Where Science and Faith Converge

[J]

If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for
you. No need to thank me.






http://www.reasons.org/







--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[Devils Advocaat]

> jdyou...@ymail.com

From that website:

"TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?

Also from that website:

"The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.

And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.

The big question is were these errors unintentional or deliberate?

[Mitchell Holman]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in news:5leevb....@news.alt.net:

>
> If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for
> you. No need to thank me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.reasons.org/
>

From their masthead:

"RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by
demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research -
including the very latest discoveries - consistently
support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of
the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God
revealed in both Scripture and nature."

[harry k]

On May 23, 6:38 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote innews:5leevb....@news.alt.net:

So it starts right off by lying. What a surprise.

Harry K

[pnyikos]

On May 23, 12:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for
> you. No need to thank me.

I'll thank you anyway. While I don't particularly like the direction
the website takes, there is plenty of interesting scientific
information in it.

> http://www.reasons.org/
>
> --
> J Young

> jdyou...@ymail.com

By the way, Jon, there is a new mystery disappearance in the abortion
newsgroups. "Spartakus" has been gone for two months as of yesterday,
and none of the people who depended on him to prop them up is saying
what happened to him. And his last post makes no mention of him
leaving.

He was a personal friend of Patrick Humphrey, and as you know, he was
very tight-lipped about what had happened to Humphrey.

Oh, he did say early on that Humphrey and he had had an e-mail
exchange, but one should never believe that kind of comment from
"Spartakus" unless he gives documentation.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[Ken]

> jdyou...@ymail.com
>
>

Thank you for what?
A load of crapola.
No thanks

[thomas p.]

"Mitchell Holman" <nomailcomcast.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:XnsA05C56B94605C...@216.196.121.131...

Or, to put it more succinctly, they lie and depend on the ignorance and/or
gullibility of those their message is directed at.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 18:55:13 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Mitchell Holman" <nomailcomcast.net> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:XnsA05C56B94605C...@216.196.121.131...
>>J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in news:5leevb....@news.alt.net:
>>
>>> If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for
>>> you. No need to thank me.

What "beliefs" was the certifiable lunatic lying about?

>>> http://www.reasons.org/
>>
>> From their masthead:
>>
>> "RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by
>> demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research -
>> including the very latest discoveries - consistently
>> support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of
>> the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God
>> revealed in both Scripture and nature."
>
>Or, to put it more succinctly, they lie and depend on the ignorance and/or
>gullibility of those their message is directed at.

Most of their leaders know they're lying and rationalise it away,

A few might be genuine, but they all take advantage of it to live a
better lifestyle than those they fleece.

[thomas p.]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:sq5qr71lch52fs7c1...@4ax.com...

The purpose of the site is the collecting of donations. They cannot
seriously think their idiocy would impress any actual scientist including
scientists who are also theists.

[pnyikos]

On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for
> > you. No need to thank me.
>
> >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > --
> > J Young
> > jdyou...@ymail.com
>
> From that website:
>
> "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?

What's the url for that?

> Also from that website:
>
> "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.

I take it you've never heard of exoskeletons.

> And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.

It may not have been relevant. It is indeed a mystery why so many
phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in
such a short space of time, and no new ones in all the 500+ million
years that have elapsed since then.

I'm not sure it's a fact, by the way. To be precise, one ought to
confine oneself to phyla for which we have fossils.

> The big question is were these errors unintentional or deliberate?

I'm suspending judgment until you give me that url. There is nothing
like that on the page which emerged when I clicked just now on the url
J posted.

Peter Nyikos

[Alan Ferris]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:35:17 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>
>If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for
>you. No need to thank me.

Thank you for once again showing the dishonesty of faith in needing to
distort findings to support their god.

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")

[Caranx latus]

On May 23, 1:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for
> > > you. No need to thank me.
>
> > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > --
> > > J Young
> > > jdyou...@ymail.com
>
> > From that website:
>
> > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> What's the url for that?

<http://www.reasons.org/articles/tnrtb-classic-skeletons-in-the-
cambrian-explosion>

[Devils Advocaat]

On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for
> > > you. No need to thank me.
>
> > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > --
> > > J Young
> > > jdyou...@ymail.com
>
> > From that website:
>
> > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> What's the url for that?

Use the link that "J" provided, and on that page there is a picture of
said mammalian skeleton, click on that picture and it will take you to
the article in question.

>
> > Also from that website:
>
> > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
>
> I take it you've never heard of exoskeletons.

Excuse me? The article's author is the one with the skeleton problem
not me.

The link for the article in question can be found on the page I've
told you how to reach from the link "J" provided.

>
> > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> It may not have been relevant.

Not relevant?

Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
which contain genera, which contain species.

Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
No we don't.

Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
No we don't.

Need I go on?

> It is indeed a mystery why so many
> phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in
> such a short space of time, and no new ones in all the 500+ million
> years that have elapsed since then.

And yet you dismiss the fact that numerous classes, orders, families,
genera and species as not relevant.

Why is that?

>
> I'm not sure it's a fact, by the way.

What fact aren't you sure of?

>  To be precise, one ought to
> confine oneself to phyla for which we have fossils.

Which the article doesn't do at all.

>
> > The big question is were these errors unintentional or deliberate?
>
> I'm suspending judgment until you give me that url.  There is nothing
> like that on the page which emerged when I clicked just now on the url
> J posted.

Haven't you heard of exploring a website to find out what else is on
there?

That's what I did with the link "J" provided.

I've offered instructions earlier in this post
>
> Peter Nyikos

[BroilJAB]

If the odds of the first wished-for evolution event
are 10^4000 against, what are the odds of
'evolution instantly producing a dozen
novel phylums'? 10^400000000000000

[Caranx latus]

You keep pulling these numbers out of your ass. Just how big is that
thing?

[Caranx latus]

I'm not certain it's relevant either but for different reasons.
Ultimately, all of these taxonomic divisions are abstractions of human
invention, made to satisfy the human need for grouping things to make
it easier to talk about them. Nature is far, far messier than our
taxonomic system. The point at which the division between levels
occurs is arbitrary in every case, as is the reason for designating
sibling categories within a single parent category.

So while most of the existing phyla can be traced back into the
Cambrian, would that still be true if we had defined 'phylum' other
than we did?

[chibiabos]

In article <5leevb....@news.alt.net>, <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for
> you. No need to thank me.
>
> http://www.reasons.org/

So let me get this straight. They reject the science that PROVES
billions of years of bio-chemical evolution yet believe that the first
woman was made from a rib.

Is that about the whole of it?

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[William Smith]

On 05/23/2012 12:35 AM, J wrote:
>
> If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for
> you. No need to thank me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.reasons.org/
>
>
>

The original name of the site is reasonstobelieve.org
It was registered on Jan 7 1999

Domain Name:REASONSTOBELIEVE.ORG
Created On:07-Jan-1999 05:00:00 UTC
Registrant Organization:Reasons To Believe
Registrant Street1:731 East Arrow Highway
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Glendora
Registrant State/Province:California
Registrant Postal Code:91740-6504
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.6263351480

But then it occurred to the site owners that reasons.org
sounds better. People might think it has something to do with reason.
It has not but that's good for attracting traffic.

So reasons.org was registered on Jan 25 1999

Domain Name:REASONS.ORG
Created On:25-Jan-1999 05:00:00 UTC
Registrant Organization:Reasons To Believe
Registrant Street1:731 East Arrow Highway
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Glendora
Registrant State/Province:California
Registrant Postal Code:91740-6504
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.6263351480

[pnyikos]

On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

> > > >http://www.reasons.org/

>
> > > From that website:
>
> > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?

I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
what the author is saying. Such may be the case here.

> > What's the url for that?
>
> Use the link that "J" provided, and on that page there is a picture of
> said mammalian skeleton,

There is now. There wasn't one when I clicked on it. Apparently they
keep changing the page, shuffling things around.

>
> > > Also from that website:
>
> > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
>
> > I take it you've never heard of exoskeletons.
>
> Excuse me? The article's author is the one with the skeleton problem
> not me.

It is you. Now that the link is back, I can quote from the article:

"A skeleton may be 1) internal or external; "

Look up "exoskeleton" and get back to me, OK?

> > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > It may not have been relevant.
>
> Not relevant?

Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.

> Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> which contain genera, which contain species.

Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
superfamilies before you get to families.

I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification. If
cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
all those good old taxa.

You should see how cocksure they are. They believe practically every
systematist is on their side.

>
> Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> No we don't.
>
> Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> No we don't.
>
> Need I go on?

You shouldn't have started. I knew all that when I was eight years
old.

How old were you when you learned these things?

> > It is indeed a mystery why so many
> > phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in
> > such a short space of time, and no new ones in all the 500+ million
> > years that have elapsed since then.
>
> And yet you dismiss the fact that numerous classes, orders, families,
> genera and species as not relevant.

I said "may not be relevant" because I hadn't seen the article, but I
had seen others on the same general theme, from people like Stephen
Jay Gould. The theme is the Cambrian explosion, and the classes that
evolved inside the phyla that made their appearance them are stuff for
another chapter.

And now that I have read the article, I know it is of the same genre.

You haven't read it, have you? These people are reporting on
something respected scientists have done:

"A team of scientists from Franklin & Marshall College (in
Pennsylvania), the University of Chicago, and the American Museum of
Natural History in New York City has recently reported a new measure
of the dramatic biological innovations that took place during the
Cambrian Explosion.1"

and here is why they are talking mostly about phyla [they mention
vertebrates, which are a subphylum]:

"the above team of researchers constructed a “skeletal space,” a
mathematical space that defines all possible skeletal designs. From
this skeletal space, 182 possible skeletal designs were identified.
Interestingly, of these 182 possibilities, 146 appeared during the
Cambrian Explosion (based on analyses of 104 fossil genre recovered
from the Burgess Shale Cambrian site). That is, over 80% of all the
possible skeletal designs appear suddenly in the fossil record—during
a period of less than 15 million years."

Pretty amazing, isn't it? Cladophiles sneer at phyla, but they have
to have respect for this kind of research.

> > I'm not sure it's a fact, by the way.
>
> What fact aren't you sure of?

That all phyla made their appearance in the Cambrian explosion.

You agreed that this was a fact. I don't.

But that wasn't the main thrust of the article, as you can see.

> >  To be precise, one ought to
> > confine oneself to phyla for which we have fossils.
>
> Which the article doesn't do at all.

Nor did you.

[pnyikos]

On May 23, 7:33 pm, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > > It may not have been relevant.
>
> > Not relevant?
>
> I'm not certain it's relevant either but for different reasons.
> Ultimately, all of these taxonomic divisions are abstractions of human
> invention, made to satisfy the human need for grouping things to make
> it easier to talk about them. Nature is far, far messier than our
> taxonomic system. The point at which the division between levels
> occurs is arbitrary in every case,

Yet it does help us organize our thinking, as you yourself say. This
is something I despair of ever getting cladophiles to see.

> as is the reason for designating
> sibling categories within a single parent category.
>
> So while most of the existing phyla can be traced back into the
> Cambrian, would that still be true if we had defined 'phylum' other
> than we did?

Interesting question, but not really relevant to the theme of the
article which I talked about to Devils Advocaat a few minutes ago,
which is that

"over 80% of all the possible skeletal designs appear suddenly in the
fossil record—during a period of less than 15 million years."

...something even more remarkable than the fact that such a large
fraction of all phyla [according to the current classification] of
animals emerged during the Cambrian.

By the way, I got careless and confused the little introductory
article he was talking about, with the linked article for which it is
the introduction:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-explosive-appearance-of-skeletal-designs

This is where you will find the quote I gave you just now, along with
the quotes I gave Devils Advocaat.

> > > It is indeed a mystery why so many
> > > phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in

> > > such a short space of time.

Peter Nyikos

[Devils Advocaat]

I am well aware that the taxonomic divisions are of human origin, and
that nature is messier than our all too human classification systems.

>
> So while most of the existing phyla can be traced back into the
> Cambrian, would that still be true if we had defined 'phylum' other
> than we did?
>

The point I thought I'd been successful in making was that the author
of the article seemed to be placing too much importance on the fact
that all known phyla arose during the Cambrian Era, and seemed to be
ignoring the diversity that arose since that time, which would mislead
his/her less knowledgable readers into presuming all life forms that
exist now all arose during the Cambrian Explosion.

[Devils Advocaat]

On May 24, 4:31 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > From that website:
>
> > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> what the author is saying.  Such may be the case here.
>
> > > What's the url for that?
>
> > Use the link that "J" provided, and on that page there is a picture of
> > said mammalian skeleton,
>
> There is now.  There wasn't one when I clicked on it.  Apparently they
> keep changing the page, shuffling things around.
>

Fair enough.

>
> > > > Also from that website:
>
> > > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
>
> > > I take it you've never heard of exoskeletons.
>
> > Excuse me? The article's author is the one with the skeleton problem
> > not me.
>
> It is you.  Now that the link is back, I can quote from the article:
>
> "A skeleton may be 1) internal or external; "
>
> Look up "exoskeleton" and get back to me, OK?

I'm well aware of the article's content.

The article fails to point out that all fossil skeletons from that
time were invertebrate skeletons.

That omission plus the photo in the introductory item would mislead
people into thinking that mammals arose in the Cambrian Era.

>
> > > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > > It may not have been relevant.
>
> > Not relevant?
>
> Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.

Why not?

>
> > Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> > which contain genera, which contain species.
>
> Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
> superfamilies before you get to families.

Of which I am well aware.

But that doesn't excuse the author from only emphasising that all
phyla emerged at that time, for the simple reason less informed
readers of that article would be misled.

>
> I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification.  If
> cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
> alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
> all those good old taxa.

And hello to a whole bunch of new ones, which may later be ousted by a
different system.

>
> You should see how cocksure they are.  They believe practically every
> systematist is on their side.
>
>
> > Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > No we don't.
>
> > Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > No we don't.
>
> > Need I go on?
>
> You shouldn't have started.  I knew all that when I was eight years
> old.

You're missing my point, again.

>
> How old were you when you learned these things?

The age at which one learns a thing is not what matters, it is whether
one learns a thing or not.

And you claiming to have learnt all about these things when you were
eight isn't something you can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
in a newsgroup.

>
> > > It is indeed a mystery why so many
> > > phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in
> > > such a short space of time, and no new ones in all the 500+ million
> > > years that have elapsed since then.
>
> > And yet you dismiss the fact that numerous classes, orders, families,
> > genera and species as not relevant.
>
> I said "may not be relevant" because I hadn't seen the article, but I
> had seen others on the same general theme, from people like Stephen
> Jay Gould.  The theme is the Cambrian explosion, and the classes that
> evolved inside the phyla that made their appearance them are stuff for
> another chapter.
>
> And now that I have read the article, I know it is of the same genre.

Yet there's no continuation link to another "chapter" to support your
assumption.

>
> You haven't read it, have you?

I have read it, otherwise I wouldn't comment on it.

> These people are reporting on
> something respected scientists have done:
>
> "A team of scientists from Franklin & Marshall College (in
> Pennsylvania), the University of Chicago, and the American Museum of
> Natural History in New York City has recently reported a new measure
> of the dramatic biological innovations that took place during the
> Cambrian Explosion.1"
>
> and here is why they are talking mostly about phyla [they mention
> vertebrates, which are a subphylum]:
>
> "the above team of researchers constructed a “skeletal space,” a
> mathematical space that defines all possible skeletal designs. From
> this skeletal space, 182 possible skeletal designs were identified.
> Interestingly, of these 182 possibilities, 146 appeared during the
> Cambrian Explosion (based on analyses of 104 fossil genre recovered
> from the Burgess Shale Cambrian site). That is, over 80% of all the
> possible skeletal designs appear suddenly in the fossil record—during
> a period of less than 15 million years."

Amazing how you see in that quote the word "vertebrates" when it isn't
even there.

>
> Pretty amazing, isn't it?  Cladophiles sneer at phyla, but they have
> to have respect for this kind of research.
>
> > > I'm not sure it's a fact, by the way.
>
> > What fact aren't you sure of?
>
> That all phyla made their appearance in the Cambrian explosion.
>
> You agreed that this was a fact.  I don't.
>
> But that wasn't the main thrust of the article, as you can see.

But can you?

[Caranx latus]

I agree. 'Creation scientists' tend to use only convenient facts and
leave inconvenient facts unsaid, thereby allowing the ignorant to fill
in the blanks with religion. Creationists who nod sagely at the
referenced article would likely be horrified to find that the phylum
that contains we humans started from animals like Pikaia. Only the
finest cherries get picked for our creationist friends.

[pnyikos]

At most, the author qualifies this "fact" with the word "arguably". A
bit before that, he says "nearly" before "all." But the main stress
of the article is on the skeletal types.

> and seemed to be
> ignoring the diversity that arose since that time, which would mislead
> his/her less knowledgable readers into presuming all life forms that
> exist now all arose during the Cambrian Explosion.

That is indeed a danger, but scientific writing is full of omissions.
In this case, the article was focused on "body plans" as exemplified
by the various skeletons.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 24, 2:42 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 4:31 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > > From that website:
>
> > > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> > I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> > books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> > what the author is saying.  Such may be the case here.

> > > > > Also from that website:
>
> > > > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.

> The article fails to point out that all fossil skeletons from that
> time were invertebrate skeletons.

Your information is out of date.

In other Cambrian rocks, paleontologists have found
fossils of more advanced chordates, such as
*Myllokunmingia* (see Figure 34.1). About the same
size as *Haikouella*, *Myllokunmingia* had ear
capsules and eye capsules, parts of the skull that
surround these organs. Based on these and other
characters, paleontologists have identified
*Myllokunmingia* as a true craniate.
Campbell *et al*, _Biology_, Eighth Edition,
Pearson/Benjamin Cummings, 2008, p. 708

Figure 34.1 is a fossil that looks very much like a fish fossil, much
more "fishlike" in general shape than either the lamprey or the
hagfish.

> That omission plus the photo in the introductory item would mislead
> people into thinking that mammals arose in the Cambrian Era.

Only very ignorant people. But you have a good point. Accordingly, I
have submitted the following on the page with the fossil picture:

Please put a picture of a Cambrian fossil on this page.
Atheists on Usenet are having a field day "discrediting"
you, Dr. Fazale Rana, because of the picture of the
skeleton of a mammal that accompanies this article.

> > > > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > > > It may not have been relevant.
>
> > > Not relevant?
>
> > Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.
>
> Why not?

It dilutes the report of some striking research which would interest
any paleontologist worth his salt. Granted, the last two sentences
also dilute it, but those are there so that the article would be
accepted by this apologetical organization.

> > > Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> > > which contain genera, which contain species.
>
> > Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
> > superfamilies before you get to families.
>
> Of which I am well aware.

To very loosely paraphrase something you write below: can you prove
that you didn't learn it from me just now?

> But that doesn't excuse the author from only emphasising that all
> phyla emerged at that time, for the simple reason less informed
> readers of that article would be misled.

Lame.

> > I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification.  If
> > cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
> > alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
> > all those good old taxa.
>
> And hello to a whole bunch of new ones, which may later be ousted by a
> different system.

The new ones are too numerous to be practical. Take a look at the
following very comprehensive website.

http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/

I tried working my way down to "eutheria" [placentals] starting with
"craniata" and everything went swimmingly until I got lost in a bunch
of blind alleys just when I hit mammalia:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/chordata/synapsida/basal_mammalia/mammalia.html

See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.

>
>
> > You should see how cocksure they are.  They believe practically every
> > systematist is on their side.
>
> > > Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > > No we don't.
>
> > > Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > > No we don't.
>
> > > Need I go on?
>
> > You shouldn't have started.  I knew all that when I was eight years
> > old.
>
> You're missing my point, again.

Your point is apparently that creationists are obliged to give both
sides of every argument, while everyone else gets to flame the bejesus
out of them without giving them the benefit of the doubt on anything.

Just because someone is a creationist, does not mean that they can't
be right about a lot of things.

> > How old were you when you learned these things?
>
> The age at which one learns a thing is not what matters, it is whether
> one learns a thing or not.
>
> And you claiming to have learnt all about these things when you were
> eight isn't something you can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
> in a newsgroup.

No, but I can tell you what led to it: two great articles in _Life_
magazine, "The Pageant of Life" and "The Age of Mammals," which came
out in 1953 as part of the series _The World We Live In_, when I was
seven years old. It took me a while to absorb enough of these two
articles, but within a year I was hooked on paleontology.

Had I not become a set-theoretic topologist, I would have loved to
become a vertebrate paleontologist.

> > > > It is indeed a mystery why so many
> > > > phyla of animals [including, apparently, some extinct ones] emerged in
> > > > such a short space of time, and no new ones in all the 500+ million
> > > > years that have elapsed since then.
>
> > > And yet you dismiss the fact that numerous classes, orders, families,
> > > genera and species as not relevant.
>
> > I said "may not be relevant" because I hadn't seen the article, but I
> > had seen others on the same general theme, from people like Stephen
> > Jay Gould.  The theme is the Cambrian explosion, and the classes that
> > evolved inside the phyla that made their appearance them are stuff for
> > another chapter.
>
> > And now that I have read the article, I know it is of the same genre.
>
> Yet there's no continuation link to another "chapter" to support your
> assumption.

I was referring to mainstream popular science books. For all I know,
"the other chapter" may already have appeared elsewhrere in the
voluminous site, but again, it would have had little to do with the
main theme of the article, which is the following research:

> > These people are reporting on
> > something respected scientists have done:
>
> > "A team of scientists from Franklin & Marshall College (in
> > Pennsylvania), the University of Chicago, and the American Museum of
> > Natural History in New York City has recently reported a new measure
> > of the dramatic biological innovations that took place during the
> > Cambrian Explosion.1"
>
> > and here is why they are talking mostly about phyla [they mention
> > vertebrates, which are a subphylum]:
>
> > "the above team of researchers constructed a “skeletal space,” a
> > mathematical space that defines all possible skeletal designs. From
> > this skeletal space, 182 possible skeletal designs were identified.
> > Interestingly, of these 182 possibilities, 146 appeared during the
> > Cambrian Explosion (based on analyses of 104 fossil genre recovered
> > from the Burgess Shale Cambrian site). That is, over 80% of all the
> > possible skeletal designs appear suddenly in the fossil record—during
> > a period of less than 15 million years."
>
> Amazing how you see in that quote the word "vertebrates" when it isn't
> even there.

You did see it in the article, didn't you?

[And, amazingly enough, you can't even see the word "phyla" in the
part I quoted.] :-)

> > Pretty amazing, isn't it?  Cladophiles sneer at phyla, but they have
> > to have respect for this kind of research.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[Caranx latus]

On May 24, 2:47 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 24, 2:42 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > > I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification.  If
> > > cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
> > > alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
> > > all those good old taxa.
>
> > And hello to a whole bunch of new ones, which may later be ousted by a
> > different system.
>
> The new ones are too numerous to be practical.  Take a look at the
> following very comprehensive website.
>
> http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/
>
> I tried working my way down to "eutheria" [placentals] starting with
> "craniata" and everything went swimmingly until I got lost in a bunch
> of blind alleys just when  I hit mammalia:
>

> http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/chordata/synaps...

>
> See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.

Follow links: Holotheria, then Cladotheria, then Boreosphenida

<snip>

[pnyikos]

Thanks. I overlooked that last one because it had nothing after the
reference to indicate where it led. Also the name is very far from
anything with "theria" in it.

Peter Nyikos

[Uirgil]

In article
<f78a80cb-05f2-4d05...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be
> for
> you.

Not me!

The only things I have any doubts about are claims made for which there
is no supporting objective physical evidence.

[Uirgil]

In article
<2a790f1b-b7b8-4a89...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> If the odds of the first wished-for evolution event
> are 10^4000 against

They aren't.

[Uirgil]

In article
<3d19dab0-a4c0-42bb...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> The Cambrian
> Explosion is absolutely fatal to evolution.

Not according to scientists, who find them quite compatible.


But ever since Evolution undercut creationist mythology, those who
prefer faith to fact have rejected science.

[Devils Advocaat]

Rats, you beat me to it. :)

[Devils Advocaat]

On May 24, 7:47 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 24, 2:42 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 4:31 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 23, 6:19 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 23, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 23, 5:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > > > > > From that website:
>
> > > > > > "TNRTB Classic: Skeletons in the Cambrian Explosion" dishonestly
> > > > > > portraying the skeleton of a mammal beneath its heading?
>
> > > I've seen lots of mismatches of pictures with text. Some children's
> > > books are full of them -- the artist doesn't pay enough attention to
> > > what the author is saying.  Such may be the case here.
> > > > > > Also from that website:
>
> > > > > > "The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs" omitting the fact that
> > > > > > all skeletal remains from that era are invertebrate.
> > The article fails to point out that all fossil skeletons from that
> > time were invertebrate skeletons.
>
> Your information is out of date.

I stand updated, thanks.

>
>   In other Cambrian rocks, paleontologists have found
>   fossils of more advanced chordates, such as
>   *Myllokunmingia* (see Figure 34.1). About the same
>   size as *Haikouella*, *Myllokunmingia* had ear
>   capsules and eye capsules, parts of the skull that
>   surround these organs.  Based on these and other
>   characters, paleontologists have identified
>   *Myllokunmingia* as a true craniate.
>       Campbell *et al*, _Biology_, Eighth Edition,
>       Pearson/Benjamin Cummings, 2008, p. 708
>
> Figure 34.1 is a fossil that looks very much like a fish fossil, much
> more "fishlike" in general shape than either the lamprey or the
> hagfish.
>
> > That omission plus the photo in the introductory item would mislead
> > people into thinking that mammals arose in the Cambrian Era.
>
> Only very ignorant people.  But you have a good point.  Accordingly, I
> have submitted the following on the page with the fossil picture:
>
>     Please put a picture of a Cambrian fossil on this page.
>    Atheists on Usenet are having a field day "discrediting"
>    you, Dr. Fazale Rana, because of the picture of the
>    skeleton of a mammal that accompanies this article.

I too have questioned their use of that image.

Let's hope they listen and take appropriate action.

>
> > > > > > And omitting the fact that while no other phyla have emerged, numerous
> > > > > > classes, orders, families, genera and species have done.
>
> > > > > It may not have been relevant.
>
> > > > Not relevant?
>
> > > Not relevant to the theme of the article, twit.
>
> > Why not?
>
> It dilutes the report of some striking research which would interest
> any paleontologist worth his salt. Granted, the last two sentences
> also dilute it, but those are there so that the article would be
> accepted by this apologetical organization.

Which is unfortunately the only way to get stuff published with such
organisations.

>
> > > > Phyla, contain classes, which contain orders, which contain families,
> > > > which contain genera, which contain species.
>
> > > Well, duh. And some orders contain suborders and infraorders and
> > > superfamilies before you get to families.
>
> > Of which I am well aware.
>
> To very loosely paraphrase something you write below: can you prove
> that you didn't learn it from me just now?

No I can't, other than saying I read of such additional categories
about three years ago.

>
> > But that doesn't excuse the author from only emphasising that all
> > phyla emerged at that time, for the simple reason less informed
> > readers of that article would be misled.
>
> Lame.

How did you know I need to use a walking stick? :)

>
> > > I say "duh" because I cut my teeth on the Linnean classification.  If
> > > cladophiles [meaning cladists who will not tolerate any classification
> > > alongside their cladistic one] have their way, you can say goodbye to
> > > all those good old taxa.
>
> > And hello to a whole bunch of new ones, which may later be ousted by a
> > different system.
>
> The new ones are too numerous to be practical.  Take a look at the
> following very comprehensive website.
>
> http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/
>
> I tried working my way down to "eutheria" [placentals] starting with
> "craniata" and everything went swimmingly until I got lost in a bunch
> of blind alleys just when  I hit mammalia:
>

> http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/chordata/synaps...

>
> See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.
>

I didn't get there before the other poster.

I see what you mean though.

[Devils Advocaat]

> http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/chordata/synaps...

>
> See if you can get any closer to "eutheria" from that page.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > You should see how cocksure they are.  They believe practically every
> > > systematist is on their side.
>
> > > > Do we find fossils of the class Mammalia in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > > > No we don't.
>
> > > > Do we find fossils of the order Primates in the Cambrian Era strata?
> > > > No we don't.
>
> > > > Need I go on?
>
> > > You shouldn't have started.  I knew all that when I was eight years
> > > old.
>
> > You're missing my point, again.
>
> Your point is apparently that creationists are obliged to give both
> sides of every argument, while everyone else gets to flame the bejesus
> out of them without giving them the benefit of the doubt on anything.

Not at all, I just dislike the apparent dishonesty that emerges in
their articles.

>
> Just because someone is a creationist, does not mean that they can't
> be right about a lot of things.

Which I don't doubt, but St Augustine despaired of hearing fellow
Christians making fools of themselves regarding the world and what was
know about then.

>
> > > How old were you when you learned these things?
>
> > The age at which one learns a thing is not what matters, it is whether
> > one learns a thing or not.
>
> > And you claiming to have learnt all about these things when you were
> > eight isn't something you can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt
> > in a newsgroup.
>
> No, but I can tell you what led to it: two great articles in _Life_
> magazine, "The Pageant of Life" and "The Age of Mammals," which came
> out in 1953 as part of the series _The World We Live In_, when I was
> seven years old.  It took me a while to absorb enough of these two
> articles, but within a year  I was hooked on paleontology.

Fair enough.

[Caranx latus]

If there's one thing that I've learned from creationists, it's that if
you start at the answer and work backwards, you can sometimes "solve"
problems much faster.

[Andy Wainwright]

Creationism is last millenium, evolution is last century. Holoverse and
Game Theory, viewing the universe as a multi-user dungeon makes more
sense than either of the previous creation myths.

Evolution Of The Species supplanted Genesis, and The Matrix supplanted that.

[plainolamerican]

On May 24, 6:44 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> In article
> <3d19dab0-a4c0-42bb-bda6-d909ff7ac...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > The Cambrian
> > Explosion is absolutely fatal to evolution.
>
> Not according to scientists, who find them quite compatible.
>
> But ever since Evolution undercut creationist mythology, those who
> prefer faith to fact have rejected science.

Can Science and Faith Converge?
---
no ... faith is based on old myths and scinece is based on facts

[Fred M. McNeill]

Of course it will, as soon as the 'human' paradigm includes
brains. Brain based 'virtual reality' (considered as 'reality'), that
supports well practiced stories.
There is enough mystery around for any science and religion.

[Paul Duca]

On May 23, 12:35 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> If you're having any doubts about your beliefs, this web site may be for

> you. No need to thank me--God certainly won't.
>
>
> --
> J Young
> jdyou...@ymail.com

[pnyikos]

Thanks for your reasonable replies. We got off to a rocky start, you
and I, but it looks like we can part amicably here.

I wouldn't mind coming across you again, in fact. I'm a regular at
talk.origins and drift in and out of alt.abortion and talk.abortion
and sci.bio.paleontology regularly. Also I post to alt.agnosticism
from time to time. This past week I returned to sci.bio.evolution
after a twelve year absence [except for one post last year].

How about you?

Peter Nyikos