New thread just for Tony

[John Harshman]

Tony, I'm only going to do this once. Here, in a new thread, is a repost
of my last reply to you. If you're willing to start a real conversation,
with as many rounds of give and take as necessary, do so here, in this
thread. If you only want to post nonsense and then run away to escape
the consequences, don't bother.

T Pagano wrote:
> I should point out at the start that Harshman's co-authored article is
> very interesting, well written, provides historical context, honestly
> presents differences of expert opinion and is conservative in its
> tentative conclusions. The tentative conclusions are offered as a
> basis for further study not as some definitive fact of science.

I missed that. How are the conclusions any more tentative than anything
else in science? We are in fact very, very sure of the central point.
The ambiguity lies in various peripheral points.

> It
> also is an example of the ability of scientific investigators to bring
> together "neutral" data from a variety of disciplines and tease out
> all sorts of interesting (and sometimes illuminating) inferences.
> While I sometimes belittle Harshman's profession as a "poor" branch of
> systematics I have always been aware that evolutionary biology
> requires an expertise in a broad collection of disciplines. And while
> I call him names I have learned a great deal from his posts over the
> last few years. And I for one appreciate him offering his time here.
> I feel the same appreciation for Lethe, Dworetsky and others though my
> abrasive style might not indicate it (and won't in the future). Now
> on to the issue:
>
> In Harshman's (2008), "Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of
> flight in ratite birds" the issue being addressed in the report is
> whether ratite populations evolved from one common ancestor or
> "instead reflect convergent adaptation to a flightless, cursorial
> lifestyle." Are the conclusions or data presented responsive to the
> request for observations of genuine transformational change? The
> answer is a resounding NO!

How very surprising.

> "Evolution" in its broadest sense is a short-hand label for virtually
> any change from one generation to the next. In this sense "evolution"
> is undeniable. However, the dispute is not with the existence of any
> change but with transformational change capable of explaining the
> "origin" of biological diversity. That is, with explaining the origin
> of every structure, organ, system and creature. In Harshman's
> "Phylogenomic Evidence" the focus is on whether a specific "loss of
> function" in a grouping of bird populations can be described via a
> monophyletic or polyphyletic process. The investigation has nothing
> to do with the origin of anything but with the loss of existing
> function.

So you're saying that there is nothing new in any features of ratite
birds? That seems odd, as they are very highly modified for a cursorial
lifestyle. While we focused on loss of flight alone, we certainly
alluded to the many convergent adaptations. Here I'm handicapped by the
lack of any clear definition of what is and is not "transformational".

> Furthermore, unlike taxonomy, the discipline of systematics being used
> in Harshman's report to interpret the data presupposes the existence
> of a purely naturalistic process which connects all populations.

No it doesn't. It infers a connection. The process isn't all that
relevant, as long as it involved changes on a tree. And we infer that it
involves changes on a tree since the data fit that model so well. No
assumption necessary, or, rather, the assumption is tested along with
everything else.

> Harshman's report illuminates a great deal about ratite populations

By the way, you keep saying "populations" when you mean "species". These
are highly divergent species that last had any genetic continuity many
millions of years ago, perhaps even before the K-T boundary.

> (and I highly recommend everyone read it), but it uncovers virtually
> nothing about how the wing (or anything else) came to exist in the
> first place.

What about the highly specialized legs and feet of these cursorial
birds? Don't they count?

> Observations of the loss of existing function, which are
> not difficult to find in the living world (i.e.,anti biotic
> resistance), have never resulted in anything new----NEVER. Harshman
> may call the loss of existing function "transformational," but it is
> hardly a test of or compelling evidence for the claim that a dino
> forearm transformed into an avian wing.

Nor is it intended as evidence. It's evidence that a little flying bird
transformed into a gigantic running bird. Why isn't that transformation?

> What is most compelling about all the raw data is the continued
> discontinuity----the complete discontinuity throughout all of the raw
> data. The gaps are bridged by metaphysical presupposition not by the
> observational record.

Wait, are you denying that ratites are related to each other, quite
aside from the question of transformational change? Is this or is this
not evidence for the common descent of paleognath birds? Before we
settle that little point, there's little to discuss. You seemed, before
this paragraph, to accept the phylogeny. Otherwise, "loss of flight"
would make little sense. Please clarify. Assuming you bother to respond
at all rather than running away immediately as is your habit.

[T Pagano]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:01:14 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Tony, I'm only going to do this once. Here, in a new thread, is a repost
>of my last reply to you. If you're willing to start a real conversation,
>with as many rounds of give and take as necessary, do so here, in this
>thread. If you only want to post nonsense and then run away to escape
>the consequences, don't bother.
>
>T Pagano wrote:
> > I should point out at the start that Harshman's co-authored article is
> > very interesting, well written, provides historical context, honestly
> > presents differences of expert opinion and is conservative in its
> > tentative conclusions. The tentative conclusions are offered as a
> > basis for further study not as some definitive fact of science.
>
>I missed that. How are the conclusions any more tentative than anything
>else in science?

Apparently Harshman is arguing that because all of the contentious
claims of neoDarwinian transformational change are tentative that we
can safely ignore their collective tentativeness. The whole point of
investigating our origins is to determine the truth of the matter and
not to strengthen faith in our beliefs.

> We are in fact very, very sure of the central point.

The surity is, more or less, a confidence level (in a belief) that
separate ratite populations indepedently lost the function of flight
in pre existing, flight capable pair of wings. The issue of how the
loss occurred was presumed and never in question. Yet that is the
whole issue with my transformational change challenge. My interest
is in proof of the "origin" of structures, systems and populations
sufficient to explain biological diversity. Harshman points to loss
of function not the origin.

I'm interested in seeing empirical evidence of gradual, progressive,
transformational change. Harshman shows evidence of discrete
populations.

>The ambiguity lies in various peripheral points.

In this case Harshman refers to the issues relating to monophyletic
vs. polyphyletic lineage and not whether any change was the result of
neoDarwinian processes or not.

> > It
> > also is an example of the ability of scientific investigators to bring
> > together "neutral" data from a variety of disciplines and tease out
> > all sorts of interesting (and sometimes illuminating) inferences.
> > While I sometimes belittle Harshman's profession as a "poor" branch of
> > systematics I have always been aware that evolutionary biology
> > requires an expertise in a broad collection of disciplines. And while
> > I call him names I have learned a great deal from his posts over the
> > last few years. And I for one appreciate him offering his time here.
> > I feel the same appreciation for Lethe, Dworetsky and others though my
> > abrasive style might not indicate it (and won't in the future). Now
> > on to the issue:
> >
> > In Harshman's (2008), "Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of
> > flight in ratite birds" the issue being addressed in the report is
> > whether ratite populations evolved from one common ancestor or
> > "instead reflect convergent adaptation to a flightless, cursorial
> > lifestyle." Are the conclusions or data presented responsive to the
> > request for observations of genuine transformational change? The
> > answer is a resounding NO!
>
>How very surprising.

Harshman's report takes as its initial conditions the existence of
predecessor ratite populations with flight capable wings and
descendant ratite populations with flight incapable wings. All
discrete populations. What new structure has arisen or what existing
structure has transformed into something else?

>
> > "Evolution" in its broadest sense is a short-hand label for virtually
> > any change from one generation to the next. In this sense "evolution"
> > is undeniable. However, the dispute is not with the existence of any
> > change but with transformational change capable of explaining the
> > "origin" of biological diversity. That is, with explaining the origin
> > of every structure, organ, system and creature. In Harshman's
> > "Phylogenomic Evidence" the focus is on whether a specific "loss of
> > function" in a grouping of bird populations can be described via a
> > monophyletic or polyphyletic process. The investigation has nothing
> > to do with the origin of anything but with the loss of existing
> > function.
>
>So you're saying that there is nothing new in any features of ratite
>birds? That seems odd, as they are very highly modified for a cursorial
>lifestyle. While we focused on loss of flight alone, we certainly
>alluded to the many convergent adaptations. Here I'm handicapped by the
>lack of any clear definition of what is and is not "transformational".

Yet Harshman's article doesn't show that these changes were the result
of the neoDarwinian mechanism or any purely naturalistic mechanism; it
is assumed.

>
> > Furthermore, unlike taxonomy, the discipline of systematics being used
> > in Harshman's report to interpret the data presupposes the existence
> > of a purely naturalistic process which connects all populations.
>
>No it doesn't. It infers a connection.

This is the first disingenuous thing Harshman has ever offered.
Systematics is not a modern name for taxonomy but a different
endeavor. It is the study of the diversification of populations and
their evolutionary relationships over time. While Systematics doesn't
presume the existence of the neoDarwinian mechanism it does presume
the existence of some purely naturalistic evolutionary process. That
is it presumes gradualistic, linear, continuous changes over time.

Even so it is apparent that over the last 160 years such similarities
between ratite populations don't fit as neatly and clearly as one
might think.

> The process isn't all that
>relevant, as long as it involved changes on a tree.

Yet if the origin of biological diversity was not the result of a
purely naturalistic process then the inferences are useless.

> And we infer that it
>involves changes on a tree since the data fit that model so well. No
>assumption necessary, or, rather, the assumption is tested along with
>everything else.

Harshman (along with his profession) shows a complete disinterest in
an observable naturalistic evolutionary mechanism. Harshman and his
study of systematics places a purely naturalistic black box between
discrete predecessor and discrete descendent ratite populations.
However, it is a well-known fact that an infinite number of black
boxes can be employed that fit the finite set of observations.

I'm looking for empirical evidence not theoretical mathematical
jiggering.

>
> > Harshman's report illuminates a great deal about ratite populations
>
>By the way, you keep saying "populations" when you mean "species".

Obviously my use, in context, was not unclear.

>These
>are highly divergent species that last had any genetic continuity many
>millions of years ago, perhaps even before the K-T boundary.

Continuity is a necessity of hypothesized purely naturalistic
evolutionary processes. Harshman has yet to prove continuity by
empirical means. Harshman doesn't even care about producing an
observable mechanism. Continuity is presumed; the mechanism is
presumed. This isn't empirical science.

>
> > (and I highly recommend everyone read it), but it uncovers virtually
> > nothing about how the wing (or anything else) came to exist in the
> > first place.
>



>What about the highly specialized legs and feet of these cursorial
>birds? Don't they count?

They are ratites with wings in both populations. While there are
structural differences between the two Harshman hasn't shown anywhere
in his report that these structural differences were the result of a
purely naturalistic evolutionary mechanism; it was presumed.

As a skeptic I'm not likely to take this example as sufficient
evidence to justify the hypothesis that a mesonychid transformed into
a whale. Or that theropod populations transformed mulitple systems
simultaneously to transform into avian populations.

>
> > Observations of the loss of existing function, which are
> > not difficult to find in the living world (i.e.,anti biotic
> > resistance), have never resulted in anything new----NEVER. Harshman
> > may call the loss of existing function "transformational," but it is
> > hardly a test of or compelling evidence for the claim that a dino
> > forearm transformed into an avian wing.
>
>Nor is it intended as evidence. It's evidence that a little flying bird
>transformed into a gigantic running bird. Why isn't that transformation?

You show discrete populations and assume the connection is
naturalistic. What new structure or feature has emerged that did not
exist in predecessor populations? Furthermore Harshman shows his
complete disinterest in an observable mechanism; his profession
believes the similarities are so compelling that the existence and
observability of a purely naturalistic mechanism are superfluous.

>
> > What is most compelling about all the raw data is the continued
> > discontinuity----the complete discontinuity throughout all of the raw
> > data. The gaps are bridged by metaphysical presupposition not by the
> > observational record.
>
>Wait, are you denying that ratites are related to each other, quite
>aside from the question of transformational change? Is this or is this
>not evidence for the common descent of paleognath birds? Before we
>settle that little point, there's little to discuss. You seemed, before
>this paragraph, to accept the phylogeny. Otherwise, "loss of flight"
>would make little sense. Please clarify. Assuming you bother to respond
>at all rather than running away immediately as is your habit.

I see no evidence in Harshman's report (or anywhere else) that the
connection between flighted and flightless ratites is neoDarwinian in
particular or purely naturalistic in general. This doubt hardly
eliminates the possibility of common descent between the two.


Regards,
T Pagano

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:01:14 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Tony, I'm only going to do this once. Here, in a new thread, is a repost
>> of my last reply to you. If you're willing to start a real conversation,
>> with as many rounds of give and take as necessary, do so here, in this
>> thread. If you only want to post nonsense and then run away to escape
>> the consequences, don't bother.
>>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> I should point out at the start that Harshman's co-authored article is
>>> very interesting, well written, provides historical context, honestly
>>> presents differences of expert opinion and is conservative in its
>>> tentative conclusions. The tentative conclusions are offered as a
>>> basis for further study not as some definitive fact of science.
>> I missed that. How are the conclusions any more tentative than anything
>> else in science?
>
> Apparently Harshman is arguing that because all of the contentious
> claims of neoDarwinian transformational change are tentative that we
> can safely ignore their collective tentativeness. The whole point of
> investigating our origins is to determine the truth of the matter and
> not to strengthen faith in our beliefs.

None of which is relevant to my question, just a mass of bloviation. Try
again.

>> We are in fact very, very sure of the central point.
>
> The surity is, more or less, a confidence level (in a belief) that
> separate ratite populations indepedently lost the function of flight
> in pre existing, flight capable pair of wings.

That is not in fact the central point, despite the title.

> The issue of how the
> loss occurred was presumed and never in question. Yet that is the
> whole issue with my transformational change challenge. My interest
> is in proof of the "origin" of structures, systems and populations
> sufficient to explain biological diversity. Harshman points to loss
> of function not the origin.
>
> I'm interested in seeing empirical evidence of gradual, progressive,
> transformational change. Harshman shows evidence of discrete
> populations.

Again, you seem unable to distinguish populations from species. Why? Nor
did I show evidence of discrete populations. What I showed was evidence
of common descent of all paleognaths. Whether that implies
transformational change must await a clear definition of the term. Still
non-responsive.

>> The ambiguity lies in various peripheral points.
>
> In this case Harshman refers to the issues relating to monophyletic
> vs. polyphyletic lineage and not whether any change was the result of
> neoDarwinian processes or not.

Actually, you have apparently no idea what I refer to. I was referring
to some of the relationships which are not as well supported as others.
The most important fact, that tinamous are members of a clade that
doesn't include ostriches, is clear. What isn't clear is whether
tinamous are more closely related to rheas or to Australasian ratites.

Again, the transformations, if any, would involve adaptations to a
cursourial lifestyle. May I suggest the highly specialized feet of
ostriches as one prominent candidate?

>>> "Evolution" in its broadest sense is a short-hand label for virtually
>>> any change from one generation to the next. In this sense "evolution"
>>> is undeniable. However, the dispute is not with the existence of any
>>> change but with transformational change capable of explaining the
>>> "origin" of biological diversity. That is, with explaining the origin
>>> of every structure, organ, system and creature. In Harshman's
>>> "Phylogenomic Evidence" the focus is on whether a specific "loss of
>>> function" in a grouping of bird populations can be described via a
>>> monophyletic or polyphyletic process. The investigation has nothing
>>> to do with the origin of anything but with the loss of existing
>>> function.
>> So you're saying that there is nothing new in any features of ratite
>> birds? That seems odd, as they are very highly modified for a cursorial
>> lifestyle. While we focused on loss of flight alone, we certainly
>> alluded to the many convergent adaptations. Here I'm handicapped by the
>> lack of any clear definition of what is and is not "transformational".
>
> Yet Harshman's article doesn't show that these changes were the result
> of the neoDarwinian mechanism or any purely naturalistic mechanism; it
> is assumed.

No, it isn't assumed. It's merely irrelevant. NeoDarwinian processes
were not part of the challenge.

>>> Furthermore, unlike taxonomy, the discipline of systematics being used
>>> in Harshman's report to interpret the data presupposes the existence
>>> of a purely naturalistic process which connects all populations.
>> No it doesn't. It infers a connection.
>
> This is the first disingenuous thing Harshman has ever offered.
> Systematics is not a modern name for taxonomy but a different
> endeavor. It is the study of the diversification of populations and
> their evolutionary relationships over time. While Systematics doesn't
> presume the existence of the neoDarwinian mechanism it does presume
> the existence of some purely naturalistic evolutionary process. That
> is it presumes gradualistic, linear, continuous changes over time.

No it doesn't. It assumes only that the distributions of characters can
be explained by phylogenetic trees. And it tests that assumption too.

> Even so it is apparent that over the last 160 years such similarities
> between ratite populations don't fit as neatly and clearly as one
> might think.

Yes, convergence is a recognized problem.

>> The process isn't all that
>> relevant, as long as it involved changes on a tree.
>
> Yet if the origin of biological diversity was not the result of a
> purely naturalistic process then the inferences are useless.

Why?

>> And we infer that it
>> involves changes on a tree since the data fit that model so well. No
>> assumption necessary, or, rather, the assumption is tested along with
>> everything else.
>
> Harshman (along with his profession) shows a complete disinterest in
> an observable naturalistic evolutionary mechanism. Harshman and his
> study of systematics places a purely naturalistic black box between
> discrete predecessor and discrete descendent ratite populations.
> However, it is a well-known fact that an infinite number of black
> boxes can be employed that fit the finite set of observations.
>
> I'm looking for empirical evidence not theoretical mathematical
> jiggering.

The problem here is that you fail to recognize empirical evidence when
you see it. Please explain the evidence in some way other than common
descent, if you think there is an infinite number of explanations.

>>> Harshman's report illuminates a great deal about ratite populations
>> By the way, you keep saying "populations" when you mean "species".
>
> Obviously my use, in context, was not unclear.

Obviously it was. I suspect you have some purpose in continuing to use
"population" when you mean "species". But what is it?

>> These
>> are highly divergent species that last had any genetic continuity many
>> millions of years ago, perhaps even before the K-T boundary.
>
> Continuity is a necessity of hypothesized purely naturalistic
> evolutionary processes. Harshman has yet to prove continuity by
> empirical means. Harshman doesn't even care about producing an
> observable mechanism. Continuity is presumed; the mechanism is
> presumed. This isn't empirical science.

On the contrary. Continuity is a conclusion from the data. If there is
no common ancestor for all paleognaths, why do the data fit a tree so well?

>>> (and I highly recommend everyone read it), but it uncovers virtually
>>> nothing about how the wing (or anything else) came to exist in the
>>> first place.
>
>> What about the highly specialized legs and feet of these cursorial
>> birds? Don't they count?
>
> They are ratites with wings in both populations.

What does "both populations" mean? I have no idea.

> While there are
> structural differences between the two Harshman hasn't shown anywhere
> in his report that these structural differences were the result of a
> purely naturalistic evolutionary mechanism; it was presumed.

Again, whether the process was purely naturalistic is not relevant to
the question of transformation. I suppose it's possible that god
magically caused various mutations. The point is that he apparently did
it (if he did) in species connected by common descent, and that this
resulted in transformation of species.

> As a skeptic I'm not likely to take this example as sufficient
> evidence to justify the hypothesis that a mesonychid transformed into
> a whale. Or that theropod populations transformed mulitple systems
> simultaneously to transform into avian populations.

Once more: nobody these days thinks that mesonychids transformed into
whales. Nor would any phylogeny of birds tell us anything about that, or
about evolution in non-avian theropods. For that, there's other data.
What these data tell us is about the transformations undergone by
paleognaths. Please deal with that.

>>> Observations of the loss of existing function, which are
>>> not difficult to find in the living world (i.e.,anti biotic
>>> resistance), have never resulted in anything new----NEVER. Harshman
>>> may call the loss of existing function "transformational," but it is
>>> hardly a test of or compelling evidence for the claim that a dino
>>> forearm transformed into an avian wing.
>> Nor is it intended as evidence. It's evidence that a little flying bird
>> transformed into a gigantic running bird. Why isn't that transformation?
>
> You show discrete populations and assume the connection is
> naturalistic.

No I don't. I don't go into the mechanism of change at all. It's enough
that it is indeed change.

> What new structure or feature has emerged that did not
> exist in predecessor populations?

I'm going with ostrich feet at the moment, a highly specialized design
structurally rather like the feet of ungulate mammals.

> Furthermore Harshman shows his
> complete disinterest in an observable mechanism; his profession
> believes the similarities are so compelling that the existence and
> observability of a purely naturalistic mechanism are superfluous.

It's not that I'm uninterested ("disinterest" means something else, by
the way). It's that the mechanism is irrelevant to my immediate point.

>>> What is most compelling about all the raw data is the continued
>>> discontinuity----the complete discontinuity throughout all of the raw
>>> data. The gaps are bridged by metaphysical presupposition not by the
>>> observational record.
>> Wait, are you denying that ratites are related to each other, quite
>> aside from the question of transformational change? Is this or is this
>> not evidence for the common descent of paleognath birds? Before we
>> settle that little point, there's little to discuss. You seemed, before
>> this paragraph, to accept the phylogeny. Otherwise, "loss of flight"
>> would make little sense. Please clarify. Assuming you bother to respond
>> at all rather than running away immediately as is your habit.
>
> I see no evidence in Harshman's report (or anywhere else) that the
> connection between flighted and flightless ratites is neoDarwinian in
> particular or purely naturalistic in general. This doubt hardly
> eliminates the possibility of common descent between the two.

You didn't answer the question. Is this or is it not evidence for the
common descent of paleognath birds? If it is, does that or does that not
imply transformational change? Note that we are currently not discussing
the potential mechanism for that change.

[Bill]

On Nov 28, 2:47 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

>
> As a skeptic.......

Wow.

[John Harshman]

But it's true. Tony is skeptical of everything he knows isn't true. He
is of course entirely credulous regarding everything he knows is true.
Selective skepticism is a big advantage, because you don't even have to
understand the evidence or argument in order to decide whether to agree;
you can just skip ahead to the conclusion.

[Nashton]

On 11-11-27 3:47 PM, T Pagano wrote:

<snip>

Well done, Tony.
So much about you running away from questions and posts.

[John Harshman]

Nashton wrote:
> On 11-11-27 3:47 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Well done, Tony.
> So much about you running away from questions and posts.

Except that, if you actually read his reply, he failed to address any of
the questions I posed for him. Face it: you just like him because he's a
creationist. It has nothing to do with what he actually says.

[John Harshman]

John Harshman wrote:
> Tony, I'm only going to do this once. Here, in a new thread, is a repost
> of my last reply to you. If you're willing to start a real conversation,
> with as many rounds of give and take as necessary, do so here, in this
> thread. If you only want to post nonsense and then run away to escape
> the consequences, don't bother.

Tony, this is your one chance. You are currently blowing it. Start
responding in the thread or admit you can't.

[Greg Guarino]

Rules, man. Ya gotta follow the rules.

Tony replies once, and only once. After that, you have to open a new
thread. It's a simple rule really. Why do you have so much trouble with it?

Oh, and you have to say "Mother, may I?".

[John Harshman]

Tony has his rules, I have mine. I think I'll wait another week and then
start a dozen new threads claiming victory.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:16:39 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

But that would be hijacking Tony's rules.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[John Harshman]

According to my rules, I can do that if I like.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:18:08 -0800, the following appeared

Fair enough... ;-)

[T Pagano]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:32:19 -0800, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:01:14 -0800, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony, I'm only going to do this once. Here, in a new thread, is a repost
>>> of my last reply to you. If you're willing to start a real conversation,
>>> with as many rounds of give and take as necessary, do so here, in this
>>> thread. If you only want to post nonsense and then run away to escape
>>> the consequences, don't bother.
>>>
>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>> I should point out at the start that Harshman's co-authored article is
>>>> very interesting, well written, provides historical context, honestly
>>>> presents differences of expert opinion and is conservative in its
>>>> tentative conclusions. The tentative conclusions are offered as a
>>>> basis for further study not as some definitive fact of science.
>>> I missed that. How are the conclusions any more tentative than anything
>>> else in science?
>>
>> Apparently Harshman is arguing that because all of the contentious
>> claims of neoDarwinian transformational change are tentative that we
>> can safely ignore their collective tentativeness. The whole point of
>> investigating our origins is to determine the truth of the matter and
>> not to strengthen faith in our beliefs.
>
>None of which is relevant to my question, just a mass of bloviation. Try
>again.

Nonesense.

Harshman, as do all atheists, minimize just how tentative their
conclusions really are. They use corroborative observations to
justify the probability that their conclusions are true when this is
precisely what they cannot do. Corroborative observations cannot
extinquish the tentativeness and neither does internal consistency. On
the other side of the coin atheists rarely determine what falsifies
their pet theory or ever attempt to search for them. Disconfirming
evidence is placed to the side.

Harshman couldn't be bothered with these "consequential" details of
his methodology because they addess "truth." Harshman factors out
tentativeness because truth is never an issue. All that is issue is
justification of the pet theory.

>
>>> We are in fact very, very sure of the central point.
>>
>> The surity is, more or less, a confidence level (in a belief) that
>> separate ratite populations indepedently lost the function of flight
>> in pre existing, flight capable pair of wings.
>
>That is not in fact the central point, despite the title.

Harshman admits tentativeness, then dismisses tentativeness, then says
"we" are very, very, sure. Harshman doesn't know whether to shit or
go blind.

Here Harshman isn't describing surety of the verisimilitude of his
theory but surety in his belief. At best Harshman's assessments are
Bayesian assessments of belief given corroborative evidence. However
since all false theories can garner corroborative evidence Bayesian
assessments are easily fooled.

On the other I'm only interested in whether the theory is true---this
is the only goal. And the fact that Harshman cares not one twit about
evaluating the verisimilitude of his conclusions makes continuing
rather pointless.

snp

more to follow if time permits.


Regards,
T Pagano

[T Pagano]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:32:19 -0800, John Harshman

A species is also a collection of individuals (a population) which
meets certain characteristics. The fact that Harshman considers
species of some importance is also a little strange considering his
worship of a process of continuous change wherein a "species" is
little more than a point on a continuous unbroken path of points.
Nonewithstanding the title of Darwin's opus he saw little importance
in species for this reason. Yet all we see are the discrete points.
Darwin was disappointed when the fossil record did not corroborate his
theory of continuous transformational change.

Next the challenge was to show physical evidence transformational
change sufficient to explain biological diversity. Common descent,
per se, is not in question. I certainly don't doubt that one ratite
population with wings and feet descended from another with wings and
feet. The dispute is the extent of common descent and whether there
is physical evidence that every structure, every system, every organ,
and their tight integration was possible via a purely naturalistic
process in the time available.

If Harshman lacked an understanding of "transformational change" then
he should have used that as an excuse to refuse to entertain the
challange.


Regards,
T Pagano


snip

[T Pagano]

Subject Line should read:

Why NONE of the conclusions about our Origins produced by atheists
should be accepted without careful, independent review.

[Boikat]

They are. It's called "peer review", and don't bother with the
asinine claim that all peer review does is "rubber stamp" the
conclusion. The problem you have is that religious doctrine is not a
consideration. There is a reason for that, but you are too
deliberatly obtuse to acknowledge the validity of that reason.

Boikat

[A.Carlson]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:35:27 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

<clip>

>
>Harshman, as do all atheists, minimize just how tentative their
>conclusions really are. They use corroborative observations to
>justify the probability that their conclusions are true when this is
>precisely what they cannot do.

Science uses observations period! Whether observations corroborate or
disprove is what results. Good science looks for evidence to verify
whether *or not* a theory or model is true. The corroborative effect
is directly related to how robust the evidence itself is.

You're really mixing up evolutionists/standard science with your
typical creationist here. It is the creationist who starts with an
unyielding position and only seeks out highly selective and
corroborative (often distorted) evidence to justify their
predetermined belief.

>Corroborative observations cannot extinquish the tentativeness
>and neither does internal consistency.

Yes, a weak argument is a weak argument and should be readily
recognized as such. If you actually have evidence of weakness in a
particular concept then bring it forward - otherwise you're just
whining about nothing!

>On the other side of the coin atheists rarely determine what falsifies
>their pet theory or ever attempt to search for them. Disconfirming
>evidence is placed to the side.

You mean like what you repeatedly do whenever the fact of
geostationary satellites and advantages of eastward rocket launches
are brought up as disconfirming evidence towards your geocentric
model?

Why shouldn't what's good for the goose be good for the gander?

>Harshman couldn't be bothered with these "consequential" details of
>his methodology because they addess "truth." Harshman factors out
>tentativeness because truth is never an issue. All that is issue is
>justification of the pet theory.
>
>
>>
>>>> We are in fact very, very sure of the central point.
>>>
>>> The surity is, more or less, a confidence level (in a belief) that
>>> separate ratite populations indepedently lost the function of flight
>>> in pre existing, flight capable pair of wings.
>>
>>That is not in fact the central point, despite the title.
>
>
>Harshman admits tentativeness, then dismisses tentativeness, then says
>"we" are very, very, sure. Harshman doesn't know whether to shit or
>go blind.
>
>Here Harshman isn't describing surety of the verisimilitude of his
>theory but surety in his belief. At best Harshman's assessments are
>Bayesian assessments of belief given corroborative evidence. However
>since all false theories can garner corroborative evidence Bayesian
>assessments are easily fooled.

Convenient dodge which completely ignores the fact that false theories
can also garner evidence that negates as well and science, when done
correctly, is even more driven to disprove a bad theory than it is to
accept one.

>On the other I'm only interested in whether the theory is true---this
>is the only goal. And the fact that Harshman cares not one twit about
>evaluating the verisimilitude of his conclusions makes continuing
>rather pointless.

Your repeated dodges is what makes even attempting to continue a
discussion with you rather pointless.

[John Harshman]

Again, you have just said nothing whatsoever. What consequential
details? You have presented only vagueness. There's nothing to respond
to here, because there's nothing here.

>>>> We are in fact very, very sure of the central point.
>>> The surity is, more or less, a confidence level (in a belief) that
>>> separate ratite populations indepedently lost the function of flight
>>> in pre existing, flight capable pair of wings.
>> That is not in fact the central point, despite the title.
>
> Harshman admits tentativeness, then dismisses tentativeness, then says
> "we" are very, very, sure. Harshman doesn't know whether to shit or
> go blind.

Harshman does none of these things. I have no idea where you got those
impressions, because you don't say.

> Here Harshman isn't describing surety of the verisimilitude of his
> theory but surety in his belief. At best Harshman's assessments are
> Bayesian assessments of belief given corroborative evidence. However
> since all false theories can garner corroborative evidence Bayesian
> assessments are easily fooled.
>
> On the other I'm only interested in whether the theory is true---this
> is the only goal. And the fact that Harshman cares not one twit about
> evaluating the verisimilitude of his conclusions makes continuing
> rather pointless.

How would one evaluate the verisimilitude of my conclusions? Let me know
if you ever want to communicate anything.

Sadly, you have snipped all substantive points and all the questions I
asked you.

[John Harshman]

So far, just playing with words. Non-responsive.

> Yet all we see are the discrete points.
> Darwin was disappointed when the fossil record did not corroborate his
> theory of continuous transformational change.

No he wasn't, and even if he was, why should it matter to this argument?

> Next the challenge was to show physical evidence transformational
> change sufficient to explain biological diversity. Common descent,
> per se, is not in question.

Yes it is. So far you have not managed to explain what degree of common
descent you are willing to believe. I don't even know if you are willing
to agree that my paper presents evidence of common descent of all
paleognaths, because you won't say.

> I certainly don't doubt that one ratite
> population with wings and feet descended from another with wings and
> feet. The dispute is the extent of common descent and whether there
> is physical evidence that every structure, every system, every organ,
> and their tight integration was possible via a purely naturalistic
> process in the time available.

Here you introduce "purely naturalistic process", which wasn't there
previously. Please stop changing the criteria in mid-sentence. It's
confusing.

> If Harshman lacked an understanding of "transformational change" then
> he should have used that as an excuse to refuse to entertain the
> challange.

If you knew I lacked an understanding, then you should have clarified
matters. This post does nothing to clarify. Let's try some questions.

Do you agree that my paper provided evidence for common descent of all
paleognaths?

Do you agree that if there is common descent of all paleognaths, this
provides evidence that, say, the ostrich's highly specialized foot
evolved from the more generalized foot found in, say, tinamous?

So is this radical foot evolution transformational change? If not, what
are the characteristics of transformational change that prevent that
from being such an example?

And I'd like to ask about something that's been disturbing me for some
time. Why do you refuse to address people directly? Why always the third
person? It's bad enough that you frequently refer to yourself that way.
But do you realize that I'm an actual human being, and that you're
actually corresponding with me?

[deadrat]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> T Pagano wrote:

<snip/>

>> On the other I'm only interested in whether the theory is true---this
>> is the only goal. And the fact that Harshman cares not one twit about
>> evaluating the verisimilitude of his conclusions makes continuing
>> rather pointless.
>
> How would one evaluate the verisimilitude of my conclusions?

I'd guess he thinks that "versimilitude" means veracity.

> Let me know if you ever want to communicate anything.
>
> Sadly, you have snipped all substantive points and all the questions I
> asked you.

Ask him how to care one twit.

[jillery]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:09:36 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>Subject Line should read:
>
>Why NONE of the conclusions about our Origins produced by atheists
>should be accepted without careful, independent review.

In point of fact, *all* scientific conclusions are not be accepted
without careful, independent review. There is no logical reason to
restrict your qualification to just Origins.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/4/11 10:35 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> [snip] On

> the other side of the coin atheists rarely determine what falsifies
> their pet theory or ever attempt to search for them. Disconfirming
> evidence is placed to the side.

I have seen what you call "disconfirming evidence" and, far from placing
it to the side, have put out in front of everybody why it is all bogus,
the product of a fevered mind seeing only what it wants to see. You
never responded. You "placed it to the side." And it was not the first
time. You have *never* sustained any discussion about substantive issues.

And since you are on the side of the coin that you ascribe to atheists,
you must be an atheist. Don't you think it is time you admitted as much
plainly?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Greg Guarino]

On 12/4/2011 2:51 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:32:19 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:01:14 -0800, John Harshman
>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>

> Next the challenge was to show physical evidence transformational
> change sufficient to explain biological diversity. Common descent,
> per se, is not in question.

Ray has definitely moved your ID tag into the Atheist box now.

I certainly don't doubt that one ratite
> population with wings and feet descended from another with wings and
> feet.

I'm surprised to hear this. How much common descent do you accept? All
birds, for example? I'm curious to know what you think the barrier is.
You seem to reject the idea that Archeopteryx (just an extinct bird, I
believe you said) evolved from theropod dinosaurs, even though their
structures are so similar that without the feather impressions we'd
probably not have known it could fly.

[John Harshman]

I predict there will be no substantive response to this question. Tony
seems wary of committing himself here. He's willing to wave his hand
vaguely in the direction of common descent for some uspecified
populations of ratites, but probably just because he doesn't understand
how much evolution is contained in that, and even then he's keeping his
answer ambiguous.

[Kermit]

This is unclear. By '"species" is little more than a point' do you
mean a species at one point in time? If I understand him correctly
(from here and from other posts) he does not think that.

> Nonewithstanding the title of Darwin's opus he saw little importance
> in species for this reason.  Yet all we see are the discrete points.

Tony, when you look at a computer monitor or television screen all
you see are discrete points.

> Darwin was disappointed when the fossil record did not corroborate his
> theory of continuous transformational change.

His theory explained the data, as all theories explain bodies of
related data. Several aspects of it have been changed as we have
continued to gather more, and more kinds of, data. The fossil record
continues to support his claims, e.g archaeopteryx, tiktaalik.

> Next the challenge was to show physical evidence transformational
> change sufficient to explain biological diversity.  Common descent,
> per se,  is not in question.   I certainly don't doubt that one ratite
> population with wings and feet descended from another with wings and
> feet.  The dispute is the extent of common descent and whether there
> is physical evidence that every structure, every system, every organ,
> and their tight integration was possible via a purely naturalistic
> process in the time available.

A number of studies have confirmed this very point, e.g.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1010/1010.5178v1.pdf

>
> If Harshman lacked an understanding of "transformational change"

I'd be surprised myself if he did, since even you, who have coined and
use the phrase, seem unable to define it. What kind of change would
not be transformational? Do you understand that biologists and
literate people distinguish between, for example, injuries, growth,
and evolution, even though all of them are change, and as far as I can
tell all change is transformation.

He has quite a good grasp of evolutionary science.

> then
> he should have used that as an excuse to refuse to entertain the
> challange.

The challenge is to pin you down.

>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> snip
>
> more to follow if time permits

More of the same, I fear.

Kermit

[Steven L.]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:DJ-dnbYdxLq...@giganews.com:

Pagano's position is beyond micro-evolution but less than
macro-evolution.

We need a new term to describe that. Maybe: "midi-evolution"



-- Steven L.

[Ernest Major]

In message <DqqdnScXR5Tzc0HT...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes

We already have the word hyper-evolutionist, for those people who
propose post-Noachian diversfication of kinds at rates far in excess of
what biologists consider plausible.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Paul J Gans]

Nanoevolution or, perhaps better, mesoevolution.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:09:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:

>Subject Line should read:
>
>Why NONE of the conclusions about our Origins produced by atheists

....and by religious non-literalists; HTH...

>should be accepted without careful, independent review.

That applies to every field of science; I'm surprised you
were unaware of this fact.

BTW, does that stricture also apply to assertions in
religious texts? If so, how do the oft-noted contradictions
creep in?

[Greg Guarino]

In addition, he seems now to accept common descent of the birds that are
the subject of your report, about which you say

"These are highly divergent species that last had any genetic continuity
many millions of years ago, perhaps even before the K-T boundary. "

... making them further removed from each other than humans and chimps,
no? In time at least, and perhaps also in the number of differences
between their genomes?

If so, an on-topic response from Tony would be very interesting.

[John Harshman]

Much, much further. By at the very least a factor of 10. But it's
unclear that Tony really is accepting this common descent.

> In time at least, and perhaps also in the number of differences
> between their genomes?

Not so much in genomes, because birds apparently evolve more slowly than
mammals, all things being equal. Though no rigorous test of this
contention has been done, at least to my satisfaction.

> If so, an on-topic response from Tony would be very interesting.

It would.

[Ray Martinez]

Species is defined by Mayr's Biological Species Concept (BSC). The BSC
says a species is a population comprised of individuals that reproduce
sexually, no other "characteristics" are needed to qualify as a
species.

> The fact that Harshman considers
> species of some importance is also a little strange considering his
> worship of a process of continuous change wherein a "species" is
> little more than a point on a continuous unbroken path of points.
> Nonewithstanding the title of Darwin's opus he saw little importance
> in species for this reason.  Yet all we see are the discrete points.
> Darwin was disappointed when the fossil record did not corroborate his
> theory of continuous transformational change.
>
> Next the challenge was to show physical evidence transformational
> change sufficient to explain biological diversity.  Common descent,
> per se,  is not in question.

The three great pillars of Darwinism (Atheist "science") are natural
selection, microevolution (species mutability) and common descent.
None of these pillars had any scientific acceptance to speak of prior
to 1859. Yet Tony the "Creationist" accepts all three.

Genesis 1 and 2 were written to say that natural causation, species
producing species, and common descent are false. Tony is now shown to
be kissing the ass of Darwin, Dawkins, and Harshman.

How does it feel, JH?

> I certainly don't doubt that one ratite
> population with wings and feet descended from another with wings and
> feet.  The dispute is the extent of common descent and whether there
> is physical evidence that every structure, every system, every organ,
> and their tight integration was possible via a purely naturalistic
> process in the time available.
>

The three great pillars were accepted to be caused by natural
causation (Nature itself). Natural causation, as it has been
understood since the rise of Darwinism, means Intelligent or
supernatural causation is absent from nature. This is why all Atheists
are fanatical Darwinists. Yet Tony seems to think that natural
causation is not a mutually exclusive claim (like Intelligent
causation). Tony does not understand the most BASIC fact about the
Creationism v. Darwinism debate: causation mutual exclusivity.
(Neither does Dembski or Behe).

Yet Tony is enraged over the fact that I accept an Intelligent Big
Bang. "It presupposes natural causation." Yet here he is advocating
the three great pillars of Atheist "science" natural (causation)
selection, microevolution, common descent. Genesis 1 and 2 is MAINLY
about the origins of life, not inanimate matter (physics). The
physical stage is set to show how diversity appears: acts of Special
Creation. Tony, like all Fundies, thinks Special Creation means
"single original creation event." But in the 19th century and before,
that is, when real Creationists controlled science (before the rise of
Darwinism), Special Creation meant new species appearing periodically
in real time.

Darwinists: Since Tony accepts the three great pillars of Darwinism,
what are you guys arguing about? If the answer is "causation" then why
doesn't one of you honest Darwinists tell him that effects cannot be
called evolutionary or reflecting common descent if caused by
Intelligence? That evolution and common descent are terms that
presuppose unintelligent causation? And while you're at it, why
doesn't someone explain causation mutual exclusivity? The reason why
none of you honest Darwinists will do this is because you like to see
a confused "Creationist" buffoon accepting all of your main claims.

Ray (Old Earth Paleyan Natural Theologian, anti-selectionist, anti-
evolutionist-species immutabilist)

[Burkhard]

Because that is just your confusion between metaphysics and physics, a
biological theory and its philosophical or theological interpretation.
Nobody else here believes it

[Ray Martinez]

A flimsy attempt to keep Tony stupid, accepting Darwinian terms and
claims.

Ray

[Burkhard]

I've given you in the past several theological models that permit
intelligent action within in the framework of the theory of evolution.
You failed so far to refute even a single one of them,

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/5/11 2:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 4, 11:51 am, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:

snpping

>>
>> Next the challenge was to show physical evidence transformational
>> change sufficient to explain biological diversity. Common descent,
>> per se, is not in question.
>
> The three great pillars of Darwinism (Atheist "science") are natural
> selection, microevolution (species mutability) and common descent.

Ray makes several mistakes, and false statements in this on little
sentence. First of all, "darwinism" is not atheist, it's merely
science. Second, there are no "three pillars". Third, natural selection
is only part of the mechanism of evolution. Fourth, "microevolution" is
not the same as "species mutablity", that would be macroevolution.
Microevolution is variation within a species. Presumably even Ray must
admit that variation exists within a species, as not every individual in
a population is identical to all other individuals. Common descent is
what explains the genetic and morphological similarities between
organisms.

> None of these pillars had any scientific acceptance to speak of prior
> to 1859. Yet Tony the "Creationist" accepts all three.

As usual, Ray makes an unsupported assertion that turns out to be wrong.
Variation within species had been recognized by naturalists for
centuries before Darwin. Farmers and stock breeders had been using this
fact to breed new crops and different animal variants since before the
Bible was written. Natural selection had been noted by other
naturalists before Darwin, but it was Darwin who recognized the role it
played in adaptive change. Common descent was also known, and accepted
before Darwin, at least among botanists and animal breeders.

>
> Genesis 1 and 2 were written to say that natural causation, species
> producing species, and common descent are false.

In reality, Genesis 1 and 2 were oral traditional stories written down
as legendary accounts of how the world started. They weren't written
to oppose "natural causation", or the fact that species are produced by
branching off from earlier species.

> Tony is now shown to
> be kissing the ass of Darwin, Dawkins, and Harshman.

As usual, Ray obsesses on odd sexual practices, probably a case of
projection.

>
> How does it feel, JH?
>
>> I certainly don't doubt that one ratite
>> population with wings and feet descended from another with wings and
>> feet. The dispute is the extent of common descent and whether there
>> is physical evidence that every structure, every system, every organ,
>> and their tight integration was possible via a purely naturalistic
>> process in the time available.
>>
>
> The three great pillars were accepted to be caused by natural
> causation (Nature itself).

The purpose of science is to describe natural causes for natural events.
If anything beyond the natural exists (and I believe it does), then
it's beyond the scope of science.

> Natural causation, as it has been
> understood since the rise of Darwinism, means Intelligent or
> supernatural causation is absent from nature.

"has been understood" by whom, Ray? This is your own personal
assertion, and few, if anyone sees this as true. Most people accept
that science isn't able to rule out the possibility of the supernatural.

If intelligent, or supernatural causation is present in nature, it can't
be distinguished from natural causation.

> This is why all Atheists
> are fanatical Darwinists.

As you already know, Ray, not all atheists are "fanatical Darwinists".
Those that are, do so because evolution is the best explanation for
the scientific evidence. The idea that atheists accept evolution solely
because it supposedly rules out God is false. Evolutionary theory
doesn't REQUIRE there to be a supernatural being, but it doesn't rule
out such a being exists.

> Yet Tony seems to think that natural
> causation is not a mutually exclusive claim (like Intelligent
> causation).

If indeed Tony thinks that way, he would be correct. Natural causation,
and "intelligent causation" are indeed not mutually exclusive. Human
beings cause things to happen, and humans are natural beings, as well as
being intelligent. Likewise, even if intelligent humans do things,
natural events still happen on their own. Ice freezes whether it's in
a man made freezer, or in a lake in winter.

> Tony does not understand the most BASIC fact about the
> Creationism v. Darwinism debate: causation mutual exclusivity.
> (Neither does Dembski or Behe).

Like most people, I imagine Tony doesn't consider Ray's personal
paranoid fantasies to be "BASIC facts". That Ray can't tell the
difference between things that are true, and things he wishes were true
is not Tony, or anyone elses fault.

>
> Yet Tony is enraged over the fact that I accept an Intelligent Big
> Bang. "It presupposes natural causation."

All science "presupposes" natural causation, as that's all that's been
observed to be. No one has ever observed "supernatural" causation,
unless one believes that all nature is produced by a supernatural being.

Tony's point seems to be that if one accepts natural causation for
astrophysics, one then accepts natural causation for everything.

> Yet here he is advocating
> the three great pillars of Atheist "science" natural (causation)
> selection, microevolution, common descent.

None of these "pillars" are atheist, and Ray once again mistakes natural
selection for natural causation.

> Genesis 1 and 2 is MAINLY
> about the origins of life, not inanimate matter (physics).

Genesis 1 and 2 are legendary accounts, passed on from oral tradition,
and heavily influenced by other religious cultures in the area. Neither
creation story in Genesis should be treated as if it were scientifically
accurate.

> The
> physical stage is set to show how diversity appears: acts of Special
> Creation.

"Acts of special creation" have never been observed, but evolutionary
processes have been observed.

> Tony, like all Fundies, thinks Special Creation means
> "single original creation event."

To be fair to Tony, that is what the narratives in the Bible suggest.
Unfortunately for Ray, he too is a "Fundy", and not all "Fundies" agree
on the order of creation.

> But in the 19th century and before,
> that is, when real Creationists controlled science (before the rise of
> Darwinism), Special Creation meant new species appearing periodically
> in real time.

Of course, creationism never "controlled" science, and "special
creation" was always a religious belief, not a scientific idea.

>
> Darwinists: Since Tony accepts the three great pillars of Darwinism,
> what are you guys arguing about?

Tony, like you, denies evolution.

> If the answer is "causation" then why
> doesn't one of you honest Darwinists tell him that effects cannot be
> called evolutionary or reflecting common descent if caused by
> Intelligence?

That's because no one but you ever claims that, and it's just not true.
This is one of the major mistakes you keep making, and a mistake you
won't admit. It doesn't matter what "causes" the changes, as long as
the changes are in allele frequencies in populations over time, they are
"evolutionary".

> That evolution and common descent are terms that
> presuppose unintelligent causation?

That too is a false assertion on your part. Neither evolution, or
common descent presuppose unintelligent causes. Again, this is your
own personal mistake.

> And while you're at it, why
> doesn't someone explain causation mutual exclusivity?

For the same reasons as above. There is no "mutual exclusivity". It's
all your own personal error.

> The reason why
> none of you honest Darwinists will do this is because you like to see
> a confused "Creationist" buffoon accepting all of your main claims.

Ray, you are indeed confused, and a "buffoon" but you aren't aware of
the "main claims" of evolution, as I've pointed out many times before.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

Those models were rejected a priori based on the inclusion of
Intelligent actions.

The concept of "evolution," since the rise of Darwinism, presupposes
unintelligent causation. One cannot describe any effect to be
evolutionary if caused by Intelligence; likewise one cannot describe
any effect to be designed if caused by unintelligence. One must use
the correct term that corresponds to the correct agency.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

A string of groundless assertions. There is no dispute among
historians whatsoever: Darwin and Wallace are credited with natural
selection and no one else. Common descent had ZERO scientific
acceptance prior to the rise of Darwinism. You sound like Tony. He
seems to think that just because E. Darwin advanced the concept of
evolution via the poetry of Zoonomia that this constitutes "scientific
acceptance." C. Darwin and a host of others describe the work of E.
Darwin as "speculation" that was "not grounded in fact."

Dana the "Christian" has bought the propaganda of hateful Atheists.
That's why they invent such illogical nonsense. There is a world full
of dumb "Christians" quite willing to believe Atheist minds are open
to the supernatural----LOL!

> If intelligent, or supernatural causation is present in nature, it can't
> be distinguished from natural causation.
>
> > This is why all Atheists
> > are fanatical Darwinists.
>
> As you already know, Ray, not all atheists are "fanatical Darwinists".
>   Those that are, do so because evolution is the best explanation for
> the scientific evidence.  The idea that atheists accept evolution solely
> because it supposedly rules out God is false.   Evolutionary theory
> doesn't REQUIRE there to be a supernatural being, but it doesn't rule
> out such a being exists.
>

Imagine that; evolution is neutral towards God! Again, our "Christian"
has bought Atheist originated propaganda. Atheists have no choice but
to believe species produce species.

> > Yet Tony seems to think that natural
> > causation is not a mutually exclusive claim (like Intelligent
> > causation).
>
> If indeed Tony thinks that way, he would be correct.  Natural causation,
> and "intelligent causation" are indeed not mutually exclusive.  Human
> beings cause things to happen, and humans are natural beings, as well as
> being intelligent.   Likewise, even if intelligent humans do things,
> natural events still happen on their own.   Ice freezes whether it's in
> a man made freezer, or in a lake in winter.
>

The silly beliefs of the uneducated. The Creationism v. Evolutionism
debate presupposes causation mutual exclusivity. Your ridiculous
comments do not harm the fact.

When the chips are down Tony is embraced by the Darwinists, as we can
see.

> > Tony does not understand the most BASIC fact about the
> > Creationism v. Darwinism debate: causation mutual exclusivity.
> > (Neither does Dembski or Behe).
>
> Like most people, I imagine Tony doesn't consider Ray's personal
> paranoid fantasies to be "BASIC facts".   That Ray can't tell the
> difference between things that are true, and things he wishes were true
> is not Tony, or anyone elses fault.
>

Like I said: you're trying to keep Tony is the prison of his
fundamental ignorance. Darwinism rules out Intelligent agency a
priori; Creationism rules out unintelligent agency a priori. But you
could be just as ignorant as Tony, not understanding the basic fact.
Dembski and Behe sure don't understand.

>
>
> > Yet Tony is enraged over the fact that I accept an Intelligent Big
> > Bang. "It presupposes natural causation."
>
> All science "presupposes" natural causation, as that's all that's been
> observed to be.  No one has ever observed "supernatural" causation,
> unless one believes that all nature is produced by a supernatural being.
>

Atheist ideology.

Why is a Christian advocating standard Atheist ideology?

> Tony's point seems to be that if one accepts natural causation for
> astrophysics, one then accepts natural causation for everything.
>

Since your new friend refuses to answer any rebuttals, he stands
refuted and exposed to be presenting himself as something that he is
not. His schtick is to pontificate then say "I have spoken" as a
universal reply to all rebuttal.

On the other hand I admit forthrightly to all errors and knowledge
limitations. Tony doesn't understand that admitting such things makes
a person more credible. Daniel Dennett created an entire web page
devoted to acknowledging all the errors in "Darwin's Dangerous
Idea" (1995). Gould has done the same.

> > Yet here he is advocating
> > the three great pillars of Atheist "science" natural (causation)
> > selection, microevolution, common descent.
>
> None of these "pillars" are atheist, and Ray once again mistakes natural
> selection for natural causation.
>

Pure stupidity.

NS presupposes natural causation (= the generic), that is, causation
originating from the closed system of Nature itself.

> > Genesis 1 and 2 is MAINLY
> > about the origins of life, not inanimate matter (physics).
>
> Genesis 1 and 2 are legendary accounts, passed on from oral tradition,
> and heavily influenced by other religious cultures in the area.  Neither
> creation story in Genesis should be treated as if it were scientifically
> accurate.
>

More Atheist ideology from our "Christian."

> > The
> > physical stage is set to show how diversity appears: acts of Special
> > Creation.
>
> "Acts of special creation" have never been observed, but evolutionary
> processes have been observed.
>
> > Tony, like all Fundies, thinks Special Creation means
> > "single original creation event."
>
> To be fair to Tony, that is what the narratives in the Bible suggest.
> Unfortunately for Ray, he too is a "Fundy", and not all "Fundies" agree
> on the order of creation.
>
> > But in the 19th century and before,
> > that is, when real Creationists controlled science (before the rise of
> > Darwinism), Special Creation meant new species appearing periodically
> > in real time.
>
> Of course, creationism never "controlled" science, and "special
> creation" was always a religious belief, not a scientific idea.
>
>
>
> > Darwinists: Since Tony accepts the three great pillars of Darwinism,
> > what are you guys arguing about?
>
> Tony, like you, denies evolution.
>

He accepts **the concepts** of NS, microevolution (species mutability)
and common descent to exist in nature.

I don't deny, I reject what doesn't exist. Tony is not a Creationist;
rather, he is a "Creationist." Real Creationists do not accept the 3
main tenets of Darwinism to exist in nature. Tony does NOT understand
that natural causation does not exist, only Intelligent causation. He
does not understand that natural causation means God is absent----
that's why Nature itself is thought to be doing the "creating." Nature
itself is not doing anything by itself. Atheists are imagining
according to the needs of their worldview. They are horribly deluded.
Dawkins thinks we are horribly deluded. There is NO middle ground.

> > If the answer is "causation" then why
> > doesn't one of you honest Darwinists tell him that effects cannot be
> > called evolutionary or reflecting common descent if caused by
> > Intelligence?
>
> That's because no one but you ever claims that, and it's just not true.
>    This is one of the major mistakes you keep making, and a mistake you
> won't admit.  It doesn't matter what "causes" the changes, as long as
> the changes are in allele frequencies in populations over time, they are
> "evolutionary".
>
> > That evolution and common descent are terms that
> > presuppose unintelligent causation?
>
> That too is a false assertion on your part.   Neither evolution, or
> common descent presuppose unintelligent causes.   Again, this is your
> own personal mistake.
>

Egregious ignorance.

Ray

[Burkhard]

with other words: since you don't have any evidence against hem, you
dismiss them without even discussingthem Inability to refute, as I
said.

>based on the inclusion of
> Intelligent actions.
>
> The concept of "evolution," since the rise of Darwinism, presupposes
> unintelligent causation.

That is you claim and your claim only. Repeating it does not make it
any more credible. Science describes regularities in nature, explains
them through the postulation if universal laws, and on that basis
makes predictions - and that is all it does. What these laws
"ultimately" are is not a matter for science, but for philosophy or
theology. Any metaphysical system that interprets them but does not
touch the empirical content of the theory (the patterns and
predications) is equivalent, as far as science is concerned. If these
laws are structures imposed by our mind, linguistic conventions used
in a community of researchers, objective features of a purely
materialistic reality, or the direct working out of an intelligent
agency (occasionalism, pantheism, panentheism etc) does not matter a
bit as far as science is concerned. They are all equally consistent
with any given scientific theory, even though they are mutually
contradictory.

[Ray Martinez]

Burk doesn't know that Darwinian evolution was accepted as being
caused by unintelligent/natural causation (NS)?

And he doesn't know that prior to 1859 biology held species immutable?

Both facts are BASIC and UNDISPUTED among all (note that I said "all")
scholars.

Ray

[John Stockwell]

No actually, the pillars of biology are
1) taxonomic law
2) faunal succession
3) over production of offspring
4) reproduction with variation

The notion that the apparent relatedness of organisms is, in
fact relatedness leads to the notion of common descent, which
is explained in turn by the fact that reproduction with variation and
an over production of offspring lead to the notion of natural
selection.

This is as opposed to organisms appearing magically out of thin
air which is what creationists beleve.

>
> Yet Tony is enraged over the fact that I accept an Intelligent Big
> Bang. "It presupposes natural causation." Yet here he is advocating
> the three great pillars of Atheist "science" natural (causation)
> selection, microevolution, common descent. Genesis 1 and 2 is MAINLY
> about the origins of life, not inanimate matter (physics). The
> physical stage is set to show how diversity appears: acts of Special
> Creation. Tony, like all Fundies, thinks Special Creation means
> "single original creation event." But in the 19th century and before,
> that is, when real Creationists controlled science (before the rise of
> Darwinism), Special Creation meant new species appearing periodically
> in real time.

The Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It is
a theory of the origin of the universe. All cosmological theories must
contain an explanation of the observations that the universe is
expanding.

>
> Darwinists: Since Tony accepts the three great pillars of Darwinism,
> what are you guys arguing about? If the answer is "causation" then why
> doesn't one of you honest Darwinists tell him that effects cannot be
> called evolutionary or reflecting common descent if caused by
> Intelligence? That evolution and common descent are terms that
> presuppose unintelligent causation? And while you're at it, why
> doesn't someone explain causation mutual exclusivity? The reason why
> none of you honest Darwinists will do this is because you like to see
> a confused "Creationist" buffoon accepting all of your main claims.

There is nothing in science that says anything about "intelligent
causation" because these two words mean absolutely nothing. Science
is about processes, not about assigning ad hoc entities to
observations.

The process of the expansion of the universe when run backwards
via the equations of general relativity yield a requirement of some
sort of event that would be the Big Bang.

When we run time back considering the fossil record and everything
we know about biology, then the process of common descent through
natural selection leads us back to a single organism.

We are led further to inorganic processes being the processes by
which the first life began.

-John

[Burkhard]

You are again confusing the scientific theory and the philosophical
interpretation of that theory. What Darwin's theory says is that we
can describe the change in species over time in a regular, patterned
way. No deity is needed for _ad hoc_ adjustments or interference,. so
certain religious claims are ruled out. What, philosophically
speaking, the nature of causation is is a different matter, and leaves
more than ample space to allow for intelligent agency, as long as its
effects are indistinguishable from the ones the ToE predicts. .
Distinguishing the two issues explains why many theologians of all
kinds of denominations found it unproblematic to accept Darwin pretty
much from the word go.

>
> And he doesn't know that prior to 1859 biology held species immutable?

What has that to do with anything I said? Not that it would be in any
sense true - cattle breeders knew for a long time that selective
breeding can change a species. Johann Karl Nestler e.g. incorporated
this into his theories of species variation, and hybridisation was
discussed widely amongst plant biologists. So I woudl at the very
least qualify that statement - but as I said, it has nothing to do
whatsoever with what I said in the above post.

>
> Both facts are BASIC and UNDISPUTED among all (note that I said "all")
> scholars.

Using caps lock doest make your argument any more valid, it is and
remains evidence free and is based on a confusion between a scientific
theory and its philosophical interpretation.

> Ray
>
> > Science describes regularities in nature, explains
> > them through the postulation if universal laws, and on that basis
> > makes predictions - and that is all it does. What these laws
> > "ultimately" are is not a matter for science, but for philosophy or
> > theology. Any metaphysical system that interprets them but does not
> > touch the empirical content of the theory (the patterns and
> > predications) is equivalent, as far as science is concerned. If these
> > laws are structures imposed by our mind, linguistic conventions used
> > in a community of researchers, objective features of a purely
> > materialistic reality, or the direct working out of an intelligent
> > agency (occasionalism, pantheism, panentheism etc) does not matter a
> > bit as far as science is concerned. They are all equally consistent
> > with any given scientific theory, even though they are mutually
> > contradictory.
>
> > One cannot describe any effect
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Ray Martinez]

Convoluted propaganda.

Burk is attempting to say Darwinism is neutral toward God and does not
presuppose an interpretive philosophy. Since the claim is impossible,
absurd and known to be completely false by anyone who is not stupid or
naive, we only need to explain his motive, which is to protect
"Christian" Evolutionists from being seen as buffoons for accepting an
evolution theory that uses pro-Atheist assumptions and interpretations
about reality (Materialism-Naturalism).

Read "On The Origin" for yourself. It was written as refuting
Victorian Creationism (Darwin 1859:6).

Ray

>
>
>
>
> > And he doesn't know that prior to 1859 biology held species immutable?
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Burkhard]

no scientific theory does.

> Since the claim is impossible,
> absurd and known to be completely false

i.e. mainstream theory of science

> by anyone who is not stupid or
> naive,
> we only need to explain his motive, which is to protect
> "Christian" Evolutionists from being seen as buffoons for accepting an
> evolution theory that uses pro-Atheist assumptions and interpretations
> about reality (Materialism-Naturalism).
>

Science really doesn't care that much. "Interpretative theories" are
relevant only in so far as they result in different predictions of
specific events. Since the specific theological doctrines I mentioned
are by design creating exactly the same predictions as our best
scientific theories, there is nothing science could possibly say for
or against them

> Read "On The Origin" for yourself. It was written as refuting
> Victorian Creationism (Darwin 1859:6).

Leaving aside the issue that it is utterly and totally irrelevant what
motivated Darwin, it is also not contradicting anything I say. A
scientific theory can conflict with any _specific_ religious claim,
should a religion be foolish enough to commit itself to empirical
statements. So Darwin's theory is indeed incompatible with the idea
that species don't change gradually over time, that there are species
that are not related to each other, and a whole lot of other claims
that some Victorians may have held because of their take on the bible.
But that does not entail that it is inconsistent with the concept of
intelligent agency behind the laws of nature, it only rules out
specific alleged manifestations of this agency

[Ernest Major]

In message
<8d15d0a3-82f1-460c...@c18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

>On Dec 6, 2:48 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 9:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 6, 1:27 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 6, 8:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 5, 3:03 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Dec 5, 10:36 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Dec 5, 2:18 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Dec 5, 9:49 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Dec 4, 11:51 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:32:19 -0800, John Harshman
>>
>> > > > > > > > > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >T Pagano wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:01:14 -0800, John Harshman
>> > > > > > > > > >> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> Tony, I'm only going to do this once. Here, in a
>> > > > > > > > > >>>new thread, is a repost
>> > > > > > > > > >>> of my last reply to you. If you're willing to

>> > > > > > > > > >>>real conversation,
>> > > > > > > > > >>> with as many rounds of give and take as
>> > > > > > > > > >>>necessary, do so here, in this
>> > > > > > > > > >>> thread. If you only want to post nonsense and
>> > > > > > > > > >>>then run away to escape
>> > > > > > > > > >>> the consequences, don't bother.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> T Pagano wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> I should point out at the start that Harshman's
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>

>> > > > > > > > > >>>> very interesting, well written, provides

>> > > > > > > > > >>>>context, honestly
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> presents differences of expert opinion and is
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>

>> > > > > > > > > >>>> tentative conclusions. The tentative conclusions
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>are offered as a
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> basis for further study not as some definitive

>> > > > > > > > > >>>>of science.
>> > > > > > > > > >>> I missed that. How are the conclusions any more
>> > > > > > > > > >>>tentative than anything
>> > > > > > > > > >>> else in science?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> Apparently Harshman is arguing that because all of
>> > > > > > > > > >>the contentious
>> > > > > > > > > >> claims of neoDarwinian transformational change are
>> > > > > > > > > >>

>> > > > > > > > > >> can safely ignore their collective tentativeness.

>> > > > > > > > > >>whole point of
>> > > > > > > > > >> investigating our origins is to determine the

>> > > > > > > > > >>the matter and
>> > > > > > > > > >> not to strengthen faith in our beliefs.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >None of which is relevant to my question, just a
>> > > > > > > > > >mass of bloviation. Try
>> > > > > > > > > >again.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> We are in fact very, very sure of the central point.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> The surity is, more or less, a confidence level

>> > > > > > > > > >>belief) that
>> > > > > > > > > >> separate ratite populations indepedently lost the
>> > > > > > > > > >>

>> > > > > > > > > >> in pre existing, flight capable pair of wings.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >That is not in fact the central point, despite the title.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> The issue of how the
>> > > > > > > > > >> loss occurred was presumed and never in question.
>> > > > > > > > > >>

>> > > > > > > > > >> whole issue with my transformational change
>> > > > > > > > > >>challenge. My interest
>> > > > > > > > > >> is in proof of the "origin" of structures, systems

>> > > > > > > > > >>populations
>> > > > > > > > > >> sufficient to explain biological diversity.

>> > > > > > > > > >>points to loss
>> > > > > > > > > >> of function not the origin.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> I'm interested in seeing empirical evidence of
>> > > > > > > > > >>gradual, progressive,
>> > > > > > > > > >> transformational change. Harshman shows evidence
>> > > > > > > > > >>

>> > > > > > > > > >> populations.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >Again, you seem unable to distinguish populations
>> > > > > > > > > >from species. Why? Nor
>> > > > > > > > > >did I show evidence of discrete populations. What I
>> > > > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > > >of common descent of all paleognaths. Whether that implies
>> > > > > > > > > >transformational change must await a clear

>> > > > > > > > > >of the term. Still
>> > > > > > > > > >non-responsive.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > A species is also a collection of individuals (a
>> > > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > > meets certain characteristics.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Species is defined by Mayr's Biological Species Concept
>> > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > says a species is a population comprised of individuals
>> > > > > > > >that reproduce
>> > > > > > > > sexually, no other "characteristics" are needed to qualify as a
>> > > > > > > > species.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > The fact that Harshman considers
>> > > > > > > > > species of some importance is also a little strange
>> > > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > > worship of a process of continuous change wherein a
>> > > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > > little more than a point on a continuous unbroken

>> > > > > > > > >of points.
>> > > > > > > > > Nonewithstanding the title of Darwin's opus he saw
>> > > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > > in species for this reason. Yet all we see are the
>> > > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > > Darwin was disappointed when the fossil record did

>> > > > > > > > >corroborate his
>> > > > > > > > > theory of continuous transformational change.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Next the challenge was to show physical evidence
>> > > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > > change sufficient to explain biological diversity.
>> > > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > > per se, is not in question.
>>
>> > > > > > > > The three great pillars of Darwinism (Atheist

>> > > > > > > >are natural
>> > > > > > > > selection, microevolution (species mutability) and
>> > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > None of these pillars had any scientific acceptance to
>> > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > to 1859. Yet Tony the "Creationist" accepts all three.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Genesis 1 and 2 were written to say that natural
>> > > > > > > >causation, species
>> > > > > > > > producing species, and common descent are false. Tony
>> > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > be kissing the ass of Darwin, Dawkins, and Harshman.
>>
>> > > > > > > > How does it feel, JH?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > I certainly don't doubt that one ratite
>> > > > > > > > > population with wings and feet descended from another
>> > > > > > > > >with wings and
>> > > > > > > > > feet. The dispute is the extent of common descent and
>> > > > > > > > >whether there
>> > > > > > > > > is physical evidence that every structure, every
>> > > > > > > > >system, every organ,
>> > > > > > > > > and their tight integration was possible via a purely
>> > > > > > > > >naturalistic
>> > > > > > > > > process in the time available.
>>
>> > > > > > > > The three great pillars were accepted to be caused by natural
>> > > > > > > > causation (Nature itself). Natural causation, as it has been
>> > > > > > > > understood since the rise of Darwinism, means Intelligent or
>> > > > > > > > supernatural causation is absent from nature. This is
>> > > > > > > >why all Atheists
>> > > > > > > > are fanatical Darwinists. Yet Tony seems to think that natural
>> > > > > > > > causation is not a mutually exclusive claim (like Intelligent
>> > > > > > > > causation). Tony does not understand the most BASIC
>> > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > Creationism v. Darwinism debate: causation mutual exclusivity.
>> > > > > > > > (Neither does Dembski or Behe).
>>
>> > > > > > > > Yet Tony is enraged over the fact that I accept an
>> > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > Bang. "It presupposes natural causation." Yet here he

>> > > > > > > >advocating
>> > > > > > > > the three great pillars of Atheist "science" natural
>> > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > selection, microevolution, common descent. Genesis 1
>> > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > about the origins of life, not inanimate matter (physics). The
>> > > > > > > > physical stage is set to show how diversity appears:
>> > > > > > > >

>> > > > > > > > Creation. Tony, like all Fundies, thinks Special Creation means
>> > > > > > > > "single original creation event." But in the 19th

>> > > > > > > >and before,
>> > > > > > > > that is, when real Creationists controlled science

>> > > > > > > >the rise of
>> > > > > > > > Darwinism), Special Creation meant new species
>> > > > > > > >appearing periodically
>> > > > > > > > in real time.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Darwinists: Since Tony accepts the three great pillars

>> > > > > > > >Darwinism,
>> > > > > > > > what are you guys arguing about? If the answer is
>> > > > > > > >"causation" then why
>> > > > > > > > doesn't one of you honest Darwinists tell him that

You are, as often before, committing the fallacy of equivocation -
"Victorian Creationism" is not the be all and end all of theism, or even
of Christianity.

Tony could write, with as much justification

"Ray is attempting to say heliocentrism is neutral towards God and does

not presuppose an interpretive philosophy. Since the claim is
impossible, absurd and known to be completely false by anyone who is not

stupid or naive, we need only to explain his motive, which is to protect
"Christian" heliocentrists from being seen as buffoons for accepting an
astronomical theory that uses pro-atheist assumptions and
interpretations about reality (Materialism-Naturalism).

Read "The Dialogue" for yourself. It was written as refuting medieval
geocentrism."

Both of you would thereby be adopting a pro-atheism position - by
asserting that reality is not compatible with theism you are implicitly
arguing that theism is false.

>
>Ray
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > And he doesn't know that prior to 1859 biology held species immutable?
>>
>> ...
>>

>> read more ›
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Tim Anderson]

On Dec 6, 8:49�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 11:51�am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> Species is defined by Mayr's Biological Species Concept (BSC). The BSC
> says a species is a population comprised of individuals that reproduce
> sexually, no other "characteristics" are needed to qualify as a
> species.
>

<snip>

Eh? Do you mean that asexually reproducing groups can't be defined as
"species"?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:12:47 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:09:36 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
>>Subject Line should read:
>>
>>Why NONE of the conclusions about our Origins produced by atheists
>
>....and by religious non-literalists; HTH...
>
>>should be accepted without careful, independent review.
>
>That applies to every field of science; I'm surprised you
>were unaware of this fact.
>
>BTW, does that stricture also apply to assertions in
>religious texts? If so, how do the oft-noted contradictions
>creep in?

[Crickets...]

Run away! Run away!

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray once again indicates his ignorance of the history of science.

> Common descent had ZERO scientific
> acceptance prior to the rise of Darwinism.

Common descent was well known among animal and plant breeders, Ray. What do
you think pedigree charts are, but a record of common descent.

> You sound like Tony. He
> seems to think that just because E. Darwin advanced the concept of
> evolution via the poetry of Zoonomia that this constitutes "scientific
> acceptance."

At the time Darwin's grandfather wrote, science was the provence of
amatures, and people like Erasmus Darwin were the "scientific commuity".
You also seem to have forgotten about Lamarck, Buffon, Grant, and others who
proposed evolutionary ideas before Charles proposed his theory.

> . Darwin and a host of others describe the work of E.
> Darwin as "speculation" that was "not grounded in fact."

It doesn't matter what some unnamed "others" might have said. The idea of
commond descent was already being considered by scientists before Charles
Darwin. Other naturalists recognized natural selection before Darwin, but
they didn't see how it would lead to species change.

It's a severe case of irony that Ray accueses atheists of being "hateful",
when he's constantly showing his own hate filled beliefs. There's no
"propaganda" here, and the scientific method is not defined by atheists.
Again, Ray avoids answering the question. Ray claims it's "understood" that
natural causation means the supernatural does not exist. However, no one
by Ray seems to "understand" this assertion.

> That's why they invent such illogical nonsense. There is a world full
> of dumb "Christians" quite willing to believe Atheist minds are open
> to the supernatural----LOL!

It doesn't matter if "atheist minds" are open to the supernatural, the fact
remains that science isn't able to either confirm, or deny that the
supernatural exists. Even if one doesn't believe in the supernatural,
there's no scientific way to rule it out completely.

>
>> If intelligent, or supernatural causation is present in nature, it
>> can't
>> be distinguished from natural causation.
>>
>>> This is why all Atheists
>>> are fanatical Darwinists.
>>
>> As you already know, Ray, not all atheists are "fanatical
>> Darwinists".
>> Those that are, do so because evolution is the best explanation for
>> the scientific evidence. The idea that atheists accept evolution
>> solely
>> because it supposedly rules out God is false. Evolutionary theory
>> doesn't REQUIRE there to be a supernatural being, but it doesn't rule
>> out such a being exists.
>>
>
> Imagine that; evolution is neutral towards God!

Evolution is a fact whether or not God exists. Facts of nature are
irrelevant to the question of God's existence. Is this "netural towards
God"? That's a personal choice. Evolutionary theory may contradict
certian religious positions, but it does not make any statement about God at
all.

> , our "Christian"
> has bought Atheist originated propaganda. Atheists have no choice but
> to believe species produce species.

As has been pointed out before, this is one of Ray's more silly
misunderstandings. Atheists have many choices as to what to believe, but
even if they didn't it's irrelevant. What atheists believe, or don't
believe doesn't affect the fact that it's been observed that species come
from other species. No one has ever observed species popping into
existence without forebearers. Atheists don't control nature, and they
don't control what observations are made about nature. Depsite Ray's
paranoid fear of "atheists" it's nature itself he needs to address.

>
>>> Yet Tony seems to think that natural
>>> causation is not a mutually exclusive claim (like Intelligent
>>> causation).
>>
>> If indeed Tony thinks that way, he would be correct. Natural
>> causation,
>> and "intelligent causation" are indeed not mutually exclusive. Human
>> beings cause things to happen, and humans are natural beings, as
>> well as
>> being intelligent. Likewise, even if intelligent humans do things,
>> natural events still happen on their own. Ice freezes whether it's in
>> a man made freezer, or in a lake in winter.
>>
>
> The silly beliefs of the uneducated. The Creationism v. Evolutionism
> debate presupposes causation mutual exclusivity. Your ridiculous
> comments do not harm the fact.

Ray, are you claiming that ice does only form in man made devices? You
are the one who "presuppsoses" mutual exclusive causes, not the
"Creationism/Evolution debate". Once again, I have to point out to you
that your private, irrational and paranoid fantasies are not "fact".

>
> When the chips are down Tony is embraced by the Darwinists, as we can
> see.

Who is "embracing" Tony? Tony is a loon, but you are just as loony, if not
more so.

>
>>> Tony does not understand the most BASIC fact about the
>>> Creationism v. Darwinism debate: causation mutual exclusivity.
>>> (Neither does Dembski or Behe).
>>
>> Like most people, I imagine Tony doesn't consider Ray's personal
>> paranoid fantasies to be "BASIC facts". That Ray can't tell the
>> difference between things that are true, and things he wishes were
>> true
>> is not Tony, or anyone elses fault.
>>
>
> Like I said: you're trying to keep Tony is the prison of his
> fundamental ignorance.

Tony's own personal ignorance is not the topic here, your ignorance, and
delusional beliefs are what I'm talking about. You claim things to be
"fact" when they are your own personal misconceptions, fantasies, or
delusional imagination.

> Darwinism rules out Intelligent agency a
> priori; Creationism rules out unintelligent agency a priori.

That is simply false. "Darwinism" does not rule out "intelligent agency"
at all. If you can show any evidence of "intelligent agency" in action,
you are welcome to do so. Human stock breeding is widely acknowledged by
evolutionary theory. What's ruled out, not by "Darwinism" but by
scientific convention, is baseless appeals to the supernatural. This is
done because such appeals cannot be tested, or falsified.

Also, the vast majority of creationists don't rule out natural processes, or
what you call "unintelligent agency". Only you make this massive mistake.

> But you
> could be just as ignorant as Tony, not understanding the basic fact.
> Dembski and Behe sure don't understand.

Again, the point being your personal fantasies are not facts. Claiming
your own prejudices are factual is merely a delusion.

>
>>
>>
>>> Yet Tony is enraged over the fact that I accept an Intelligent Big
>>> Bang. "It presupposes natural causation."
>>
>> All science "presupposes" natural causation, as that's all that's
>> been
>> observed to be. No one has ever observed "supernatural" causation,
>> unless one believes that all nature is produced by a supernatural
>> being.
>>
>
> Atheist ideology.

No, atheist ideology is saying that God must be visible to exist. If you
feel there is an observation of supernatural causation, you may present the
evidence, and let it be evaluated, like any other claim.

>
> Why is a Christian advocating standard Atheist ideology?

I am not. I'm advocating the standard scientific method for answering
scientific questions. I don't advocate a belief that God does not exist.

>
>> Tony's point seems to be that if one accepts natural causation for
>> astrophysics, one then accepts natural causation for everything.
>>
>
> Since your new friend refuses to answer any rebuttals, he stands
> refuted and exposed to be presenting himself as something that he is
> not.

I don't consider Tony a friend, and he's very, very wrong on his statements.
I'm pointing out that you have misunderstood what Tony is claiming. You
too refuse to answer rebuttals, and run away from any discussion of the
evidence.

>His schtick is to pontificate then say "I have spoken" as a
> universal reply to all rebuttal.

Which isn't any different from what you do by fleeing threads and leaving
questions unanswered.

>
> On the other hand I admit forthrightly to all errors and knowledge
> limitations.

No, you don't. You sometimes admit small mistakes, but leave larger, more
serious ones, and return to them time and time again.

> Tony doesn't understand that admitting such things makes
> a person more credible.

Actually, admitting your errors only makes one more credible when one
strives to stop making errors. You continue to make the same errors, time
and time again. Admitting to minor typos when you are making glaring
mistakes is like straining at gnats and swallowing a camel.

> Daniel Dennett created an entire web page
> devoted to acknowledging all the errors in "Darwin's Dangerous
> Idea" (1995). Gould has done the same.

Yet you, Ray refuse to admit your major errors, like claiming that "all
atheists" accept evolution, and claiming that no evidence of evolution
exists. Those errors have been pointed out to you many times, and you
won't admit your error.

>
>>> Yet here he is advocating
>>> the three great pillars of Atheist "science" natural (causation)
>>> selection, microevolution, common descent.
>>
>> None of these "pillars" are atheist, and Ray once again mistakes
>> natural
>> selection for natural causation.
>>
>
> Pure stupidity.

How so? You do so in the sentence above mine.

>
> NS presupposes natural causation (= the generic), that is, causation
> originating from the closed system of Nature itself.

All science studies natural causation, as that's all that can be observed.
Natural selection refers to how environmental factors determine which traits
are passed on to the next generation. It's not the same thing as natural
causes, which are all that can be determined by science.

If you have any evidence of "causation" coming from outside nature, you are
welcome to present that evidence. Why is it you never do?

>
>>> Genesis 1 and 2 is MAINLY
>>> about the origins of life, not inanimate matter (physics).
>>
>> Genesis 1 and 2 are legendary accounts, passed on from oral
>> tradition,
>> and heavily influenced by other religious cultures in the area.
>> Neither
>> creation story in Genesis should be treated as if it were
>> scientifically
>> accurate.
>>
>
> More Atheist ideology from our "Christian."

Again, this is not atheist ideology, but mainstream Christian teachings.

>
>>> The
>>> physical stage is set to show how diversity appears: acts of Special
>>> Creation.
>>
>> "Acts of special creation" have never been observed, but evolutionary
>> processes have been observed.
>>
>>> Tony, like all Fundies, thinks Special Creation means
>>> "single original creation event."
>>
>> To be fair to Tony, that is what the narratives in the Bible suggest.
>> Unfortunately for Ray, he too is a "Fundy", and not all "Fundies"
>> agree
>> on the order of creation.
>>
>>> But in the 19th century and before,
>>> that is, when real Creationists controlled science (before the rise
>>> of Darwinism), Special Creation meant new species appearing
>>> periodically in real time.
>>
>> Of course, creationism never "controlled" science, and "special
>> creation" was always a religious belief, not a scientific idea.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Darwinists: Since Tony accepts the three great pillars of Darwinism,
>>> what are you guys arguing about?
>>
>> Tony, like you, denies evolution.
>>
>
> He accepts **the concepts** of NS, microevolution (species mutability)
> and common descent to exist in nature.

Concepts only exist within the mind, Ray. The FACT OF Natural selection
has been observed to exist in nature. So has microevolution, which is not
"species mutability" (that would be macroevolution). Common descent is also
directly observed in nature. Denying these facts is irrational.

>
> I don't deny, I reject what doesn't exist.

No, you deny what does exist, because you refuse to admit you might be
wrong.

> Tony is not a Creationist;
> rather, he is a "Creationist." Real Creationists do not accept the 3
> main tenets of Darwinism to exist in nature.

The "main tenets" of "Darwinism" are variation and selection in populations
over generations. You obvioiusly don't understand how science works.
You are defining 'creationist' to be one person only. You then become the
only creationist who has ever existed.

> Tony does NOT understand
> that natural causation does not exist, only Intelligent causation.

It should be pointed out that few persons "understand" something that's your
own private, irrational, delusional, and absurd claim. Don't be surprised
if people who aren't inside your own skull don't accept your own deranged
definitions.

> He
> does not understand that natural causation means God is absent----
> that's why Nature itself is thought to be doing the "creating."

See above about others not "understanding" your personal delusions. Also,
why can't God use nature to create?

> Nature
> itself is not doing anything by itself.

Why not, exactly?

> Atheists are imagining
> according to the needs of their worldview. They are horribly deluded.
> Dawkins thinks we are horribly deluded. There is NO middle ground.

Have you stopped to think that you are the one who is deluded? Other
persons see plenty of middle ground. Maybe Dawkins' opinions don't matter
to people who have faith in God.

>
>>> If the answer is "causation" then why
>>> doesn't one of you honest Darwinists tell him that effects cannot be
>>> called evolutionary or reflecting common descent if caused by
>>> Intelligence?
>>
>> That's because no one but you ever claims that, and it's just not
>> true.
>> This is one of the major mistakes you keep making, and a mistake you
>> won't admit. It doesn't matter what "causes" the changes, as long as
>> the changes are in allele frequencies in populations over time, they
>> are "evolutionary".
>>
>>> That evolution and common descent are terms that
>>> presuppose unintelligent causation?
>>
>> That too is a false assertion on your part. Neither evolution, or
>> common descent presuppose unintelligent causes. Again, this is your
>> own personal mistake.
>>
>
> Egregious ignorance.

Yes, you do display ignorance on a regular basis. That doesn't have to be,
you can overcome your ignorance if you try.

>
> Ray
>
>>> And while you're at it, why
>>> doesn't someone explain causation mutual exclusivity?
>>
>> For the same reasons as above. There is no "mutual exclusivity". It's
>> all your own personal error.
>>
>>> The reason why
>>> none of you honest Darwinists will do this is because you like to
>>> see a confused "Creationist" buffoon accepting all of your main
>>> claims.
>>
>> Ray, you are indeed confused, and a "buffoon" but you aren't aware of
>> the "main claims" of evolution, as I've pointed out many times
>> before.
>>
>> DJT

DJT

[Steven L.]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:362qd7tbltavifksp...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:09:36 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
> >Subject Line should read:
> >
> >Why NONE of the conclusions about our Origins produced by atheists
>
> ....and by religious non-literalists; HTH...
>
> >should be accepted without careful, independent review.
>
> That applies to every field of science; I'm surprised you
> were unaware of this fact.
>
> BTW, does that stricture also apply to assertions in
> religious texts? If so, how do the oft-noted contradictions
> creep in?

Religious texts are more like engineered products than scientific
treatises.

As long as the customers are reasonably satisfied with the product,
that's all that matters.
(The "customers" in this case being all the adherents of the religion.)




-- Steven L.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <yqGdnVfGqd_Xz3_T...@earthlink.com>,

So are textbooks.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:22:41 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net>:

>
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:362qd7tbltavifksp...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:09:36 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>>
>> >Subject Line should read:
>> >
>> >Why NONE of the conclusions about our Origins produced by atheists
>>
>> ....and by religious non-literalists; HTH...
>>
>> >should be accepted without careful, independent review.
>>
>> That applies to every field of science; I'm surprised you
>> were unaware of this fact.
>>
>> BTW, does that stricture also apply to assertions in
>> religious texts? If so, how do the oft-noted contradictions
>> creep in?
>
>Religious texts are more like engineered products than scientific
>treatises.

I'm an engineer, and I'd say that like Topsy, most of them
"jest growed"; no actual design detectable.

>As long as the customers are reasonably satisfied with the product,
>that's all that matters.
>(The "customers" in this case being all the adherents of the religion.)

Sure, we all know Tony (along with many others) has a
different standard for what he laughably refers to as
"evidence". I only wanted to know if he would admit it; by
implication he did so.

[John Harshman]

John Harshman wrote:
> Tony, I'm only going to do this once. Here, in a new thread, is a repost

> of my last reply to you. If you're willing to start a real conversation,

> with as many rounds of give and take as necessary, do so here, in this
> thread. If you only want to post nonsense and then run away to escape
> the consequences, don't bother.

OK, it's been 10 days since Tony's second and last non-response, during
which time he has been active in lots of other threads. I'm going to
declare victory and take my ball home. Neener, neener, neener, neener. I
am the winner! You are the loser! Etc.

I will now proceed to start a dozen new threads announcing my victory.
Or perhaps not.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:01:30 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Don't forget to include Tony's name in each of them; it's
traditional.

>Or perhaps not.

Awwwww...