivore from which different
groups gave rise to ursines, canines, and felines; and before that
there was a proto-mammal which would give rise to carnivores,
ungulates, rodents, primates, etc....
Going back far enough, there is one common ancestor of almost all
vertebrates with eyes, and one common ancestor of almost all
invertebrates with eyes (which have developed quite differently as you
can see), and for all this to happen, nature only had to produce light
sensitive cells twice, once in the proto-vertebrate and once in the
proto-invertebrate.... however, the differences in development of eyes
since then may be as varied as the differences in the development of
jaws, length of limbs, skull capacity, etc....
David Hare-Scott
> years: LIfe, Allele, natural selection, artificial selection,
> phenotype, Reproductive Success, directional selection, automatic
> selection, higher-level selection, lower-level selection etc. isn't
> defined.
>
> And thus the insanity continues as YEC, Casey Lusking and materialists
> all debate using terms that nobody has defined.
>
> Am I the only person around here who gets this?
>
You are unique.
Now please explain why there are different structures for the eye in animals.
You raised the issue, if you don't know or don't care, or it is not relevant
why did you raise it?
David
hersheyh
> "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It doesn't matter to emptyspace because he believes that words are
magical. And if he can just demonstrate that the words scientists use
to describe our shared reality can be dismissed, then the unpleasant
reality itself will disappear in a puff of smoke.
Of course, if he tried this with the word "gravity" rather than the
words "natural selection", I would recommend that he test it's
disappearance from the ground up rather than off the tallest building
he can find. But he hasn't listened so far.
Desertphile
It wasn't devolution that caused the decrease in jumping power:
back then, they could jump due to The Reduced Felt Effect of
Gravity.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
backspace
> Going back far enough, there is one common ancestor of almost all
> vertebrates with eyes, and one common ancestor of almost all
> invertebrates with eyes (which have developed quite differently as you
> can see), and for all this to happen, nature only had to produce light
> sensitive cells twice, once in the proto-vertebrate and once in the
> proto-invertebrate.... however, the differences in development of eyes
> since then may be as varied as the differences in the development of
> jaws, length of limbs, skull capacity, etc....
The common ancestor between man and chimp, what did it look like ?
backspace
> ?? doesn't matter what darwin's intent was. einstein invented
> relativity but he never conceived of 'space-time' as a 4th dimension
> even though it follows from his theory
>
> you seem to think a scientist who invents a theory has to conceive of
> ALL the ramifications of that theory
And what was Darwin's theory ? I can' t find it on Wikipedia, would
you be so kind as to create a scratchpad.wikia.com entry and in your
own words state the formally established "theory" of Darwin. He used
ToNS 36 times and ToE twice yet he never actually gave the formal
definition. As on reviewer put it "... it was one long argument..."
Sure so did Kepler but Kepler gave us the conclusion , Darwin never
came to any formally established conclusion and the failure to
understand this is why we are in this language terrorism mess we find
ourselves in
with everybody using natural selection but nobody knows what is the
theory of natural selection - formally defined that is.
wf3h
> On Mar 10, 4:09 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > ?? doesn't matter what darwin's intent was. einstein invented
> > relativity but he never conceived of 'space-time' as a 4th dimension
> > even though it follows from his theory
>
> > you seem to think a scientist who invents a theory has to conceive of
> > ALL the ramifications of that theory
>
> And what was Darwin's theory ? I can' t find it on Wikipedia,
what is 'god'? i can't find it in wikipedia.
would
> you be so kind as to create a scratchpad.wikia.com entry
would you be so kind as to tell me how creationism solves the origins
problem? saying 'god did it' leaves undefined the very concept of god
as creator.
and in your
> own words state the formally established "theory" of Darwin. He used
> ToNS 36 times and ToE twice yet he never actually gave the formal
> definition. As on reviewer put it "... it was one long argument..."
> Sure so did Kepler but Kepler gave us the conclusion , Darwin never
> came to any formally established conclusion and the failure to
> understand this is why we are in this language terrorism mess we find
> ourselves in
> with everybody using natural selection but nobody knows what is the
> theory of natural selection - formally defined that is.
saying 'god created' to me, as a scientist, is a meaningless phrase.
the bible seems filled with these. proof of that is the fact that 'god
did it' stymied progress in the western world for 1500 years. science
went nowhere
i'm really interested in getting help from creationists. how does 'god
did it' tell me anything testable as a scientist? why did this idea
fail for 1500 years? why does no scientist use this idea? why can't i
find it in 'wikipedia'? why can't i find reference to 'god' in ANY
scientific papers
i really want your help. perhaps you can tell us what no creationist
has mananged to do.
Woland
Every single time we answer this for you, you ignore it. So go fuck
yourself.
David Hare-Scott
A non sequitur mated with a red herring.
I take it from the last three times that you skipped the issue that you might
be uncertain about why there are different eye structures amongst animals.
What did you think of the explanation given by Knuje? Any comment on the
origin of the eye?
David
Walter Bushell
"Shearwater" <Turk...@monkeysfist.com> wrote:
Drama. The deity of the TANAK is a drama queen.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
Inez
Do you have a mirror handy?
Woland
You've actually been shown several possible examples before. Again,
why do you ignore the things we show you? Even if you don't find the
evidence compelling it is only honest to admit that we've answered all
of your absurd questions.
Anyway, the common ancestor was most probably part of or closely
related to this genus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
I've also previously pointed you to this site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Which is a pretty good source and even answers your questions like
"Who first coined term x?"
Its not our responsibility to educate you. Maybe when you grow up you
could attend university.
backspace
As Dr.Wilkins pointed out wether you call the CA a simian, ape, bonobo
or monkey you just replaced one vernacular for another, do you people
really want to start a debate all over that lasted for three months on
this forum? I thought we all agreed with Dr.Wilkins on the issue.
backspace
> Which is a pretty good source and even answers your questions like
> "Who first coined term x?"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
"....common ancestry and convergent evolution can both cause
biological similarities..."
Is evolution the cause or the effect ?
backspace
> Every single time we answer this for you, you ignore it. So go .... > yourself.
Come now Woland how about a bit of civility and instead of throwing a
tantrum why don't you just do my simple request: Create a
Scratchpad.wikia page and outline for me the formal Woland ToE . But
of course there is no theory of evolution and natural selection
because if there is one then why don't just put up a web page and
define it for me ? I am not going to keep track of what you posted 1
month ago, only Dr.Wilkins and Dr.Harshman get that honour and not
even they know what the ToE or ToNS is since Wilkins refuses to spell
out the formal theory on his page at scienceblogs.com
Woland
I've posted it several times actually, as has Hershey.
Woland
I didn't call it anything, I pointed to an actual genus.We all agree
with Wilkins, I don't think you understand the implications however.
Inez
Why do you insist on having the same stupid discussions over and
over? Do you agree that a thing can be both a cause and effect?
Desertphile
George Bush2.
Woland
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:35:54 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> > Knuje wrote:
>
> > > Going back far enough, there is one common ancestor of almost all
> > > vertebrates with eyes, and one common ancestor of almost all
> > > invertebrates with eyes (which have developed quite differently as you
> > > can see), and for all this to happen, nature only had to produce light
> > > sensitive cells twice, once in the proto-vertebrate and once in the
> > > proto-invertebrate.... however, the differences in development of eyes
> > > since then may be as varied as the differences in the development of
> > > jaws, length of limbs, skull capacity, etc....
> > The common ancestor between man and chimp, what did it look like ?
>
> George Bush2.
That is terribly unfair to the common ancestor.
wf3h
yes.
wf3h
> On Mar 11, 2:26 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Every single time we answer this for you, you ignore it. So go .... > yourself.
>
> Come now Woland how about a bit of civility and instead of throwing a
> tantrum why don't you just do my simple request: Create a
> Scratchpad.wikia page and outline for me the formal Woland ToE .
i'm wairing for the same answer for 'god did it'. a single application
of this idea would be useful. even one instance where it was
successful would go a LONG way to justify creationism.
but backspace seems to have a double standard. like all creationists,
he provides NO answers while insisting that others provide ALL
answers.
But
> of course there is no theory of evolution and natural selection
> because if there is one then why don't just put up a web page and
> define it for me ?
i await your response on how 'god did it' works. if creationism is
superior to science, why not prove it?
wf3h
>
yeah i've seen the innumerable responses to the creationist idiot. he
shrieks that scientific concepts are undefined then tells us 'god did
it' is science.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
<deser...@invalid-address.net>:
>On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Llanzlan Klazmon
><bill.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 10, 1:50 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mar 9, 5:47 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
>> > > gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
>> > > "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
>> > > thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
>> >
>> > Nowhere in his months of posting has BackSpace even tried
>> > to explain how the Kangaroos got back to Australia after Noah's
>> > flood. A migration that is essential to understanding his beliefs
>> > just, hangs in the air.
>> >
>> > Oh wait, THAT'S IT!! The kangaroos flew back to Australia.
>
>> Don't be silly! Kangaroos could jump much further in those days and
>> had big pouches to carry the other Australian fauna too. They have of
>> course since lost this capability through evilushun removing
>> information.
>
>It wasn't devolution that caused the decrease in jumping power:
>back then, they could jump due to The Reduced Felt Effect of
>Gravity.
You got to know when to Holden, know when to fold 'em...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
>On Mar 10, 4:09 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> ?? doesn't matter what darwin's intent was. einstein invented
>> relativity but he never conceived of 'space-time' as a 4th dimension
>> even though it follows from his theory
>>
>> you seem to think a scientist who invents a theory has to conceive of
>> ALL the ramifications of that theory
>
>And what was Darwin's theory ? I can' t find it on Wikipedia
Perhaps if you didn't rely exclusively on Wikipedia for your
education you'd have gotten a better one than the ignorance
you exhibit here indicates you got.
Translation for the terminally bewildered: Go read a few
books, moron.
<snip>
Bob Casanova
>On Mar 11, 5:03 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes.
Earle Jones
<77162972-b386-40fc...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
Your mother, no doubt.
earle
*
Earle Jones
<1dfd1bf2-1e11-408d...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
I think Woland had it right: You should go fuck yourself.
earle
*
hersheyh
> In article
> <1dfd1bf2-1e11-408d-bf71-4b8571de6...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
I agree. Even backspace should get some loving.
Ron O
Bending over and taking the bait and switch scam from the ID perps
isn't good enough for him?
Maybe the Wedgies are just practicing tough love?
Ron Okimoto
hersheyh
> On Mar 11, 11:27 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 8:49 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > > *
> > > I think Woland had it right: You should go fuck yourself.
>
> > I agree. Even backspace should get some loving.-
>
> Bending over and taking the bait and switch scam from the ID perps
> isn't good enough for him?
>
> Maybe the Wedgies are just practicing tough love?
We are talking about backspace here. He is not an IDeologue. In
fact, he thinks most of them (at least the quasi-intelligent ones like
Behe and Dembski) get it wrong because they, unlike our Mr. Genius,
understand that NS is describing a real phenomenon and that, even if
the words disappears that sucky old reality of differential
reproductive success would still be there. Hell, he thinks that even
YECs that use the term are wrong.
Backspace appears to be lost in the Matrix of his own mind and thinks
he can control the universe if he can control the meaning of words and
make the ones he wants to disappear go up in a puff of smoke. Self-
love, for him, is the only kind of love he can get. Hard to get
anything else if one thinks that all reality is merely an extension of
oneself.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Bill Morse
> John Harshman wrote:
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> backspace wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My spider-sense tingled:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Harshman and Wilkins for example both differ on the validity of
>>>>>>> Punk- eek as they discussed around post nr.26 here
>>>>>>>
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8d8d9c4694
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1f85cd# but they both use RS and NS, but their intent differs. JH
>>>>>>> thinks Punk- eek is wrong while Wilkins differs. How is it
>>>>>>> possible that
>>>>>>> Gould, Wilkins and JH could have projected the same intent with
>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>> selection and reproductive success if they so fundamentally differ ?
>>>>>> Only backspace could post gibberish like this. Because Wilkins and I
>>>>>> differ on some point or other (and I'm not bothering to look up
>>>>>> what it
>>>>>> is), we must also differ on what natural selection and reproductive
>>>>>> success mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What a maroon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> I thought it was because we differed on the utility of the Prius that
>>>>> evolution was wrong.
>>>> You don't like the Prius?
>>>
>>> Of course I do, but it's as relevant to the topic.
>>
>> So we don't differ on the utility of the Prius. Therefore evolution is
>> correct.
>>
>
> So you don't think the Prius was intelligently designed.
No, like any other example of good engineering (for example the watch) it
was evolved.
--
Yours, Bill Morse
Knuje
> Knuje wrote:
> > Going back far enough, there is one common ancestor of almost all
> > vertebrates with eyes, and one common ancestor of almost all
> > invertebrates with eyes (which have developed quite differently as you
> > can see), and for all this to happen, nature only had to produce light
> > sensitive cells twice, once in the proto-vertebrate and once in the
> > proto-invertebrate.... however, the differences in development of eyes
> > since then may be as varied as the differences in the development of
> > jaws, length of limbs, skull capacity, etc....
>
> The common ancestor between man and chimp, what did it look like ?
Here's the probable skeleton:
Friar Broccoli
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:24:50 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Llanzlan Klazmon
> ><bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 10, 1:50 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mar 9, 5:47 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
> >> > > gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
> >> > > "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
> >> > > thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
>
> >> > Nowhere in his months of posting has BackSpace even tried
> >> > to explain how the Kangaroos got back to Australia after Noah's
> >> > flood. A migration that is essential to understanding his beliefs
> >> > just, hangs in the air.
>
> >> > Oh wait, THAT'S IT!! The kangaroos flew back to Australia.
>
> >> Don't be silly! Kangaroos could jump much further in those days and
> >> had big pouches to carry the other Australian fauna too. They have of
> >> course since lost this capability through evilushun removing
> >> information.
>
> >It wasn't devolution that caused the decrease in jumping power:
> >back then, they could jump due to The Reduced Felt Effect of
> >Gravity.
>
> You got to know when to Holden, know when to fold 'em...
You've got to know when to walk there
and when to fly.
Kermit
I doubt that he said the CA could be called a bonobo; that's a living
species of ape and we are not descended from any living species. The
most *recent CA of chimps and humans would have been a tailless
primate, that is, an ape of sorts. Farther back there was something we
would call a monkey, before that a tree-dwelling insect eater, back
thru fish and beyond.
You're dangerously close to understanding his main point, however:
whatever we call the data, the data is what it is. Facts are facts,
whether we call them fossils, tricks of the devil, or your momma.
And you have never addressed the evidence.
Kermit
Kermit
Is your talking the cause or effect of your words?
Kermit
Kermit
> On Mar 9, 5:47 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Nowhere in the article did Myers used the word "selection" , he never
> > gave us any mechanism for this morphological changes which he labeled
> > "evolved" or "evolution". A word that essentially is undefined and
> > thus the article is incomplete , it hangs in the air.
>
> Nowhere in his months of posting has BackSpace even tried
> to explain how the Kangaroos got back to Australia after Noah's
> flood. A migration that is essential to understanding his beliefs
> just, hangs in the air.
>
> Oh wait, THAT'S IT!! The kangaroos flew back to Australia.
I want to know what the koalas ate on their way back.
Kermit