Tony Pagano
Rolf
too far off topic.
I just want to point out that as far as I can tell, Tony Pagano is one of
the most clever, intelligent, best read and capable man in the world.
He I seceral parsecs ahead of most scientists alive today, including several
Nobel Price winners.
With that background, we should know better than to disagree with him. It is
all so simple and easy, Tony is right, trhe rest of us ARE stupid.
If Tony should happen to read this, I just want him to know I appreciate his
genius. If he only would tell us just how it actually is, how it was and how
it is going to be. We are lost, we are in the dark without his guidance.
I just don't understand why someone with so much to tell about the world
doesnt write a book.
Darwin wrote several, so did Einstein, Hawking and a lot of others. What's
holding Tony back? False modesty?
I have just one problem and I hope he will solve that for us: How do objects
move in space? All kinds of objects from asteroids and comets through
planets and suns to galaxies and maybe even the universe itself. How can the
movements be described, what causes the movement? Do gas clouds, nebulae
rotate? When the clouds concentrate, what happens to the movement, where
does it go?
Can aeroplanes or satellites orbit the Earth, or is the Earth orbiting
satellites? Or is there another explanation? I need to know, Tonys claims
have caused a terrible spin in mye head and I can't stand it much longer.
HELP! When I use CAPS, that is a sure sign of stress overload!
Rolf
Frank J
> Even if this has anything with science or evolution to do, I hope it is not
> too far off topic.
> I just want to point out that as far as I can tell, Tony Pagano is one of
> the most clever, intelligent, best read and capable man in the world.
>
> He I seceral parsecs ahead of most scientists alive today, including several
> Nobel Price winners.
>
> With that background, we should know better than to disagree with him. It is
> all so simple and easy, Tony is right, trhe rest of us ARE stupid.
>
> If Tony should happen to read this, I just want him to know I appreciate his
> genius. If he only would tell us just how it actually is, how it was and how
> it is going to be. We are lost, we are in the dark without his guidance.
>
> I just don't understand why someone with so much to tell about the world
> doesnt write a book.
He would, but he knows that Ray is much smarter than he is, and has
one in the works already. ;-)
RAM
> On Mar 28, 12:09 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Even if this has anything with science or evolution to do, I hope it is not
> > too far off topic.
> > I just want to point out that as far as I can tell, Tony Pagano is one of
> > the most clever, intelligent, best read and capable man in the world.
>
> > He I seceral parsecs ahead of most scientists alive today, including several
> > Nobel Price winners.
>
> > With that background, we should know better than to disagree with him. It is
> > all so simple and easy, Tony is right, trhe rest of us ARE stupid.
>
> > If Tony should happen to read this, I just want him to know I appreciate his
> > genius. If he only would tell us just how it actually is, how it was and how
> > it is going to be. We are lost, we are in the dark without his guidance.
>
> > I just don't understand why someone with so much to tell about the world
> > doesnt write a book.
>
> He would, but he knows that Ray is much smarter than he is, and has
> one in the works already. ;-)
>
be his name. Pagano has written he is looking forward to buying the
first copy of Ray's bio/religious epic. Thus Ray knows he is smarter
than Pagano.
T Pagano
wrote:
>Even if this has anything with science or evolution to do, I hope it is not
>too far off topic.
>I just want to point out that as far as I can tell, Tony Pagano is one of
>the most clever, intelligent, best read and capable man in the world.
>
>He I seceral parsecs ahead of most scientists alive today, including several
>Nobel Price winners.
Here comes the whining. . .how predictable. The atheists are either
spoiled children (like boikat) or they resort to whining sarcasm. Is
this a science related forum or alt.cry.me.a.river
Sadly for poor dejected Rolf the issue about the serious problems with
the fossil record come directly from Darwin and Gould. Gould was both
a paleontologist and an evolutionary biologist. Gould and his sizable
camp of naturalists claim unashamedly that "sudden appearance" and
"stasis" are NOT artifacts of an inadequate sampling rate but a
genuine pattern of earth prehistory. Darwin quite agreed.
In the thread body slamming Boikat I produced quotes (and sources)
from the great scientists of the age claiming unequivocally that there
is no proof of a moving Earth. And furthermore these same scientists
asserted that the Copernican Model and the Modified Tychoian
Geocentric Models are equivalent.
To Harshman: It's worse than I thought. Your boys have not only been
pounded, they're demoralized.
>
>With that background, we should know better than to disagree with him. It is
>all so simple and easy, Tony is right, trhe rest of us ARE stupid.
>
>If Tony should happen to read this, I just want him to know I appreciate his
>genius. If he only would tell us just how it actually is, how it was and how
>it is going to be. We are lost, we are in the dark without his guidance.
The difference between Rolf (and his merry band of atheists) and I is
that I actually crack open the sources. Has Rolf actually read
Darwin's, "On the Origin of Species" from cover to cover. Has he read
any of Einstein's works? Or Dembski's? Or Behe's? Or Gould's?
A long standing denizen of T.O----wf3h----admitted recently that not
only had he never read Darwin but had no intention of reading him. He
considered it unnecessary. Really. . .unnecessary? Does Harshman
agree with this?
>
>I just don't understand why someone with so much to tell about the world
>doesnt write a book.
>Darwin wrote several, so did Einstein, Hawking and a lot of others. What's
>holding Tony back? False modesty?
Since the great scientists of the world have (mostly) been honest
about the serious problems of the secular-atheist creation stories
writing a book is largely unnecessary. Why should I rain on Darwin's
parade when Darwin himself offered the "rope" to hang his own theory.
Of course any good scientis should offer the falsifiers of his theory.
"Stasis" and "sudden appearance" of fossil record and the existence of
IC systems are enough to throw the lever for the gallows.
But Rolf wouldn't know things such as this----scientific
things------because he and most of his compatriots choose to follow
the likes of Harshman over the cliff instead of thinking for
themselves.
>I have just one problem and I hope he will solve that for us: How do objects
>move in space? All kinds of objects from asteroids and comets through
>planets and suns to galaxies and maybe even the universe itself. How can the
>movements be described, what causes the movement? Do gas clouds, nebulae
>rotate? When the clouds concentrate, what happens to the movement, where
>does it go?
>Can aeroplanes or satellites orbit the Earth, or is the Earth orbiting
>satellites? Or is there another explanation? I need to know, Tonys claims
>have caused a terrible spin in mye head and I can't stand it much longer.
>HELP! When I use CAPS, that is a sure sign of stress overload!
>
>Rolf
>
My job here is not to play useless games with Rolf but to show that
the modern secular creation stories are very-far-from the certainty
that they spout from the educational system, from Academia, and from
the media. These atheist, pet, if-so stories are either teetering on
the brink of falsity or have already gone over the edge.
Perhaps Rolf can show otherwise. Prove that the earth is moving at 30
km/sec around the sun and 400 km/sec around the milky way.
And prove with scientific evidence that the characteristics of the
fossil record----stasis and sudden appearance----are not exactly what
they appear to be----falsifiers of the Darwinian theory that
biological diversity is the result of transformational continuity.
Regards,
T Pagano
Because the atheist cheerleaders hobble them selves by covering their
eyes and hears and blindly following the likes of Harshman my job is
so much easier.
.. . . . as I fire tubes 3 and 4 to further hobble the atheist flagship
Ediacara. And as usual Harshman and Wilkins are too busy on deck
patting themselves on the back.
T Pagano
wrote:
>On Mar 28, 12:09 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
Run, Frank, run. Just where is that proof that the earth moves?
Your buddy boikat just got his head handed to him over the same issue.
Run, Frank, run. And a creationist has got you runnin' hard and
runnin' scared.. 'Cause if you don't run everyone will discover that
you don't have clue.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
[snip most of Tony's nonsense]
> The difference between Rolf (and his merry band of atheists) and I is
> that I actually crack open the sources. Has Rolf actually read
> Darwin's, "On the Origin of Species" from cover to cover. Has he read
> any of Einstein's works? Or Dembski's? Or Behe's? Or Gould's?
It's already been established (based on your own admission) that you
haven't read the works of Gould that you keep claiming to cite.
> A long standing denizen of T.O----wf3h----admitted recently that not
> only had he never read Darwin but had no intention of reading him. He
> considered it unnecessary. Really. . .unnecessary? Does Harshman
> agree with this?
Yes. Most scientific works that are more than 150 years old are
generally outdated. Darwin isn't any more relevant to evolutionary
biology today than Principia Mathematica is to physics today. Mind you,
everyone should read Darwin for the historical interest.
[snip the rest of Tony's nonsense]
So when are you going to reply to the challenge regarding Archaeopteryx?
Bruce Stephens
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:16:08 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 28, 12:09 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>
> Run, Frank, run. Just where is that proof that the earth moves?
Since you're so confident, it seems a bit odd that you ignored so many
of Steve Carlip's articles. He seemed to know what he was writing
about.
[...]
chris thompson
Right after he responds to Mike Dworetsky's post presenting ample
evidence that the earth revolves around the sun.
Chris
Frank J
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:16:08 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 28, 12:09 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> Run, Frank, run. Just where is that proof that the earth moves?
I'll make you a deal. Get the Discovery Institute to say that you were
right and they were wrong, and we'll talk.
(snip)
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
T Pagano
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>[snip most of Tony's nonsense]
>
>> The difference between Rolf (and his merry band of atheists) and I is
>> that I actually crack open the sources. Has Rolf actually read
>> Darwin's, "On the Origin of Species" from cover to cover. Has he read
>> any of Einstein's works? Or Dembski's? Or Behe's? Or Gould's?
>
>It's already been established (based on your own admission) that you
>haven't read the works of Gould that you keep claiming to cite.
Harshman can never quite gets his facts straight.
I admitted that I had not read Gould's Punc Eq paper but had read
secondary sources concerning it. Furthermore I never claimed that I
had read all or even most of Gould's works. I do own and have read
Gould's, "Punctuated Equilibrium," Belknap Press, 2007 (this is an
excerpt of Ch 1-9 of Gould's, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."
>
>> A long standing denizen of T.O----wf3h----admitted recently that not
>> only had he never read Darwin but had no intention of reading him. He
>> considered it unnecessary. Really. . .unnecessary? Does Harshman
>> agree with this?
>
>Yes. Most scientific works that are more than 150 years old are
>generally outdated. Darwin isn't any more relevant to evolutionary
>biology today than Principia Mathematica is to physics today. Mind you,
>everyone should read Darwin for the historical interest.
So in other words you disagree with wf3h (who has vanished since his
admission) and agree with me. And you recommend that your minions
actually crack open Darwin's opus.
Is Darwin really outdated? To be sure he was wrong about some things
for which he was honestly ignorant but the basic framework is
unchanged. Furthermore Darwin writes with a clarity that has been
lost even to the eloquent Gould. Perhaps it is Darwin's honesty and
his offering the falsifiers of his theory that has gone out of style.
Today theories are verified rather than tested with falsifications.
>
>[snip the rest of Tony's nonsense]
>
>So when are you going to reply to the challenge regarding Archaeopteryx?
What challenge? Harshman offered the Archeopteryx wing as a nascent
structure yet it would seem that more than few in the field
characterize its wing as possessing the basic pattern and proportions
of a modern avian wing with modern-like feathers. Apparently many
consider the Archeopteryx capable of powered flight. If so, that
would not make its wing nascent or developing, but "mature."
Furthermore one argues that it is the predecessor of modern birds.
This sounds dangerously like the Archeopteryx is just another
fully-formed, mature dead end node of Darwin's falsified "bush."
Darwin never considered the Archeopteryx to be anything more than an
interesting "intermediate." He certainly didn't consider any of its
structures nascent or representing evidence of gradual, continuous,
biological change. Furthermore Darwin wrote (which I quoted in
Harshman's now collapsed Archeopteryx thread) that the Archeopteryx
was evidence of how much the scientific community did NOT know about
prehistory. Surely a professional evolutionary biologist can do
better than the Archeopteryx.
Regards,
T Pagano
Any chance of Harshman bringing Elsberry back for a guest appearance?
John Harshman
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:22:03 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>> [snip most of Tony's nonsense]
>>
>>> The difference between Rolf (and his merry band of atheists) and I is
>>> that I actually crack open the sources. Has Rolf actually read
>>> Darwin's, "On the Origin of Species" from cover to cover. Has he read
>>> any of Einstein's works? Or Dembski's? Or Behe's? Or Gould's?
>> It's already been established (based on your own admission) that you
>> haven't read the works of Gould that you keep claiming to cite.
>
> Harshman can never quite gets his facts straight.
>
> I admitted that I had not read Gould's Punc Eq paper but had read
> secondary sources concerning it.
Is a secondary source good enough, then? How about secondary sources on
Darwin? Did you ask if anyone had read those?
> Furthermore I never claimed that I
> had read all or even most of Gould's works. I do own and have read
> Gould's, "Punctuated Equilibrium," Belknap Press, 2007 (this is an
> excerpt of Ch 1-9 of Gould's, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."
If that's true, why do you get everything about it wrong?
>>> A long standing denizen of T.O----wf3h----admitted recently that not
>>> only had he never read Darwin but had no intention of reading him. He
>>> considered it unnecessary. Really. . .unnecessary? Does Harshman
>>> agree with this?
>> Yes. Most scientific works that are more than 150 years old are
>> generally outdated. Darwin isn't any more relevant to evolutionary
>> biology today than Principia Mathematica is to physics today. Mind you,
>> everyone should read Darwin for the historical interest.
>
> So in other words you disagree with wf3h (who has vanished since his
> admission) and agree with me. And you recommend that your minions
> actually crack open Darwin's opus.
No, I agree with wf3h and disagree with you. Can you read?
> Is Darwin really outdated?
Yes.
> To be sure he was wrong about some things
> for which he was honestly ignorant but the basic framework is
> unchanged. Furthermore Darwin writes with a clarity that has been
> lost even to the eloquent Gould. Perhaps it is Darwin's honesty and
> his offering the falsifiers of his theory that has gone out of style.
> Today theories are verified rather than tested with falsifications.
You have no idea about any facet of science. You are saved from
embarrassing yourself only by your immunity to embarrassment.
>> [snip the rest of Tony's nonsense]
>>
>> So when are you going to reply to the challenge regarding Archaeopteryx?
>
> What challenge? Harshman offered the Archeopteryx wing as a nascent
> structure yet it would seem that more than few in the field
> characterize its wing as possessing the basic pattern and proportions
> of a modern avian wing with modern-like feathers.
It would seem to whom? You mentioned nobody. Almost all your post was
irrelevant to the wing. And we have all agreed that the feathers are
modern. I mentioned a great many primitive features of the wing that you
have ignored. It's not fully formed by any reasonable definition. It's a
standard maniraptoran forelimb with flight feathers. What could be more
intermediate than that?
> Apparently many
> consider the Archeopteryx capable of powered flight.
So do I. So?
> If so, that
> would not make its wing nascent or developing, but "mature."
Define "mature". If being capable of powered flight makes a wing mature,
then what is a nascent wing? How about the forelimb of Sinosauropteryx?
It's clearly incapable of flight. Of course you won't agree that it's a
wing. And that's your Catch-22. Anything sufficiently "nascent" isn't a
wing, and anything that's a wing isn't nascent. Cute.
> Furthermore one argues that it is the predecessor of modern birds.
I presume you meant "no-one". Not relevant.
> This sounds dangerously like the Archeopteryx is just another
> fully-formed, mature dead end node of Darwin's falsified "bush."
Define "fully-formed".
> Darwin never considered the Archeopteryx to be anything more than an
> interesting "intermediate."
And nothing less too. He considered it a perfect example of the sort of
intermediates he expected to be found.
> He certainly didn't consider any of its
> structures nascent or representing evidence of gradual, continuous,
> biological change.
Please present evidence for that claim.
> Furthermore Darwin wrote (which I quoted in
> Harshman's now collapsed Archeopteryx thread) that the Archeopteryx
> was evidence of how much the scientific community did NOT know about
> prehistory. Surely a professional evolutionary biologist can do
> better than the Archeopteryx.
Shameless quote-mining, interpreting Darwin's words to mean nearly the
opposite of what he actually said.
> Any chance of Harshman bringing Elsberry back for a guest appearance?
No. Now can we deal with Archaeopteryx instead of all this dishonest
weaseling?
T Pagano
Excellent. I always love it when someone is willing to put someone
else's neck on the line. Time to put Thompson's feet to the fire.
Please offer the link to Dworetsky's "ample" evidence. This way there
will be no doubt of where the ample evidence lies because Thompson
will have put his reputation on the line. Once this is offered I will
respond to Dworetsky with a subject line change indcating that
Thompson considers Dworetsky to have proved conclusively that the
earth moves around the sun.
Some days I eat the bear and some days he eats me. Which will it be
Chris? Now it's go time.
Regards,
T Pagano
Boikat
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:16:08 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 28, 12:09 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> Run, Frank, run. Just where is that proof that the earth moves?
> Your buddy boikat just got his head handed to him over the same issue
Then why were you the one who ran away?
.
> Run, Frank, run. And a creationist has got you runnin' hard and
> runnin' scared.. 'Cause if you don't run everyone will discover that
> you don't have clue.
So, tony, when you ride the elevator, what movs, the Earth and the
rest of the Universe, or the elevatoer car?
Boikat
Mark Isaak
> Just where is that proof that the earth moves?
You still can't explain any of it, I see, and have to hide behind sound
effects.
Parallax. Doppler shift. They are still looming over your head, dooming
you.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (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
T Pagano
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:22:03 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> [snip most of Tony's nonsense]
>>>
>>>> The difference between Rolf (and his merry band of atheists) and I is
>>>> that I actually crack open the sources. Has Rolf actually read
>>>> Darwin's, "On the Origin of Species" from cover to cover. Has he read
>>>> any of Einstein's works? Or Dembski's? Or Behe's? Or Gould's?
>>> It's already been established (based on your own admission) that you
>>> haven't read the works of Gould that you keep claiming to cite.
>>
>> Harshman can never quite gets his facts straight.
>>
>> I admitted that I had not read Gould's Punc Eq paper but had read
>> secondary sources concerning it.
>
>Is a secondary source good enough, then? How about secondary sources on
>Darwin? Did you ask if anyone had read those?
Since I've read Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" (which is a
considerably more full explication of his Punc Eq theory than his 1973
paper) and read Darwin's Opus, Harshman can hardly acuse me of
hypocrisy. Darwin's opus is the bed rock. Does Harshman really
suggest that Dawkins or Gould or Mayr or any evolutionist has done
justice to the clarity of Darwin's opus?
Half of your cheerleaders have never offered having read anything
about the topic of the forum. Do I need to force it out of them? But
lets put the shoe on the other foot
Harshman has more than implied the he hasn't read a single full length
work of Dembski or Behe yet he nonetheless makes ignorant comments
about ID. Harshman never offered that he had read any secondary
sources either. Even if Harshman had read secondary sources
concerning ID (which I seriously doubt) they are likely sources who
hold Dembski, Behe and ID in contempt and are unlikely to accurately
present ID's position. Granted I face the same situation with
sources critical of evolution which is why I own copies of Mayr,
Gould, Darwin, Dawkins and a few others.
>
>> Furthermore I never claimed that I
>> had read all or even most of Gould's works. I do own and have read
>> Gould's, "Punctuated Equilibrium," Belknap Press, 2007 (this is an
>> excerpt of Ch 1-9 of Gould's, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."
>
>If that's true, why do you get everything about it wrong?
I find that everytime my enemies claim this the errors always seem to
be detailed elsewhere.
>
>>>> A long standing denizen of T.O----wf3h----admitted recently that not
>>>> only had he never read Darwin but had no intention of reading him. He
>>>> considered it unnecessary. Really. . .unnecessary? Does Harshman
>>>> agree with this?
>>> Yes. Most scientific works that are more than 150 years old are
>>> generally outdated. Darwin isn't any more relevant to evolutionary
>>> biology today than Principia Mathematica is to physics today. Mind you,
>>> everyone should read Darwin for the historical interest.
>>
>> So in other words you disagree with wf3h (who has vanished since his
>> admission) and agree with me. And you recommend that your minions
>> actually crack open Darwin's opus.
>
>No, I agree with wf3h and disagree with you. Can you read?
Nonsense. You apparently can't even understand yourself. wf3h, more
or less, claimed that there was no value in reading Darwin and he had
no intention of doing so. Yet Harshman wrote, "Mind you, everyone
should read Darwin for the historical interest." This isn't exactly a
ringing endorsement of Darwin yet it is closer in agreement with me
than with wf3h.
>
>> Is Darwin really outdated?
>
>Yes.
In what respect is Darwin outdated? Specifics?
>
>> To be sure he was wrong about some things
>> for which he was honestly ignorant but the basic framework is
>> unchanged. Furthermore Darwin writes with a clarity that has been
>> lost even to the eloquent Gould. Perhaps it is Darwin's honesty and
>> his offering the falsifiers of his theory that has gone out of style.
>> Today theories are verified rather than tested with falsifications.
>
>You have no idea about any facet of science. You are saved from
>embarrassing yourself only by your immunity to embarrassment.
Apparently Harshman does not dispute that Darwin's basic framework is
unchanged today. He doesn't dispute that Darwin wrote with clarity.
In fact, Harshman disputes nothing. He merely delves into his typical
ad hominen nonsense>
Concerning the philosophy of science I've witnessed Harshman's
complete impotence to defend the pillar of modern secular science
destroyed by Hume (an atheist)----induction. He was even more
resentful when he learned for the first time in this forum that Hume
destroyed Induction in the mid-1700s. Heck even Bacon discovered
that induction was practically useless beyond simple generalizations.
Harshman is resentful that I pointed out to him what his graduate
education failed to provide.
>
>>> [snip the rest of Tony's nonsense]
>>>
>>> So when are you going to reply to the challenge regarding Archaeopteryx?
>>
>> What challenge? Harshman offered the Archeopteryx wing as a nascent
>> structure yet it would seem that more than few in the field
>> characterize its wing as possessing the basic pattern and proportions
>> of a modern avian wing with modern-like feathers.
>
>It would seem to whom? You mentioned nobody. Almost all your post was
>irrelevant to the wing. And we have all agreed that the feathers are
>modern. I mentioned a great many primitive features of the wing that you
>have ignored. It's not fully formed by any reasonable definition. It's a
>standard maniraptoran forelimb with flight feathers. What could be more
>intermediate than that?
Does Harshman really mean to argue that the Archeopteryx has modern
feathers with a nascent wing? This is amusing. Besides what needs to
be said beyond the fact that the wing possessed the basic pattern and
proportion of a fully functional modern avian wing?
And while it is true that the rest of my rebuttal did not specifically
address the wing it addressed the Archeopteryx as a whole. I made
clear in the remainder of that rebuttal that not only was the
Archeopteryx wing considered fully functional, but virtually ALL of
its structures are considered to be representative of a modern fully
functional bird.
>
>> Apparently many
>> consider the Archeopteryx capable of powered flight.
>
>So do I. So?
"Capable of powered flight" implies fully-formed, mature, functional
which is the opposite of "nascent."
>> If so, that
>> would not make its wing nascent or developing, but "mature."
>
>Define "mature". If being capable of powered flight makes a wing mature,
Sounds common sensical to me.
My arm is considered fully formed and functional for a variety of
activities; does Harshman consider my arm "nascent." Harshman is now
delving into the verbalism of the most absurd kind.
>then what is a nascent wing?
Almost any common english dictionary definition would be consistent
with Darwin's usage. He used "nascent" in his opus which is where I
picked up the label.
>How about the forelimb of Sinosauropteryx?
I haven't the slightest idea; the issue is the Archeopteryx.
>It's clearly incapable of flight. Of course you won't agree that it's a
>wing. And that's your Catch-22. Anything sufficiently "nascent" isn't a
>wing, and anything that's a wing isn't nascent. Cute.
>
>> Furthermore one argues that it is the predecessor of modern birds.
>
>I presume you meant "no-one". Not relevant.
It's relevent if Harshman argues that the Archeopteryx (with the
purported nascent wing) transformed continuously into a population
with a more developed wing. But that descendent population would not
have been modern birds. If not where are its descendents?
>
>> This sounds dangerously like the Archeopteryx is just another
>> fully-formed, mature dead end node of Darwin's falsified "bush."
>
>Define "fully-formed".
Any common english language dictionary definition would suffice.
>
>> Darwin never considered the Archeopteryx to be anything more than an
>> interesting "intermediate."
>
>And nothing less too. He considered it a perfect example of the sort of
>intermediates he expected to be found.
I agree; however, he did NOT consider it evidence of the naturalistic
continuity which his theory predicts and he offered to over throw
Special Creation.
>
>> He certainly didn't consider any of its
>> structures nascent or representing evidence of gradual, continuous,
>> biological change.
>
>Please present evidence for that claim.
Since Darwin described the Archeopteryx as a wonderful "intermediate"
why on earth would he find it necessary to argue that it wasn't
nascent? While Harshman is obtuse and engages in verbalism Darwin was
not and did not.
Finally, if Darwin had considered the Archeopteryx wing genuinely
"nascent" he would certainly have retracted his claim that the fossil
record was an argument against his theory.
>
>> Furthermore Darwin wrote (which I quoted in
>> Harshman's now collapsed Archeopteryx thread) that the Archeopteryx
>> was evidence of how much the scientific community did NOT know about
>> prehistory. Surely a professional evolutionary biologist can do
>> better than the Archeopteryx.
>
>Shameless quote-mining, interpreting Darwin's words to mean nearly the
>opposite of what he actually said.
Nonsense. Recall that Darwin was honest about the gaps and failures
in his theory unlike the atheist scientists of today like Harshman.
While he considered the Archeopteryx a wonderful intermediate it still
left continuity unverified and therefore tremendous gaps in our
understanding of the origin of biological diversity.
>> Any chance of Harshman bringing Elsberry back for a guest appearance?
>
>No. Now can we deal with Archaeopteryx instead of all this dishonest
>weaseling?
Talk about weaseling. Harshman argues (with a straight face) that the
Archeopteryx wing is simultaneously fully functional, capable of
powered flight ***AND*** nascent. As such Harshman argues that the
Archeopteryx wing was the member of two exclusive sets. While I had
considered further discussion possible it is obvious that Harshman
isn't interested in a scientific discussion but an irrational one.
Regards,
T Pagano
And this is the "best" Harshman can muster? It is no wonder that
Darwin was dejected over the fossil record.
chris thompson
It's a response to something you posted. Pay attention.
And address John Harshman's post detailing the ancestral
characteristics of the wing of _Archaeopteryx_.
> will be no doubt of where the ample evidence lies because Thompson
> will have put his reputation on the line. Once this is offered I will
> respond to Dworetsky with a subject line change indcating that
Find Mike's post yourself. Just look at responses to your own posts.
It's not my job (or anyone else's) to do your homework for you. If you
do not do this small thing, I will post it in response to every single
post you make for at least 6 months, showing you for a liar.
But this is, of course, your usual tactic. Instead of responding
directly to evidence, you respond in a different thread, and bray
about victory when someone refuses to play your idiotic game.
Well, once again, you have someone who refuses to play with you, so it
looks like once again, you will play with yourself- not that that's
anything new, and not there's anything wrong with that (except being a
significant sign of mental illness of course).
> Thompson considers Dworetsky to have proved conclusively that the
> earth moves around the sun.
You are an idiot. You have been told over and over that scientific
hypotheses cannot be "proven". However, the overwhelming amount of
evidence is such that only a willfully dishonest person or a willfully
moronic idiot would deny it.
Which are you?
Of course, there is a third option- you are a pathetic Usenet troll
who glories in the attention you receive. While I occasionally provide
you with such attention (how are your cheek teeth these days, Tony?),
I pity the the life you must lead that such attention means so much to
you.
Chris
{}
chris thompson
I predict one of two things:
crickets
or
145 decibel Tony braying victory.
Chris
John Harshman
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:57:54 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:22:03 -0700, John Harshman
>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>> [snip most of Tony's nonsense]
>>>>
>>>>> The difference between Rolf (and his merry band of atheists) and I is
>>>>> that I actually crack open the sources. Has Rolf actually read
>>>>> Darwin's, "On the Origin of Species" from cover to cover. Has he read
>>>>> any of Einstein's works? Or Dembski's? Or Behe's? Or Gould's?
>>>> It's already been established (based on your own admission) that you
>>>> haven't read the works of Gould that you keep claiming to cite.
>>> Harshman can never quite gets his facts straight.
>>>
>>> I admitted that I had not read Gould's Punc Eq paper but had read
>>> secondary sources concerning it.
>> Is a secondary source good enough, then? How about secondary sources on
>> Darwin? Did you ask if anyone had read those?
>
> Since I've read Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" (which is a
> considerably more full explication of his Punc Eq theory than his 1973
> paper)
1972. And if you haven't read it, stop citing it. Even correctly.
> and read Darwin's Opus, Harshman can hardly acuse me of
> hypocrisy.
Of course I can. Massive.
> Darwin's opus is the bed rock. Does Harshman really
> suggest that Dawkins or Gould or Mayr or any evolutionist has done
> justice to the clarity of Darwin's opus?
Yes. It isn't a holy book. Thanks for admiring it, but we've moved on.
> Half of your cheerleaders have never offered having read anything
> about the topic of the forum. Do I need to force it out of them? But
> lets put the shoe on the other foot
>
> Harshman has more than implied the he hasn't read a single full length
> work of Dembski or Behe yet he nonetheless makes ignorant comments
> about ID.
The "ignorant" part would require some evidence.
> Harshman never offered that he had read any secondary
> sources either. Even if Harshman had read secondary sources
> concerning ID (which I seriously doubt) they are likely sources who
> hold Dembski, Behe and ID in contempt and are unlikely to accurately
> present ID's position. Granted I face the same situation with
> sources critical of evolution which is why I own copies of Mayr,
> Gould, Darwin, Dawkins and a few others.
Hilding Dembski and Behe in contempt is hardly a reason to assume bias;
it's a rational judgment. Your attempt at equating creationists and real
biologists is disingenuous.
>>> Furthermore I never claimed that I
>>> had read all or even most of Gould's works. I do own and have read
>>> Gould's, "Punctuated Equilibrium," Belknap Press, 2007 (this is an
>>> excerpt of Ch 1-9 of Gould's, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."
>> If that's true, why do you get everything about it wrong?
>
> I find that everytime my enemies claim this the errors always seem to
> be detailed elsewhere.
That's because you don't respond to the posts in which your errors are
detailed. Often, you just snip the details, as you did last time.
>>>>> A long standing denizen of T.O----wf3h----admitted recently that not
>>>>> only had he never read Darwin but had no intention of reading him. He
>>>>> considered it unnecessary. Really. . .unnecessary? Does Harshman
>>>>> agree with this?
>>>> Yes. Most scientific works that are more than 150 years old are
>>>> generally outdated. Darwin isn't any more relevant to evolutionary
>>>> biology today than Principia Mathematica is to physics today. Mind you,
>>>> everyone should read Darwin for the historical interest.
>>> So in other words you disagree with wf3h (who has vanished since his
>>> admission) and agree with me. And you recommend that your minions
>>> actually crack open Darwin's opus.
>> No, I agree with wf3h and disagree with you. Can you read?
>
> Nonsense. You apparently can't even understand yourself. wf3h, more
> or less, claimed that there was no value in reading Darwin and he had
> no intention of doing so.
I doubt your ability to summarize anything accurately, including what
wf3h said.
> Yet Harshman wrote, "Mind you, everyone
> should read Darwin for the historical interest." This isn't exactly a
> ringing endorsement of Darwin yet it is closer in agreement with me
> than with wf3h.
I disagree.
>>> Is Darwin really outdated?
>> Yes.
>
> In what respect is Darwin outdated? Specifics?
150 years of evolutionary biology. Just off the top of my head,
genetics. Population genetics. DNA. Neutral evolution. Evolutionary
modeling. Kin selection. Speciation. Species selection. Can you possibly
be serious?
>>> To be sure he was wrong about some things
>>> for which he was honestly ignorant but the basic framework is
>>> unchanged. Furthermore Darwin writes with a clarity that has been
>>> lost even to the eloquent Gould. Perhaps it is Darwin's honesty and
>>> his offering the falsifiers of his theory that has gone out of style.
>>> Today theories are verified rather than tested with falsifications.
>> You have no idea about any facet of science. You are saved from
>> embarrassing yourself only by your immunity to embarrassment.
>
> Apparently Harshman does not dispute that Darwin's basic framework is
> unchanged today. He doesn't dispute that Darwin wrote with clarity.
> In fact, Harshman disputes nothing. He merely delves into his typical
> ad hominen nonsense>
Harshman is unsure what you mean by "Darwin's basic framework". Sure,
natural selection remains the central mechanism of adaptive evolution.
And whatever does clarity have to do with being out of date?
> Concerning the philosophy of science I've witnessed Harshman's
> complete impotence to defend the pillar of modern secular science
> destroyed by Hume (an atheist)----induction. He was even more
> resentful when he learned for the first time in this forum that Hume
> destroyed Induction in the mid-1700s. Heck even Bacon discovered
> that induction was practically useless beyond simple generalizations.
> Harshman is resentful that I pointed out to him what his graduate
> education failed to provide.
Harshman is annoyed at Tony's frequent fictions.
>>>> [snip the rest of Tony's nonsense]
>>>>
>>>> So when are you going to reply to the challenge regarding Archaeopteryx?
>>> What challenge? Harshman offered the Archeopteryx wing as a nascent
>>> structure yet it would seem that more than few in the field
>>> characterize its wing as possessing the basic pattern and proportions
>>> of a modern avian wing with modern-like feathers.
>> It would seem to whom? You mentioned nobody. Almost all your post was
>> irrelevant to the wing. And we have all agreed that the feathers are
>> modern. I mentioned a great many primitive features of the wing that you
>> have ignored. It's not fully formed by any reasonable definition. It's a
>> standard maniraptoran forelimb with flight feathers. What could be more
>> intermediate than that?
>
> Does Harshman really mean to argue that the Archeopteryx has modern
> feathers with a nascent wing?
Yes, Harshman does.
> This is amusing. Besides what needs to
> be said beyond the fact that the wing possessed the basic pattern and
> proportion of a fully functional modern avian wing?
What do you mean by "basic pattern and proportion"? Aside from the
flight feathers, it's a standard theropod forelimb. Does a theropod
forelimb have the basic pattern and proportion of a fully functional
modern avian wing?
> And while it is true that the rest of my rebuttal did not specifically
> address the wing it addressed the Archeopteryx as a whole.
I.e., it was irrelevant to the maatter under discussion.
> I made
> clear in the remainder of that rebuttal that not only was the
> Archeopteryx wing considered fully functional, but virtually ALL of
> its structures are considered to be representative of a modern fully
> functional bird.
No, you just cut and pasted a bit from a creationist web sight that
mentioned some of its birdlike features (many of them incorrectly), and
ignored all its primitive features. In this way I could prove that an
apple is a fully functioning orange.
>>> Apparently many
>>> consider the Archeopteryx capable of powered flight.
>> So do I. So?
>
> "Capable of powered flight" implies fully-formed, mature, functional
> which is the opposite of "nascent."
Why? I would have thought that a wing lacking many of the important
features of a modern wing would be considered not fully formed.
>>> If so, that
>>> would not make its wing nascent or developing, but "mature."
>> Define "mature". If being capable of powered flight makes a wing mature,
>
> Sounds common sensical to me.
So you can't define "mature".
> My arm is considered fully formed and functional for a variety of
> activities; does Harshman consider my arm "nascent." Harshman is now
> delving into the verbalism of the most absurd kind.
>
>> then what is a nascent wing?
>
> Almost any common english dictionary definition would be consistent
> with Darwin's usage. He used "nascent" in his opus which is where I
> picked up the label.
So you can't define "nascent".
>> How about the forelimb of Sinosauropteryx?
>
> I haven't the slightest idea; the issue is the Archeopteryx.
I'm trying to figure out what sort of wing you would consider "nascent".
Work with me here.
>> It's clearly incapable of flight. Of course you won't agree that it's a
>> wing. And that's your Catch-22. Anything sufficiently "nascent" isn't a
>> wing, and anything that's a wing isn't nascent. Cute.
>>
>>> Furthermore one argues that it is the predecessor of modern birds.
>> I presume you meant "no-one". Not relevant.
>
> It's relevent if Harshman argues that the Archeopteryx (with the
> purported nascent wing) transformed continuously into a population
> with a more developed wing. But that descendent population would not
> have been modern birds. If not where are its descendents?
As you have been told many, many times, we are unable to determine if
any fossil is the ancestor of anything else. We can't distinguish
ancestors from their close relatives. For this reason, among others,
intermediate or transitional forms don't have to be ancestors. They only
need to display those intermediate states that you were asking for.
As an aside, why is Tony incapable of directly addressing anyone, and
always has to use the third person? Sounds creepy. Harshman is creeped out.
>>> This sounds dangerously like the Archeopteryx is just another
>>> fully-formed, mature dead end node of Darwin's falsified "bush."
>> Define "fully-formed".
>
> Any common english language dictionary definition would suffice.
So you can't define "fully-formed". (It's not a word, you know; doesn't
appear in the dictionary.) Why can't you respond to any simple question?
>>> Darwin never considered the Archeopteryx to be anything more than an
>>> interesting "intermediate."
>> And nothing less too. He considered it a perfect example of the sort of
>> intermediates he expected to be found.
>
> I agree; however, he did NOT consider it evidence of the naturalistic
> continuity which his theory predicts and he offered to over throw
> Special Creation.
I'm really not sure what you mean here. If I try to make sense of your
claim, it's nonsensical. Of course a single fossil can't be evidence of
continuity. But it's evidence of what you asked for: a transitional
form. And Darwin took it as ample confirmation of his theory.
>>> He certainly didn't consider any of its
>>> structures nascent or representing evidence of gradual, continuous,
>>> biological change.
>> Please present evidence for that claim.
>
> Since Darwin described the Archeopteryx as a wonderful "intermediate"
> why on earth would he find it necessary to argue that it wasn't
> nascent? While Harshman is obtuse and engages in verbalism Darwin was
> not and did not.
I'm unsure of why you think that being an intermediate means it isn't
nascent. Can you explain? (Assuming that you won't, even if you can, if
experince is any guide.)
> Finally, if Darwin had considered the Archeopteryx wing genuinely
> "nascent" he would certainly have retracted his claim that the fossil
> record was an argument against his theory.
You don't understand Darwin's rhetorical approach. He advanced
objections in order to knock them down. The fossil record is a false
argument against his theory, and that was Darwin's point. Nor is
Archaeopteryx the innumerable forms that he advanced as a naive
expectation (and proceeded to show was naive).
>>> Furthermore Darwin wrote (which I quoted in
>>> Harshman's now collapsed Archeopteryx thread) that the Archeopteryx
>>> was evidence of how much the scientific community did NOT know about
>>> prehistory. Surely a professional evolutionary biologist can do
>>> better than the Archeopteryx.
>> Shameless quote-mining, interpreting Darwin's words to mean nearly the
>> opposite of what he actually said.
>
> Nonsense. Recall that Darwin was honest about the gaps and failures
> in his theory unlike the atheist scientists of today like Harshman.
> While he considered the Archeopteryx a wonderful intermediate it still
> left continuity unverified and therefore tremendous gaps in our
> understanding of the origin of biological diversity.
Of course it did. But that wasn't the topic under discussion here. The
topic is nascent structures.
>>> Any chance of Harshman bringing Elsberry back for a guest appearance?
>> No. Now can we deal with Archaeopteryx instead of all this dishonest
>> weaseling?
>
> Talk about weaseling. Harshman argues (with a straight face) that the
> Archeopteryx wing is simultaneously fully functional, capable of
> powered flight ***AND*** nascent.
What would a nascent wing be like? If it must be incapable of powered
flight, how could you distinguish it from a standard theropod forelimb?
> As such Harshman argues that the
> Archeopteryx wing was the member of two exclusive sets. While I had
> considered further discussion possible it is obvious that Harshman
> isn't interested in a scientific discussion but an irrational one.
The problem is that you refuse to define your terms, even locally. I
guessed at what you might accept as nascent. I was apparently wrong. I
next tried Sinosauropteryx, which couldn't fly, but you refuse to
consider it. How about Microraptor? Can we talk about that one?
> And this is the "best" Harshman can muster? It is no wonder that
> Darwin was dejected over the fossil record.
Darwin wasn't dejected. What gave you that idea?
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>Harshman has more than implied the he hasn't read a single full length
>work of Dembski or Behe yet he nonetheless makes ignorant comments
>about ID. Harshman never offered that he had read any secondary
>sources either. Even if Harshman had read secondary sources concerning
>ID (which I seriously doubt) they are likely sources who hold Dembski,
>Behe and ID in contempt and are unlikely to accurately present ID's
>position. Granted I face the same situation with sources critical of
>evolution which is why I own copies of Mayr, Gould, Darwin, Dawkins and
>a few others.
That is why you are so convincing a debunker of ID. If ID's detractors
argue that ID is vacuous, that could be bias. If an ID supporter
presents it as vacuous, that is unlikely to be bias, and therefore one
can be more confident that it is indeed vacuous.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mike Dworetsky
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:12:35 -0400, T Pagano wrote:
>
>> Just where is that proof that the earth moves?
>
> You still can't explain any of it, I see, and have to hide behind
> sound effects.
>
> Parallax. Doppler shift. They are still looming over your head,
> dooming you.
Back when Tycho invented his system, he only had to reproduce the apparent
positions of planets in the sky. He didn't have nasty little inconveniences
like Doppler shift and stellar aberration to upset the model. One piece of
evidence he used to support his system was the absence of parallax
observations. Once parallax was observed, the model would have been dead,
dead, dead. Even Tycho himself would have agreed.
E pur si muove! (Which may be apochryphal, but wottheheck.)
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Frank J
> On Mar 28, 4:12 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:16:08 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Mar 28, 12:09 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > Run, Frank, run. Just where is that proof that the earth moves?
> > Your buddy boikat just got his head handed to him over the same issue
>
> Then why were you the one who ran away?
No. No. Get with the program. We are the ones "running," and Tony is
"winning." Like Charlie Sheen. Get it?
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> >> Apparently many
> >> consider the Archeopteryx capable of powered flight.
>
> >So do I. So?
>
> "Capable of powered flight" implies fully-formed, mature, functional
> which is the opposite of "nascent."
>
Tony, the Wright Brother's 1903 Flyer was capable of powered flight.
It was only just capable of getting off the ground. It was many
years later until the Wrights produced a reasonably reliable aircraft,
and much, much later before the modern form of an aircraft was
developed. Do you imagine that the 1903 flyer was a "fully formed,
mature, functional" aircraft?
> >> If so, that
> >> would not make its wing nascent or developing, but "mature."
>
> >Define "mature". If being capable of powered flight makes a wing mature,
>
> Sounds common sensical to me.
Only if you know nothing of common sense. Archae was capable of
powered flight in much the same way that the Wright's Flyer was
capable of powered flight. That doesn't mean it was as useful for
powered flight as later wings became.
snip the rest.
DJT
Darwin123
> People are running from Tony the same way the Sun is orbiting the Earth.
That is either a very good analogy or a very good homology.
Steven L.
news:apagano-qs52p6pt19oog...@4ax.com:
> It's relevent if Harshman argues that the Archeopteryx (with the
> purported nascent wing) transformed continuously into a population
> with a more developed wing. But that descendent population would not
> have been modern birds. If not where are its descendents?
This concerns me too--even though unlike you, I accept the Theory of
Evolution. Surprise!
Scientists seem to have given up trying to figure out which species is a
direct ancestor of which other species. That is, the scientific
consensus is that birds descended from dinosaurs--but there's no
consensus on exactly which species of dinosaur is a direct ancestor of
which species of bird. Which species of dinosaur is a direct ancestor
of Archaeopteryx, they don't say. And just which species of more modern
birds (in the Eocene, say) are direct descendants of Archaeopteryx, they
also don't say.
It's as if I claim that I am the biological grandson of my
grandfather--but of his three sons, I have given up trying to figure out
which of them is my biological dad and which two are my biological
uncles.
> Nonsense. Recall that Darwin was honest about the gaps and failures
> in his theory unlike the atheist scientists of today like Harshman.
I've noticed that too.
From the posts on this NG, one striking thing is the defensiveness of so
many evolution proponents. It's as if being honest about what
paleontologists know or don't know is dangerous because it might give
evolution skeptics political ammunition to use.
-- Steven L.
jillery
> "T Pagano" <not.va...@address.net> wrote in message
>
> news:apagano-qs52p6pt19oog...@4ax.com:
>
> > It's relevent if Harshman argues that the Archeopteryx (with the
> > purported nascent wing) transformed continuously into a population
> > with a more developed wing. But that descendent population would not
> > have been modern birds. If not where are its descendents?
>
> This concerns me too--even though unlike you, I accept the Theory of
> Evolution. Surprise!
>
> Scientists seem to have given up trying to figure out which species is a
> direct ancestor of which other species. That is, the scientific
> consensus is that birds descended from dinosaurs--but there's no
> consensus on exactly which species of dinosaur is a direct ancestor of
> which species of bird. Which species of dinosaur is a direct ancestor
> of Archaeopteryx, they don't say. And just which species of more modern
> birds (in the Eocene, say) are direct descendants of Archaeopteryx, they
> also don't say.
>
> It's as if I claim that I am the biological grandson of my
> grandfather--but of his three sons, I have given up trying to figure out
> which of them is my biological dad and which two are my biological
> uncles.
I'm not sure I understand why you bring up this point. I infer you
think scientists are being disingenuous, but I can't figure out what
you mean. In your analogy, do you think it unlikely to have good
evidence for your grandfather's lineage and not your father's?
> > Nonsense. Recall that Darwin was honest about the gaps and failures
> > in his theory unlike the atheist scientists of today like Harshman.
>
> I've noticed that too.
>
> From the posts on this NG, one striking thing is the defensiveness of so
> many evolution proponents. It's as if being honest about what
> paleontologists know or don't know is dangerous because it might give
> evolution skeptics political ammunition to use
>
> -- Steven L.
John Harshman
> "T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
> news:apagano-qs52p6pt19oog...@4ax.com:
>
>> It's relevent if Harshman argues that the Archeopteryx (with the
>> purported nascent wing) transformed continuously into a population
>> with a more developed wing. But that descendent population would not
>> have been modern birds. If not where are its descendents?
>
> This concerns me too--even though unlike you, I accept the Theory of
> Evolution. Surprise!
>
> Scientists seem to have given up trying to figure out which species is a
> direct ancestor of which other species. That is, the scientific
> consensus is that birds descended from dinosaurs--but there's no
> consensus on exactly which species of dinosaur is a direct ancestor of
> which species of bird. Which species of dinosaur is a direct ancestor
> of Archaeopteryx, they don't say. And just which species of more modern
> birds (in the Eocene, say) are direct descendants of Archaeopteryx, they
> also don't say.
>
> It's as if I claim that I am the biological grandson of my
> grandfather--but of his three sons, I have given up trying to figure out
> which of them is my biological dad and which two are my biological uncles.
True. And there's a good reason for that. There is no form of evidence
that would let us determine a chain of ancestry. Thus we have given up
trying to figure out things that can't be figured out. Instead we
concentrate on things that can be figured out. Makes life easier.
>> Nonsense. Recall that Darwin was honest about the gaps and failures
>> in his theory unlike the atheist scientists of today like Harshman.
>
> I've noticed that too.
>
> From the posts on this NG, one striking thing is the defensiveness of
> so many evolution proponents. It's as if being honest about what
> paleontologists know or don't know is dangerous because it might give
> evolution skeptics political ammunition to use.
Perhaps you could be more specific. What evolution proponents? What are
they not being honest about.
JTEM
"Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Scientists seem to have given up trying to figure out
> which species is a direct ancestor of which other
> species. That is, the scientific consensus is that
> birds descended from dinosaurs--but there's no
> consensus on exactly which species of dinosaur
> is a direct ancestor of which species of bird.
It's problematic, but perfectly reasonable. Think of it
this way:
It's extremely unlikely that birds evolved from a species.
They almost certainly evolved from a very specific
population, and probably one that was isolated from
other populations of that species. So, we would expect
that the "Parent Species" co-existed with, and perhaps
even out survived, the very first "Bird" species.
Coming from a specific and likely isolated population,
we would only find fossils of the very first birds -- and
whatever intermediaries between them and their parent
species -- in a geographically limited area. They would
exist only where this isolated population was located,
and within the strata for that particular age. There's
no rule in nature that says that these fossils would be
accessible -- even with an unlimited budget -- or even
that they would have to exist today.
Remember: It's not unusual for fossil beds to be
"Weathered Out." And this is not a new process. If
it happened to a particular bed, say, 10 million years
ago, unless there was some natural mechanism
for re-burying and re-fossilizing the remains, they were
destroyed millions of years before our first ancestors
picked up rocks...
And I for one truly don't believe that major evolutionary
events took very long. Even 1,000 years would be WAY
too long if you ask me, but that's barely a blink of the
eye in geologic time, which is what we're talking about
here with fossils.
Rolf
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:16:08 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 28, 12:09 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>
> Run, Frank, run. Just where is that proof that the earth moves?
Allright Tony. So what is the correct answer? You know, don't you?
Please explain the observable movement of the sun, the monn and the planets,
as well as the movement of stars, galaxies, comets and so on. The Earth
stands still, ergo all the other objects are moving.
Funny though that wherever you might be in the universe; on Mars, Jupiter,
or somewere in the vicinity of Sirius, Alpha Centauri or whatever, I predict
you'd make excatly the same observation.
Please account for what you observe in each of the cases in terms of a
static Earth as determined by your initial observation: the Earth is static.
> Your buddy boikat just got his head handed to him over the same issue.
> Run, Frank, run. And a creationist has got you runnin' hard and
> runnin' scared.. 'Cause if you don't run everyone will discover that
> you don't have clue.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano