info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Malthus and favorable variations being preserved.
31 views
Skip to first unread message
backspace
Dec 11, 2011, 4:48:05 AM12/11/11
to
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/29/natsel.html
Darwin (1958, p. 120) concluded after he read Malthus' work on
population that, ". . . it at once struck me that under these
circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and
unfavorable ones destroyed. The result of this would be the formation
of new species."
Other than noting the variations were preserved , how does fellow YEC
Jerry Bergman determine that Darwin measured their favorability ?
Darwin (1958, p. 120) concluded after he read Malthus' work on
population that, ". . . it at once struck me that under these
circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and
unfavorable ones destroyed. The result of this would be the formation
of new species."
Other than noting the variations were preserved , how does fellow YEC
Jerry Bergman determine that Darwin measured their favorability ?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Dec 11, 2011, 8:54:17 AM12/11/11
to
the Darwinian measure of favourable variation is the number of
offspring produced.
This is not accurate in reality or in Darwin's thinking. Your
offspring have to survive to produce offspring themselves, or it
doesn't count. Although, being still short, that's probably too
simple, as well.
In a review of a TV nature documentary that I might be able to find,
the reviewer was struck by the fact that the many spores or eggs
released by some underwater plant, animal, whatever, are almost all
eaten by a species that lives only on this food.
And there's the rhyme about the codfish and the hen.
Species do the measuring of favourable adaptation themselves; if they
survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
Ron O
Dec 11, 2011, 9:21:01 AM12/11/11
to
articles instead of creationist claptrap?
Why not get a textbook like Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology? After you
have mastered that start reading journals like Evolution.
You might actually learn something instead of letting your brain
continue to rot. Really, for all the time you have wasted on
creationist claptrap you could have gotten a legitimate degree in the
subject.
Ron Okimoto
backspace
Dec 11, 2011, 10:53:06 AM12/11/11
to
On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
IN the context that Darwin used favourable and preserved; these
dissimilar terms self-referentially refer to
the same fact, saying the same thing twice, making his conclusion(new
species) a non-sequitur.
Lets elaborate on his tautology with other examples using the same
terms:
Favorable copper atoms were preserved or copper were favorable for
preservation. But everything in existence is favorable for being
preserved: this says that the same thing twice. We can reduce
DArwin's tautology to a truism:
1) Species are preserved and therefore new species will arise.
There is no need to say that favorable species are preserved, the fact
that they are preserved implies they were favorable. He then
associated this tautological bafoonism with Patrick Matthew's 'natural
means of competitive selection' , contracting it to 'natural
selection' in order to avoid crediting Matthew.
The last 150 years everybody have been formulating *meaningless
sentences* because they did't use 'natural selection' as the metaphor
for Matthew's 'natural means of competitive selection', they had no
idea what they were saying.
orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
adaptation themselves; if they
> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
IN the context that Darwin used favourable and preserved; these
dissimilar terms self-referentially refer to
the same fact, saying the same thing twice, making his conclusion(new
species) a non-sequitur.
Lets elaborate on his tautology with other examples using the same
terms:
Favorable copper atoms were preserved or copper were favorable for
preservation. But everything in existence is favorable for being
preserved: this says that the same thing twice. We can reduce
DArwin's tautology to a truism:
1) Species are preserved and therefore new species will arise.
There is no need to say that favorable species are preserved, the fact
that they are preserved implies they were favorable. He then
associated this tautological bafoonism with Patrick Matthew's 'natural
means of competitive selection' , contracting it to 'natural
selection' in order to avoid crediting Matthew.
The last 150 years everybody have been formulating *meaningless
sentences* because they did't use 'natural selection' as the metaphor
for Matthew's 'natural means of competitive selection', they had no
idea what they were saying.
Bob Casanova
Dec 11, 2011, 12:34:08 PM12/11/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
>adaptation themselves; if they
>> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
evaluation of his logic enter the question?
<snip additional errors>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
>adaptation themselves; if they
>> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
evaluation of his logic enter the question?
<snip additional errors>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
backspace
Dec 11, 2011, 1:00:47 PM12/11/11
to
On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>
> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> >adaptation themselves; if they
> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>
> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>
> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>
> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
>
> <snip additional errors>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
Rephrase, replacing selection with Erasmus Darwin's cultivation as in
> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> >adaptation themselves; if they
> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>
> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>
> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>
> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
>
> <snip additional errors>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
Artificial cultivation from his book Zoonomia. Darwin lifted AC and
changed it to AS and Patrick Matthew restated Buffon, Lamarck and
Erasmus as shown by http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_Butler:
Rephrase:
Any species which exists is comprised of individuals whose ancestors
were survivors of a CULTIVATION process performed by the
environment.
Rephrase again in terms of Patrick Matthew:
Species are comprised of individuals whose ancestors were survivors of
a CULTIVATION process performed by the environment.
Reduce again:
Species consist of individuals who survived the CULTIVATION process
performed by the environment.
Finally:
Species consist of those who survived the 'competitive means of
natural cultivation' by the environment.
Possible interpretation:
New species who's ancestors didn't possess the present attributes were
constituted with new attributes
by surviving the 'competitive means of natural cultivation' by the
environment'.
Further interpretation:
Anything that exists obtained attributes that weren't previously there
by out-competing the other
within a competitive cultivating environment'.
Which Reduces to Democritus Atomism or what Henry Fairfield Osborn
referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms' - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
were thus eliminated.
Problem with this story is that it is http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
David Hare-Scott
Dec 11, 2011, 4:24:33 PM12/11/11
to
How many iterations will it be before "measuring favourability" becomes
"survival of the fittest is a tautology"?
a) two
b) three
c) four
d) more than four
I will put $100 on b)
David
Burkhard
Dec 11, 2011, 5:11:19 PM12/11/11
to
league last season, you'll ask them how else apart from scoring more
goals than their competitors their success was measured. You then
follow it up by saying that "Manchester won the premier league" is a
tautology since if Arsenal had won the trophy, you'd have been given the
same story about them scoring more goals than their competitors.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Dec 11, 2011, 5:44:16 PM12/11/11
to
0fec01be77523654>
Backsie's first reply in this thread, and it's "tautology", "truism", /
and/ "non sequitur".
On reflection, this session may have been a cunning trick to get us to
read Jerry Bergman's article. I'm sorry I didn't detect that. Of
course that's going to be mainly a "spot the deliberate untruth, false
misunderstanding, and slanted adverb" exercise.
Bob Casanova
Dec 12, 2011, 5:00:56 PM12/12/11
to
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:00:47 -0800 (PST), the following
>On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
>> >adaptation themselves; if they
>> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>>
>> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
>> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
>> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
>> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>>
>> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>>
>> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
>> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
>> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
OK so far, although the term "cultivation" has connotations
of intent not justified by the lack of intent in the
process. So your rephrase and interpretation adds no
clarity; in fact, it reduces it.
>Which Reduces to Democritus Atomism or what Henry Fairfield Osborn
>referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms' - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
>in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
>
>Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
>have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
>atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
>'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
>while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
>were thus eliminated.
Oops; no, it doesn't. Atoms are unchangeable (except through
processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
sense of biological evolution.
>Problem with this story is that it is http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
>unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
>atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
You seem to think that since *some* descendants will replace
the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
predicts that in general a population will comprise those
descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
environment in which they lived.
But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
you have no point.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
>> >adaptation themselves; if they
>> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>>
>> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
>> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
>> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
>> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>>
>> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>>
>> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
>> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
>> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
of intent not justified by the lack of intent in the
process. So your rephrase and interpretation adds no
clarity; in fact, it reduces it.
>Which Reduces to Democritus Atomism or what Henry Fairfield Osborn
>referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms' - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
>in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
>
>Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
>have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
>atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
>'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
>while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
>were thus eliminated.
processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
sense of biological evolution.
>Problem with this story is that it is http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
>unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
>atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
predicts that in general a population will comprise those
descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
environment in which they lived.
But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
you have no point.
Kermit
Dec 13, 2011, 1:40:28 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 11, 7:53 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> adaptation themselves; if they
>
> > survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>
> By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
> which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
Evolutionary theory, which is no longer Darwin's, is only concerned
> On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> adaptation themselves; if they
>
> > survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>
> By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
> which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
with biological evolution.
> IN the context that Darwin used favourable and preserved; these
> dissimilar terms self-referentially refer to
> the same fact, saying the same thing twice, making his conclusion(new
> species) a non-sequitur.
By your logic, this is not true, and therefore it means nothing to say
that races are usually won by somebody.
But anybody half a brain knows that there are *reasons why the
winner won. These possible explanations include:
The winner is the oldest of several children, giving him an advantage
in strength, leg length, etc.
The winner is taller or has other genetic characteristics favoring
race winning.
The winner is experienced, and therefore can pace himself better.
The winner is a trained athlete, and the others are not.
The winner cheated.
Etc.
When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
which are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
the gene pool. If conditions favor those characteristics for a
prolonged period, then profound differences will accumulate in that
species.
When you ignore what scientists (starting with Darwin) say about the
effects of those accumulated changes (different alleles) in a species,
you are not hiding the evidence, you are only demonstrating your own
dishonesty.
Among other things, you are arguing (poorly) against the possibility
of breeding any domestic animals or plants. Word magic and deliberate
misrepresentations will not make the evidence go away.
<snip absurdist forced derivations from the above obtuse claim>
Kermit
backspace
Dec 13, 2011, 2:25:43 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 6:40 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
> not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
> which are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
> offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
> the gene pool.
It was Wallace that suggested that NS be used as a metaphor for SoF.
> When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
> not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
> which are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
> offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
> the gene pool.
In another context ns can be used as a metaphor for Preferential
decision - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision
See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for the Wallace issue.
The last 150 years NS wasn't used as a metaphor for anything by
various authors , thus they formulated http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence
"Best suited" and "most likely to have offspring" self-referentially
refers to the same fact, saying the same thing twice using dissimilar
terms, meaning that any conclusion is a non-sequitur.
> If conditions favor those characteristics for a
> prolonged period, then profound differences will accumulate in that
> species.
can in principle be disputed. We are only after theories, not
unfalsifiable facts or propositions.
Burkhard
Dec 13, 2011, 2:37:58 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 7:25 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:40 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
> > not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
> > which are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
> > offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
> > the gene pool.
>
> It was Wallace that suggested that NS be used as a metaphor for SoF.
> In another context ns can be used as a metaphor for Preferential
> decision -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision
>
> Seehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTologyfor the Wallace issue.
> On Dec 13, 6:40 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
> > not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
> > which are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
> > offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
> > the gene pool.
>
> It was Wallace that suggested that NS be used as a metaphor for SoF.
> In another context ns can be used as a metaphor for Preferential
> decision -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision
>
> The last 150 years NS wasn't used as a metaphor for anything by
> various authors , thus they formulatedhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence
>
> "Best suited" and "most likely to have offspring" self-referentially
> refers to the same fact, saying the same thing twice using dissimilar
> terms, meaning that any conclusion is a non-sequitur.
>
> > If conditions favor those characteristics for a
> > prolonged period, then profound differences will accumulate in that
> > species.
>
> Which is an indisputable proposition and thus not a theory. A theory
> can in principle be disputed. We are only after theories, not
> unfalsifiable facts or propositions.
The above could easily be disputed if you observed a world in which
> "Best suited" and "most likely to have offspring" self-referentially
> refers to the same fact, saying the same thing twice using dissimilar
> terms, meaning that any conclusion is a non-sequitur.
>
> > If conditions favor those characteristics for a
> > prolonged period, then profound differences will accumulate in that
> > species.
>
> Which is an indisputable proposition and thus not a theory. A theory
> can in principle be disputed. We are only after theories, not
> unfalsifiable facts or propositions.
nothing ever changes, or changes occur all the time and too rapidly
to establish patterns.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Dec 13, 2011, 2:40:20 PM12/13/11
to
Some atom isotope nuclei are unstable with a short decay half-life,
some have a long half-life, some are basically stable. Over time, the
short half-life isotopes decay quickly and convert to other, less
stable or more stable nuclei, but we end up with mainly stable and
nearly-stable nuclei, with short-life atoms appearing mainly as the
result of decay of long-life nuclei, and of cosmic rays and such.
So, selection here consists mostly of not spontaneously ceasing to
exist.
some have a long half-life, some are basically stable. Over time, the
short half-life isotopes decay quickly and convert to other, less
stable or more stable nuclei, but we end up with mainly stable and
nearly-stable nuclei, with short-life atoms appearing mainly as the
result of decay of long-life nuclei, and of cosmic rays and such.
So, selection here consists mostly of not spontaneously ceasing to
exist.
backspace
Dec 13, 2011, 3:17:30 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 12, 10:00 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:00:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:00:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> >> >adaptation themselves; if they
> >> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
> >> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>
> >> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
> >> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
> >> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
> >> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>
> >> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>
> >> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
> >> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
> >> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
> >Rephrase, replacing selection with Erasmus Darwin's cultivation as in
> >Artificial cultivation from his book Zoonomia. Darwin lifted AC and
> >changed it to AS and Patrick Matthew restated Buffon, Lamarck and
> >Erasmus as shown byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_Butler:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> >> >adaptation themselves; if they
> >> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
> >> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>
> >> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
> >> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
> >> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
> >> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>
> >> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>
> >> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
> >> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
> >> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
> >Rephrase, replacing selection with Erasmus Darwin's cultivation as in
> >Artificial cultivation from his book Zoonomia. Darwin lifted AC and
> >changed it to AS and Patrick Matthew restated Buffon, Lamarck and
> >in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
>
> >Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
> >have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
> >atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
> >'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
> >while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
> >were thus eliminated.
>
> Oops; no, it doesn't. Atoms are unchangeable (except through
> processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
> and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
> sense of biological evolution.
>
> >Problem with this story is that it ishttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
>
> >Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
> >have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
> >atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
> >'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
> >while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
> >were thus eliminated.
>
> Oops; no, it doesn't. Atoms are unchangeable (except through
> processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
> and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
> sense of biological evolution.
>
> >unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
> >atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
>
> You seem to think that since *some* descendants will replace
> the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
> extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
> problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
> predicts that in general a population will comprise those
> descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
> environment in which they lived.
>
> But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
> you have no point.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
In pigeons we can *select* or *cultivate* as in Erasmus Darwin's
> >atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
>
> You seem to think that since *some* descendants will replace
> the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
> extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
> problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
> predicts that in general a population will comprise those
> descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
> environment in which they lived.
>
> But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
> you have no point.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
Artificial Cultivation for chars. we desire. Wild pigeons and AC
pigeons both implemented gyro, IMU control algorithms and compensate
for their magnetometer delay using some type of feed-forward control.
In magnetometers used on UAV's the delay is 0.08seconds between
readings, which given the speed a uav travels at leads to orientation
errors and thus feed-forward control is used to compensate .
The uav isn't adapted or adapting to anything, it only expresses its
attributes. Wild pigeons surviving natures 'natural competitive
selection,survival,accumulation or cultivation' process as well as
pigeons bred in captivity for certain attributes still do only one
thing: express pre-existing control algorithm attributes that their
ancestors possessed.
At no point in time were the present attributes acquired, they were
there hidden in the genome. Feed-forward control , PID or what pigeons
use Neural network control were present in both the artificially
cultivated(selected) and *naturally selected,preserved* pigeons.
Control engineers inform us that control theory involves an
indissoluble association between mathematical constructs. This control
algorithm was passed from pigeon to pigeon in an Behe IC or D'Arcy
Wentworth Thompson 'composite integrity' manner. The algorithm was
'there' somewhere 'waiting' for the chick to grow and finally
stabilize itself in flight.
Where exactly was this algorithm stored and how did this algorithm get
transferred from the blob of amino acids that formed the egg? The
algorithm was stored in the mind of Jesus Christ it has no physical
location.
backspace
Dec 13, 2011, 3:27:33 PM12/13/11
to
Again, we find the same forms, or forms which (save for external
ornament) are mathematically identical, repeating themselves in all
periods of the world's geological history ; and, irrespective of
climate or local conditions, we see them mixed up, one with another,
in the depths and on the shores of every sea. It is hard indeed (to my
mind) to see where Natural Selection necessarily enters in, or to
admit that it has had any share whatsoever in the production of these
varied conformations. Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection
in a sense so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
significance; and so recognize as a sort of Natural Selection
whatsoever nexus of causes suffices to differentiate between the
likely and the unlikely, the scarce and the frequent, the easy and the
hard : and leads accordingly, under the peculiar conditions,
limitations and restraints which we call "ordinary circumstances," one
type of crystal, one form of cloud, one chemical compound, to be of
frequent occurrence and another to be rare. -
By D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson -
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson
I don't understand the passage quoted from Thompson, would somebody
explain it to me please.
ornament) are mathematically identical, repeating themselves in all
periods of the world's geological history ; and, irrespective of
climate or local conditions, we see them mixed up, one with another,
in the depths and on the shores of every sea. It is hard indeed (to my
mind) to see where Natural Selection necessarily enters in, or to
admit that it has had any share whatsoever in the production of these
varied conformations. Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection
in a sense so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
significance; and so recognize as a sort of Natural Selection
whatsoever nexus of causes suffices to differentiate between the
likely and the unlikely, the scarce and the frequent, the easy and the
hard : and leads accordingly, under the peculiar conditions,
limitations and restraints which we call "ordinary circumstances," one
type of crystal, one form of cloud, one chemical compound, to be of
frequent occurrence and another to be rare. -
By D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson -
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson
I don't understand the passage quoted from Thompson, would somebody
explain it to me please.
Burkhard
Dec 13, 2011, 3:48:57 PM12/13/11
to
offensive, but I guess it takes all sorts.
Ray Martinez
Dec 13, 2011, 4:27:55 PM12/13/11
to
Creationists seek out the writings of other Creationists hoping to
obtain a better understanding. The problem is that the claims of
Darwinists are so outlandish we humbly assume that we have
misunderstood. Backspace, by his own admission, who is normally an
excellent critic of Darwinism, is having trouble understanding Jerry
Bergman----so he asks an honest question. Bergman is attempting to
explain the claims of Darwin; hence the real problem here: the claims
of Charles Darwin. If Darwin wasn't involved then there would be no
misunderstandings or OP.
I have been reading the writings of Darwin for many years now. In the
quote below I know Darwin is recounting how he came across the idea of
something he calls "natural selection." But other than that I
literally have no clue as to what he is talking about. I interpret the
quote to be some sort of Atheist masturbation fantasy, material nature
originating species instead of immaterial Intelligence?
#1 Chez Watt of all time belongs to Charles Darwin (from the OP):
"I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being
well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which
everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of
animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these
circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and
unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
formation of new species" (Autobio: 120).
Perhaps you or your good friend Tony Pagano could tell me if I have
understood?
Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
case you didn't know).
Ray
Kermit
Dec 13, 2011, 4:48:50 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 11:25 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:40 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
> > not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
> > which are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
> > offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
> > the gene pool.
>
> It was Wallace that suggested that NS be used as a metaphor for SoF.
> In another context ns can be used as a metaphor for Preferential
> decision -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision
>
> Seehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTologyfor the Wallace issue.
> On Dec 13, 6:40 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (which he did
> > not come up with) It was shorthand for saying that those organisms
> > which are best suited for an environment are mostly likely to have
> > offspring, and their characteristics will therefore spread throughout
> > the gene pool.
>
> It was Wallace that suggested that NS be used as a metaphor for SoF.
> In another context ns can be used as a metaphor for Preferential
> decision -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision
>
> The last 150 years NS wasn't used as a metaphor for anything by
> various authors , thus they formulatedhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence
>
> "Best suited" and "most likely to have offspring" self-referentially
> refers to the same fact, saying the same thing twice using dissimilar
> terms, meaning that any conclusion is a non-sequitur.
So, are you saying that we cannot in principle determine why the
> "Best suited" and "most likely to have offspring" self-referentially
> refers to the same fact, saying the same thing twice using dissimilar
> terms, meaning that any conclusion is a non-sequitur.
winner of the race won?
Also, of course, we do not conclude anything from your insipid straw
man. Instead we ask "Why did these organisms thrive and not those?"
and "what processes were involved in the various species changing over
time?".
We do not say "Gosh. Species changed over time. We know that because
they are different than they used to be. What can we conclude from
that?"
We ask "Why and how did they change?".
>
> > If conditions favor those characteristics for a
> > prolonged period, then profound differences will accumulate in that
> > species.
>
> Which is an indisputable proposition and thus not a theory. A theory
> can in principle be disputed. We are only after theories, not
> unfalsifiable facts or propositions.
proposition?
No, it's an observation based on data from a number of fields of
science, and it is very much disputed (but not in the scientific
community). I am glad to see that you accept it, however.
Why you would call it untestable, however, is a puzzle. (Not really, I
know that your modus operandi is obfuscation - this is a rhetorical
question.
Kermit
Kermit
Dec 13, 2011, 4:57:08 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 12:27 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, we find the same forms, or forms which (save for external
> ornament) are mathematically identical, repeating themselves in all
> periods of the world's geological history ; and, irrespective of
> climate or local conditions, we see them mixed up, one with another,
> in the depths and on the shores of every sea. It is hard indeed (to my
> mind) to see where Natural Selection necessarily enters in, or to
> admit that it has had any share whatsoever in the production of these
> varied conformations. Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection
> in a sense so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
> significance; and so recognize as a sort of Natural Selection
> whatsoever nexus of causes suffices to differentiate between the
> likely and the unlikely, the scarce and the frequent, the easy and the
> hard : and leads accordingly, under the peculiar conditions,
> limitations and restraints which we call "ordinary circumstances," one
> type of crystal, one form of cloud, one chemical compound, to be of
> frequent occurrence and another to be rare. -
>
> By D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson
> Again, we find the same forms, or forms which (save for external
> ornament) are mathematically identical, repeating themselves in all
> periods of the world's geological history ; and, irrespective of
> climate or local conditions, we see them mixed up, one with another,
> in the depths and on the shores of every sea. It is hard indeed (to my
> mind) to see where Natural Selection necessarily enters in, or to
> admit that it has had any share whatsoever in the production of these
> varied conformations. Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection
> in a sense so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
> significance; and so recognize as a sort of Natural Selection
> whatsoever nexus of causes suffices to differentiate between the
> likely and the unlikely, the scarce and the frequent, the easy and the
> hard : and leads accordingly, under the peculiar conditions,
> limitations and restraints which we call "ordinary circumstances," one
> type of crystal, one form of cloud, one chemical compound, to be of
> frequent occurrence and another to be rare. -
>
>
> I don't understand the passage quoted from Thompson, would somebody
> explain it to me please.
Do you have anything written in the last 100 years?
> I don't understand the passage quoted from Thompson, would somebody
> explain it to me please.
Do you have anything to say about the evidence, the science?
We really don't give a damn about your religious obsessions with
prophets and founders and moral authorities. Science studies reality.
The evidence is what counts.
An idea may be advanced slightly sooner because a bright mind was born
at a particular time, but the available evidence is what primarily
determines the nature of current theories. Without Wallace and Darwin,
evolutionary science would look very much the same today.
Kermit
Karel
Dec 13, 2011, 4:57:53 PM12/13/11
to
what Malthus was claiming: that populations, if unchecked,
would increase in a power series which could not be matched
by increases in resources and that therefore population
increase would run into a wall of (relatively) diminishing
resources.
It is unclear to me if Darwin ever accepted Malthus completely,
but it is clear what he picked up from him: in the natural world
much more progeny is generated than can sustained by the
resources of the environment (observed fact); resulting in a
severe culling of the progeny (observed fact); offering the
circumstances in which favourable variations would be preserved
(the anchor point for his subsequent research).
Regards,
Karel
Frank J
Dec 13, 2011, 4:59:57 PM12/13/11
to
conclude that? The best I can recall from the rare times he alludes to
his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
going straight to geocentric YEC. Which strongly suggests that he
thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.
Though I should add that anyone who evades questions about which
"kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kermit
Dec 13, 2011, 5:07:55 PM12/13/11
to
the evidence.
>
> At no point in time were the present attributes acquired, they were
> there hidden in the genome.
amphibious ancestors (Tiktaalik or something similar)?
> Feed-forward control , PID or what pigeons
> use Neural network control were present in both the artificially
> cultivated(selected) and *naturally selected,preserved* pigeons.
genome" of ancestral species.
>
> Control engineers inform us that control theory involves an
> indissoluble association between mathematical constructs. This control
> algorithm was passed from pigeon to pigeon in an Behe IC
> or D'Arcy
> Wentworth Thompson 'composite integrity' manner.
overstated but important. Chemistry and physics constrain living
organisms but are not the main reason for the *differences between a
species and others, whether contemporary, ancestral, or descendants.
> The algorithm was
> 'there' somewhere 'waiting' for the chick to grow and finally
> stabilize itself in flight.
appropriate term here.
>
> Where exactly was this algorithm stored and how did this algorithm get
> transferred from the blob of amino acids that formed the egg?
that molecules do.
> The
> algorithm was stored in the mind of Jesus Christ it has no physical
> location.
Kermit
John Harshman
Dec 13, 2011, 5:16:04 PM12/13/11
to
are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.
Ray Martinez
Dec 13, 2011, 6:28:48 PM12/13/11
to
Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
nature. The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Dec 13, 2011, 6:49:16 PM12/13/11
to
Ray
John Harshman
Dec 13, 2011, 6:59:17 PM12/13/11
to
species only, but you do accept it. And of course it's a matter of
degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree". You
try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
> closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
> nature.
occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?
> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
Dana Tweedy
Dec 13, 2011, 7:44:02 PM12/13/11
to
meant. Like usual, you miss the point entirely.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Dec 13, 2011, 7:42:46 PM12/13/11
to
On 12/13/11 2:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 11, 6:21 am, Ron O<rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 3:48 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/29/natsel.html
>>
>>> Darwin (1958, p. 120) concluded after he read Malthus' work on
>>> population that, ". . . it at once struck me that under these
>>> circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and
>>> unfavorable ones destroyed. The result of this would be the formation
>>> of new species."
>>
>>> Other than noting the variations were preserved , how does fellow YEC
>>> Jerry Bergman determine that Darwin measured their favorability ?
>>
>> Have you ever thought of spending your time reading actual scientific
>> articles instead of creationist claptrap?
>>
>> Why not get a textbook like Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology? After you
>> have mastered that start reading journals like Evolution.
>>
>> You might actually learn something instead of letting your brain
>> continue to rot. Really, for all the time you have wasted on
>> creationist claptrap you could have gotten a legitimate degree in the
>> subject.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> Because the writings of Darwinists are so nonsensical and illogical,
> Creationists seek out the writings of other Creationists hoping to
> obtain a better understanding.
Ray, have you noticed whenever you accuse "evolutionists" of being
> On Dec 11, 6:21 am, Ron O<rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 3:48 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/29/natsel.html
>>
>>> Darwin (1958, p. 120) concluded after he read Malthus' work on
>>> population that, ". . . it at once struck me that under these
>>> circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and
>>> unfavorable ones destroyed. The result of this would be the formation
>>> of new species."
>>
>>> Other than noting the variations were preserved , how does fellow YEC
>>> Jerry Bergman determine that Darwin measured their favorability ?
>>
>> Have you ever thought of spending your time reading actual scientific
>> articles instead of creationist claptrap?
>>
>> Why not get a textbook like Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology? After you
>> have mastered that start reading journals like Evolution.
>>
>> You might actually learn something instead of letting your brain
>> continue to rot. Really, for all the time you have wasted on
>> creationist claptrap you could have gotten a legitimate degree in the
>> subject.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> Because the writings of Darwinists are so nonsensical and illogical,
> Creationists seek out the writings of other Creationists hoping to
> obtain a better understanding.
"nonsensical" or "illogical" you always present examples of your
nonsense, and illogic?
> The problem is that the claims of
> Darwinists are so outlandish we humbly assume that we have
> misunderstood.
of commonplace claims made by scientists.
> Backspace, by his own admission, who is normally an
> excellent critic of Darwinism, is having trouble understanding Jerry
> Bergman----so he asks an honest question. Bergman is attempting to
> explain the claims of Darwin; hence the real problem here: the claims
> of Charles Darwin. If Darwin wasn't involved then there would be no
> misunderstandings or OP.
>
> I have been reading the writings of Darwin for many years now.
> In the
> quote below I know Darwin is recounting how he came across the idea of
> something he calls "natural selection." But other than that I
> literally have no clue as to what he is talking about. I interpret the
> quote to be some sort of Atheist masturbation fantasy, material nature
> originating species instead of immaterial Intelligence?
"Material nature" has been observed to produce things. "Immaterial
intelligence" has never been observed to produce anything.
>
> #1 Chez Watt of all time belongs to Charles Darwin (from the OP):
>
> "I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being
> well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which
> everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of
> animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these
> circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and
> unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
> formation of new species" (Autobio: 120).
>
> Perhaps you or your good friend Tony Pagano could tell me if I have
> understood?
>
> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
> case you didn't know).
indicates your own lack of intelligence.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Dec 13, 2011, 7:53:37 PM12/13/11
to
> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
> about degree.
> The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
>
> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
> closed system of Nature itself).
being is responsible for those processes as well. It doesn't matter if
nature is a "closed system" or has input from the supernatural. Natural
selection still operates the same either way.
This is one of Ray's major mistakes. Naturally, he refuses to admit
this mistake, no matter how often it's pointed out to him.
> Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
Ray many times. This is another mistake he refuses to admit.
>
> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
> nature.
observed, as they are abstractions. Ray is unable to state what
features he feels corresponds to a "concept of design", that would be
diagnostic of actual design, as opposed to the mere appearance of design.
Moreover, there's no reason why the appearance of design cannot exist
along side a process by which species beget other species.
Will Ray admit his errors in logic here? Not likely.
> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
are unique to "design" as opposed to appearance of design, it can't
"tell" anyone, anything. Ray assumes his own conclusion, and mistakenly
assumes himself to be "objective".
DJT
John Harshman
Dec 13, 2011, 9:22:35 PM12/13/11
to
descent means "between species", then Ray rejects it absolutely, but
Tony doesn't.
>> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
>> about degree.
>
> Except that John wasn't saying you accept a degree of common descent.
have an implied "between species" added after.
>> The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
>> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
>
> Which only means that Tony is slightly less ignorant than you are, Ray.
again, Tony doesn't seem to confuse concepts with phenomena.
>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>> closed system of Nature itself).
>
> Of course, those "consequences" occur if one assumes that a supernatural
> being is responsible for those processes as well. It doesn't matter if
> nature is a "closed system" or has input from the supernatural. Natural
> selection still operates the same either way.
>
> This is one of Ray's major mistakes. Naturally, he refuses to admit
> this mistake, no matter how often it's pointed out to him.
>> Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>
> Except that they are not mutually exclusive, as has been pointed out to
> Ray many times. This is another mistake he refuses to admit.
believing in creationism.
>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>> nature.
>
> As already shown to Ray,(and he refuses to admit) concepts cannot be
> observed, as they are abstractions. Ray is unable to state what
> features he feels corresponds to a "concept of design", that would be
> diagnostic of actual design, as opposed to the mere appearance of design.
>
> Moreover, there's no reason why the appearance of design cannot exist
> along side a process by which species beget other species.
>
> Will Ray admit his errors in logic here? Not likely.
>
>> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
>> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>
> Since no such "observation" is possible, without stating what features
> are unique to "design" as opposed to appearance of design, it can't
> "tell" anyone, anything. Ray assumes his own conclusion, and mistakenly
> assumes himself to be "objective".
jillery
Dec 13, 2011, 9:31:04 PM12/13/11
to
superiority to any variation, but is instead defined by the
environment at the time of the culling.
I find compelling Darwin's analogy wrt artificial selection. Natural
selection is artificial selection with people replaced by Malthusian
culling.
T Pagano
Dec 13, 2011, 9:31:25 PM12/13/11
to
extrapolated from Malthus's hypothesis about human events to the
biological world in general. That is, he hypothesized that perhaps
all (or most) populations sharing ecological niches always and
everywhere fought to consume limited resources. If true it would be a
driving force in differential survival and differential reproduction.
In hind sight we know that Darwin's extrapolation of Malthus's
hypothesis is not true. And Darwin's assumption that favorable
mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.
Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
something untoward.
>>>>> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
>>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
>>>>> case you didn't know).
admit my infinite ignorance.
2. While I don't like the term "microevolution," (and rarely use it)
there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
short hand label for any observable change from one generation to the
next. For example, the relative change in the numbers of light to
dark moths over time in a particular population.
a. I don't have to irrationally deny microevolutionary change
(as does Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show
that such changes explain the origin of a single structure, system or
creature.
b. Ray's claim of immutability; that is, his position that
there is absolutely no change from one generation to the next is
nonsense and evidence that he is delusional.
3. Likewise there is little to upset me about the label "common
descent" since it means little more than "a set of individuals share a
common ancestor." Ray's family tree is evidence of "common descent."
a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny common descent (as does
Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show any
continuity from extant life back to some unknown First Common
Ancestor.
b. Ray's absolutionism in this instance makes him appear
delusional.
4. While atheists have inappropriately and inaccurately
anthropomorphized "natural selection" it was neverthless a wonderfully
interesting insight on the part of Darwin. Ray's delusional denials
notwithstanding "natural selection" is nothing more than a term which
collects the process of "differential survival" and "differential
reproduction" which are quite observable.
a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny "natural
selection" (as does Ray) to point out that it is largely conservative
and has never been shown to be a force for progression, coherent
change. David Wolpert proved that all evolutionary algorithms are no
better at finding a fitness peak than a dumb, blind search.
b. Ray's denialism makes him look delusional.
>>>> Just a comment on the "Tony...accepts...common descent." What made you
>>>> conclude that?
Descent which claims that all species share common ancestors in a
continuous, unbroken line to the First Common Ancestor.
>>>> The best I can recall from the rare times he alludes to
>>>> his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
>>>> every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
>>>> YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
>>>> going straight to geocentric YEC.
false. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not show the
continuity and transformationism his theory predicted. The fossil
record shows nothing new today. Lenski's 20+ year, 40,000+ generation
E coli experiment mirrors in the living world exactly what the 800
million year fossil record shows---discontinuity, stasis, and
limited/bounded change.
>>>> Which strongly suggests that he
>>>> thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
>>>> matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
>>>> contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.
kinds is corroborated by the fossil record. It corroborates Special
Creation and not the ubiquitious, transformational change explained by
Darwin's theory.
>>>> Though I should add that anyone who evades questions about which
>>>> "kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
>>>> originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
>>>> descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.
repeatedly admitted that I simply don't know how to define "kind." I
suggest that the kinds (whatever they might be) constitute the roots
of several trees of common descent. I suggest that all the
information necessary for any divergence from root to nodes was
contained in the root. This is a wild ass guess which is not
contradicted by the fossil record or the living world. Common descent
is not denied only its extent.
Our own Dr Theobald's relatively recent interesting scientific article
purports to show that several "trees" is less likely than one. As of
yet I don't have the time to adequately review his argument but intend
to.
>>> Common descent is a matter of degree. Ray denies that any two species
>>> are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
>>> never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
>>> degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.
generation to the next within populations is undeniable. What I doubt
is the uwarranted extrapolations drawn from these facts.
>>
>> CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
>> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
>> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
>> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
And cichlid speciation (and their observable species flocks) is
evidence that species are not nearly as immutable as Ray believes.
Furthermore the fact that they are not immutable does not imply that
some purely naturalistic process possesed the power to create them in
the first place.
>
>Ray, Ray, Ray. Of course you accept common descent. You accept it within
>species only, but you do accept it. And of course it's a matter of
>degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree". You
>try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>
>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>> closed system of Nature itself).
observable natural processes with limited causal power is incompatible
with Special Creation in particular or Dembski's ID in general.
>> Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
absolutist terms he assumes that everyone must do so. That I think
there is merit to Dembski's theory and that ID explains some events
does not require that I presume it explains every event.
And while Ray takes an ID absolutism with regard to the origin of
biological entities he takes a decidedly naturalistic position with
regard to the origin of the material world in general and the geologic
prehistory/history of the earth in particular. This is inconsistent,
irrational and ultimately delusional.
>
>You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>
>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>> nature.
possesses the attribute of immutability. Since we can plainly see
that population groups classified as "species" are obviously not
"immutable" Ray's whole house of cards collapses. Immutability is
the false thread that runs throughout Ray's arguments. His book
whether it ever actually arrives will, for this reason, be dead on
arrival.
>
>Why is common descent incompatible with design?
Regards,
T Pagano
Ray Martinez
Dec 13, 2011, 10:06:08 PM12/13/11
to
rejects the concept of CD as existing in nature. In other words you
are totally brainwashed by Darwinism.
There is no such thing as CD "within species." Variation itself is not
microevolution or CD. You are attempting to cover your tracks by
changing the subject to how CD allegedly occurs (birth)? Why?
> And of course it's a matter of
> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree".
> You
> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>
Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, Sedgwick, and very many other natural
theologians. Your comments might apply to Tony (who has Kurt Wise in
his corner, LOL), but you need to come to grips with the meaning of
"rejection" and "non-existence." These do not convey exceptions.
> > What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
> > a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
> > natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
> > closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
> > needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
> > Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>
> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>
> > It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
> > on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
> > nature.
>
> Why is common descent incompatible with design? What if god made
> occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?
>
originating in and from the closed system of Nature itself. The
preceding claim of fact rejects, a priori, existence of design because
design can only originate outside of the closed system of Nature (from
Heaven). If design exists CD is illusory (to be kind), delusion (to be
accurate). In addition: both concepts, CD and design, presuppose
antonymic agents of causation. Either you are genuinely ignorant of
these basic facts or you are engaged in propaganda, attempting to keep
people like Dana Tweedy and Tony Pagano (CEists) in the prison of
pernicious misunderstanding. Since you are a declared Atheist, the
latter must be true.
> > The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
> > is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Natural causation (Naturalism-Materialism), as understood since the
> - Show quoted text -
rise of Darwinism, does not exist.
The delusion is working on persons who accept evolution, not God. But
Dawkins and I agree that a delusion is at work.
Ray (anti-evolutionist)
Ray Martinez
Dec 13, 2011, 10:54:33 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:59:17 -0800, John Harshman
>
While we are led to believe that Tony is replying to JH, the actual
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:59:17 -0800, John Harshman
>
content is directed at me, by name.
of Atheist "science." It was Darwin's theory that science came to
accept. He used fully materialist assumptions and interpretations to
explain nature (Materialism). Yet Tony the "Creationist and IDist"
kisses Darwin's Atheist ass from the get-go ("is there something wrong
with Darwin's reasoning"?). The Old Testament calls this bowing down
to Baal. The New Testament depiction is more graphic: Judas, while
under the direct control of Satan, kissed Jesus while betraying Him to
His enemies (in this case Tony betrays Christ while doing the bidding
of Darwin, Dawkins and Harshman). Tony is under the same control. This
is why we have faith, good or bad, whatever the Bible says is true.
"DURING THESE two years [1] 1837-1838] I was led to think much about
religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I
remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though
themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable
authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of
the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time
[1837-1838], to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false
history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign,
etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a
revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of
the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian....By further reflecting
that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man
believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the
more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do
miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous
to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be
proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they
differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me
to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such
reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or
value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in
Christianity as a divine revelation....Thus disbelief crept over me at
a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that
I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single
second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how
anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true" (Charles Darwin, Autobio:
85; [1] "October 1836 to January 1839.—F. D.").
My on-going claim is that Tony is ignorant and/or confused and/or
deluded. Real Creationists and IDists do not accept material
assumptions and side with Atheists; rather, real Creationists and
IDists accept immaterial assumptions. Harshman must be estatic with
the fact that ***Tony Pagano*** accepts the main claim of Atheism:
natural causation-selection.
No such phenomenon exists in nature; except in the deluded minds of
Atheists and confused "Creationists and IDists."
Genesis is true: God Himself causes each new species to exist (Special
Creation). Tony does not understand that Immaterial agency, and
material agency as understood since the rise of Darwinism, are
mutually exclusive, enemy combatants. And he has not the integrity to
admit to such an elementary error. I think I have explained why,
above.
Ray (anti-evolutionist)
John Harshman
Dec 13, 2011, 10:55:51 PM12/13/11
to
even more often true that there are many more organisms born than can
survive. So it's looking good for Darwin so far.
> And Darwin's assumption that favorable
> mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.
favorable mutations tend not to be preserved?
> Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
> something untoward.
>
>>>>>> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
>>>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
>>>>>> case you didn't know).
>
> 1. I never claim to be well versed in anything. Instead I repeatedly
> admit my infinite ignorance.
> 2. While I don't like the term "microevolution," (and rarely use it)
> there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
> short hand label for any observable change from one generation to the
> next. For example, the relative change in the numbers of light to
> dark moths over time in a particular population.
> a. I don't have to irrationally deny microevolutionary change
> (as does Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show
> that such changes explain the origin of a single structure, system or
> creature.
> b. Ray's claim of immutability; that is, his position that
> there is absolutely no change from one generation to the next is
> nonsense and evidence that he is delusional.
> 3. Likewise there is little to upset me about the label "common
> descent" since it means little more than "a set of individuals share a
> common ancestor." Ray's family tree is evidence of "common descent."
> a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny common descent (as does
> Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show any
> continuity from extant life back to some unknown First Common
> Ancestor.
> b. Ray's absolutionism in this instance makes him appear
> delusional.
> 4. While atheists have inappropriately and inaccurately
> anthropomorphized "natural selection" it was neverthless a wonderfully
> interesting insight on the part of Darwin. Ray's delusional denials
> notwithstanding "natural selection" is nothing more than a term which
> collects the process of "differential survival" and "differential
> reproduction" which are quite observable.
extra is necessary; otherwise it would include purely stochastic variation.
> a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny "natural
> selection" (as does Ray) to point out that it is largely conservative
> and has never been shown to be a force for progression, coherent
> change. David Wolpert proved that all evolutionary algorithms are no
> better at finding a fitness peak than a dumb, blind search.
success is averaged over all possible fitness surfaces, the vast
majority of which have no correlation among adjacent genotypes. But this
is nothing like what we see in nature. Success isn't averaged over all
possible fitness surfaces, only over the particular surface that exists,
and in real fitness surfaces, adjacent genotypes are most definitely
correlated.
> b. Ray's denialism makes him look delusional.
>>>>> Just a comment on the "Tony...accepts...common descent." What made you
>>>>> conclude that?
>
> Limited Common Descent is indisputable. I doubt the Theory of Common
> Descent which claims that all species share common ancestors in a
> continuous, unbroken line to the First Common Ancestor.
acept and what you don't, beyond this vague pronouncement. For example,
if you haven't forgotten my little challenge (your turn, by the way),
are you willing to agree that all paleognath birds share a common
ancestor? If so, why? If not, why not?
>>>>> The best I can recall from the rare times he alludes to
>>>>> his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
>>>>> every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
>>>>> YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
>>>>> going straight to geocentric YEC.
>
> I don't obsess over Darwinism. I argue unequivocally that it is
> false. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not show the
> continuity and transformationism his theory predicted.
continuity, only that continuity must once have existed. Do you see the
difference? Darwin did.
> The fossil
> record shows nothing new today. Lenski's 20+ year, 40,000+ generation
> E coli experiment mirrors in the living world exactly what the 800
> million year fossil record shows---discontinuity, stasis, and
> limited/bounded change.
think it was all laid down in a single flood? I will also point out that
you misunderstand the very concept of stasis.
>>>>> Which strongly suggests that he
>>>>> thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
>>>>> matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
>>>>> contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.
>
> Scripture's historical sketch of special creation of discontinuous
> kinds is corroborated by the fossil record. It corroborates Special
> Creation and not the ubiquitious, transformational change explained by
> Darwin's theory.
>>>>> Though I should add that anyone who evades questions about which
>>>>> "kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
>>>>> originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
>>>>> descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.
>
> The kinds were created approximately 6000-10000 years ago.
different "kinds", if that's what you want to call them, appearing at
different times over a period of hundreds of millions of years. The
notion that a worldwide flood is instead responsible runs into all sorts
of difficulties that you refuse to address.
> I have
> repeatedly admitted that I simply don't know how to define "kind." I
> suggest that the kinds (whatever they might be) constitute the roots
> of several trees of common descent. I suggest that all the
> information necessary for any divergence from root to nodes was
> contained in the root.
> This is a wild ass guess which is not
> contradicted by the fossil record or the living world. Common descent
> is not denied only its extent.
be able to distinguish them using genetic data? Why, then, is there no
such ability? How can it be that you can't recognize kinds, if there are
any such?
> Our own Dr Theobald's relatively recent interesting scientific article
> purports to show that several "trees" is less likely than one. As of
> yet I don't have the time to adequately review his argument but intend
> to.
>>>> Common descent is a matter of degree. Ray denies that any two species
>>>> are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
>>>> never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
>>>> degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.
>
> Common descent is undeniable. And limited, minor change from one
> generation to the next within populations is undeniable. What I doubt
> is the uwarranted extrapolations drawn from these facts.
the evidence if you liked. Perhaps in that challenge thread you have
been ignoring for the last couple of weeks.
>>> CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
>>> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
>>> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
>>> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
>
> Ray's family tree is evidence of limited common descent.
>
> And cichlid speciation (and their observable species flocks) is
> evidence that species are not nearly as immutable as Ray believes.
> Furthermore the fact that they are not immutable does not imply that
> some purely naturalistic process possesed the power to create them in
> the first place.
common ancestor?
>> Ray, Ray, Ray. Of course you accept common descent. You accept it within
>> species only, but you do accept it. And of course it's a matter of
>> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree". You
>> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>>
>>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>>> closed system of Nature itself).
>
> Ray is both deluded and confused. Ray has failed to show that
> observable natural processes with limited causal power is incompatible
> with Special Creation in particular or Dembski's ID in general.
>>> Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>
> Since Ray takes events in biological prehistory and history in
> absolutist terms he assumes that everyone must do so. That I think
> there is merit to Dembski's theory and that ID explains some events
> does not require that I presume it explains every event.
> And while Ray takes an ID absolutism with regard to the origin of
> biological entities he takes a decidedly naturalistic position with
> regard to the origin of the material world in general and the geologic
> prehistory/history of the earth in particular. This is inconsistent,
> irrational and ultimately delusional.
>> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
could be the other one if you like. I'm easy.
>>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>>> nature.
>
> This presumes that the arbitrary classification "species" also
> possesses the attribute of immutability. Since we can plainly see
> that population groups classified as "species" are obviously not
> "immutable" Ray's whole house of cards collapses. Immutability is
> the false thread that runs throughout Ray's arguments. His book
> whether it ever actually arrives will, for this reason, be dead on
> arrival.
"immutable" means to Ray.
>> Why is common descent incompatible with design?
>
> Ray never says.
answering questions put to you.
John Harshman
Dec 13, 2011, 11:05:44 PM12/13/11
to
connotations. It just refers to their being ancestors and descendants.
Do you have ancestors? One may hope you don't have descendants.
>> And of course it's a matter of
>> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree".
>
> The context was persons who accept concept existence (you and Tony).
>> You
>> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>
> The concept of "common descent" does not exist in nature. I stand with
> Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, Sedgwick, and very many other natural
> theologians. Your comments might apply to Tony (who has Kurt Wise in
> his corner, LOL), but you need to come to grips with the meaning of
> "rejection" and "non-existence." These do not convey exceptions.
>>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>>> closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>>
>>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>>> nature.
>> Why is common descent incompatible with design? What if god made
>> occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?
>
> CD was accepted as being caused by unintelligent natural agencies
> originating in and from the closed system of Nature itself.
true.
> The
> preceding claim of fact rejects, a priori, existence of design because
> design can only originate outside of the closed system of Nature (from
> Heaven). If design exists CD is illusory (to be kind), delusion (to be
> accurate). In addition: both concepts, CD and design, presuppose
> antonymic agents of causation. Either you are genuinely ignorant of
> these basic facts or you are engaged in propaganda, attempting to keep
> people like Dana Tweedy and Tony Pagano (CEists) in the prison of
> pernicious misunderstanding. Since you are a declared Atheist, the
> latter must be true.
here. You take an absolutist position and don't even recognize that
there is any middle ground. It's either alway design or always nature;
but it's clearly conceivable for events to be sometimes design and
sometimes nature.
>>> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
>>> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>> Do you think that descent within species happens? Is it natural?
> Natural causation (Naturalism-Materialism), as understood since the
> rise of Darwinism, does not exist.
That's the answer to the second question. But what about the first
> rise of Darwinism, does not exist.
question? Is there descent within species? If there is, then according
to you it isn't natural. So why can't there be descent between species,
also not natural? You aren't making sense here.
> The delusion is working on persons who accept evolution, not God. But
> Dawkins and I agree that a delusion is at work.
Dana Tweedy
Dec 13, 2011, 11:25:33 PM12/13/11
to
On 12/13/11 8:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
snip
> On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> In what way is there something wrong with Darwin's reasoning?
>
> Imagine that; Tony the "Creationist and IDist" agrees with the Father
> of Atheist "science."
that Darwin used is not atheist in any way.
> It was Darwin's theory that science came to
> accept.
years since Darwin.
> He used fully materialist assumptions and interpretations to
> explain nature (Materialism).
is all science can study. That doesn't mean that scientists themselves
must reject any belief in the supernatural. This has been explained to
you many times, and you still keep making the same mistake.
> Yet Tony the "Creationist and IDist"
> kisses Darwin's Atheist ass from the get-go ("is there something wrong
> with Darwin's reasoning"?).
question. What do you find wrong with Darwin's reasoning?
> The Old Testament calls this bowing down
> to Baal.
> The New Testament depiction is more graphic: Judas, while
> under the direct control of Satan, kissed Jesus while betraying Him to
> His enemies (in this case Tony betrays Christ while doing the bidding
> of Darwin, Dawkins and Harshman). Tony is under the same control. This
> is why we have faith, good or bad, whatever the Bible says is true.
science is not betraying God.
snip of irrelevant quotation from Darwin regarding his religious beliefs.
>
> My on-going claim is that Tony is ignorant and/or confused and/or
> deluded.
worse. At least Tony retains some capacity of reasoning.
> Real Creationists and IDists do not accept material
> assumptions and side with Atheists; rather, real Creationists and
> IDists accept immaterial assumptions. Harshman must be estatic with
> the fact that ***Tony Pagano*** accepts the main claim of Atheism:
> natural causation-selection.
creationist". Every sane persons on Earth accepts "material
assumptions" in one way or another.
Also, Ray, the 'main claim' of atheism is that God, or gods don't exist.
Accepting "material causation" is what every sane persons does in
daily life.
>
> No such phenomenon exists in nature; except in the deluded minds of
> Atheists and confused "Creationists and IDists."
instances of supernatural causation.
>
> Genesis is true: God Himself causes each new species to exist (Special
> Creation).
> Tony does not understand that Immaterial agency, and
> material agency as understood since the rise of Darwinism, are
> mutually exclusive, enemy combatants. And he has not the integrity to
> admit to such an elementary error. I think I have explained why,
> above.
assertion. It's more an indication that Tony isn't totally irrational.
Ray is incapable of admitting his own error, and so refuses to remove
the log from his own eye.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Dec 13, 2011, 11:52:50 PM12/13/11
to
On 12/13/11 8:06 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 13, 3:59 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip
> On Dec 13, 3:59 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
>>> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
>>> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
>>> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
>>
>> Ray, Ray, Ray. Of course you accept common descent. You accept it within
>> species only, but you do accept it.
>
> All this says is that YOU cannot fathom what is meant when one says he
> rejects the concept of CD as existing in nature. In other words you
> are totally brainwashed by Darwinism.
>
> There is no such thing as CD "within species."
way that common descent can not exist "within species" is for all
individuals to have "poofed" into existence, with no parents at all.
Denying common descent within species is totally off the wall insane.
> Variation itself is not
> microevolution or CD.
related by genetic heritage. Myself, my brothers and sister and all my
cousins are descendants from my grandfather. Recombination of DNA means
that my brothers and sisters are not my identical clones.
Variation is what happens when there are different alleles in the
population. Do you deny that different alleles exist?
Microevolution is when the allele frequencies in a population change
over generations. Do you see that microevolution, variation, and
common descent are separate things?
> You are attempting to cover your tracks by
> changing the subject to how CD allegedly occurs (birth)? Why?
source. Why you are denying this obvious fact is beyond puzzling.
>
>> And of course it's a matter of
>> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree".
>
> The context was persons who accept concept existence (you and Tony).
descent, at least within species. Your staggering illogical
assertions keep coming...
>
>> You
>> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>>
>
> The concept of "common descent" does not exist in nature.
means, nor do you seem to know what "common descent" implies.
Are you really trying to say that brothers and cousins are not related???
> I stand with
> Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, Sedgwick, and very many other natural
> theologians.
within species. Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley et al would be embarrassed by
your attempt to invoke their names to support your own insanity.
> Your comments might apply to Tony (who has Kurt Wise in
> his corner, LOL), but you need to come to grips with the meaning of
> "rejection" and "non-existence." These do not convey exceptions.
of "rejection" and "non existence" are mind bogglingly absurd.
>
>>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>>> closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>>
>> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>>
>>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>>> nature.
>>
>> Why is common descent incompatible with design? What if god made
>> occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?
>>
>
> CD was accepted as being caused by unintelligent natural agencies
> originating in and from the closed system of Nature itself.
and time again. Why do you keep repeating this error? Why can't you
admit your mistake?
Besides being wrong, it wouldn't matter how common descent was
"accepted". what matters is the observations of common descent, and the
genetic connections, which can only be explained by common descent.
Deal with the reality, not your personal fantasy.
> The
> preceding claim of fact rejects, a priori, existence of design because
> design can only originate outside of the closed system of Nature (from
> Heaven).
outside of...Nature" ? Are you really trying to suggest that humans
are incapable of design? You also are begging the question of how one
distinguishes between actual design, and the appearance of design.
> If design exists CD is illusory (to be kind), delusion (to be
> accurate).
common descent can't exist along with design. Even if anyone accepted
your absurd suggestion that design only comes from "heaven", all it
would require is God to add some design from time to time to common
descent. Do you feel that God is not capable of doing such a thing?
Of course, this ignores the fact that nature does not require "heaven"
to provide the appearance of design. Natural processes can, and do
produce such an appearance.
> In addition: both concepts, CD and design, presuppose
> antonymic agents of causation.
> Either you are genuinely ignorant of
> these basic facts or you are engaged in propaganda, attempting to keep
> people like Dana Tweedy and Tony Pagano (CEists) in the prison of
> pernicious misunderstanding. Since you are a declared Atheist, the
> latter must be true.
your own. You need to remember your own fantasies are not facts, and no
one is required to accept them as such.
>
>>> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
>>> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>>
>> Do you think that descent within species happens? Is it natural?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Natural causation (Naturalism-Materialism), as understood since the
> rise of Darwinism, does not exist.
evidence. Belief of things contrary to evidence is delusion.
>
> The delusion is working on persons who accept evolution, not God. But
> Dawkins and I agree that a delusion is at work.
DJT
Karel
Dec 14, 2011, 4:10:26 AM12/14/11
to
have to admit that he prefers irony over addressing the issues
at hand.
Regards,
Karel
Ernest Major
Dec 14, 2011, 8:11:11 AM12/14/11
to
In message
<0b92f092-0aed-45d3...@h4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Chez Watts don't require to be seconded. Did you wish your words to be
considered in the next ballot? Claiming that you have no idea about was
Charles Darwin was writing about makes a mockery of your claim to be
writing a book that will refute evolution.
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
<0b92f092-0aed-45d3...@h4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
considered in the next ballot? Claiming that you have no idea about was
Charles Darwin was writing about makes a mockery of your claim to be
writing a book that will refute evolution.
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Steven L.
Dec 14, 2011, 8:15:46 AM12/14/11
to
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:XZidnbx-xdQ...@giganews.com:
"descent," not "COMMON descent."
It refers to their being common ancestors of diverse species. Even of
diverse genera.
CD doesn't just refer to Ray or you or I having ancestors. It refers to
us having non-human ancestors.
Phillip Johnson has agreed that this is still compatible with
Intelligent Design.
-- Steven L.
Ernest Major
Dec 14, 2011, 8:18:35 AM12/14/11
to
In message
<e33f23b3-5074-4af5...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
<e33f23b3-5074-4af5...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>All this says is that YOU cannot fathom what is meant when one says he
>rejects the concept of CD as existing in nature. In other words you are
>totally brainwashed by Darwinism.
>
>There is no such thing as CD "within species." Variation itself is not
>microevolution or CD. You are attempting to cover your tracks by
>changing the subject to how CD allegedly occurs (birth)? Why?
So, you deny descent from Adam?
>rejects the concept of CD as existing in nature. In other words you are
>totally brainwashed by Darwinism.
>
>There is no such thing as CD "within species." Variation itself is not
>microevolution or CD. You are attempting to cover your tracks by
>changing the subject to how CD allegedly occurs (birth)? Why?
--
alias Ernest Major
Steven L.
Dec 14, 2011, 8:20:26 AM12/14/11
to
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e33f23b3-5074-4af5...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
(domestication by artificial selection).
You do agree that all breeds of dogs have wolves as their ancestors,
right? Before humans, there were no dogs, right? We humans *created*
dogs.
Now one way to think of Intelligent Design is that the Designer used
artificial selection to breed various species, just like we bred over a
hundred breeds of dogs. That is, He decided to eliminate certain
species (which went extinct, like dinosaurs) and let others flourish
(like birds).
That would be a type of Intelligent Design that is compatible with
Common Descent.
Why do you rule out even that possibility?
-- Steven L.
backspace
Dec 14, 2011, 8:58:12 AM12/14/11
to
Because ns must always be used as a metaphor.
hersheyh
Dec 14, 2011, 9:22:46 AM12/14/11
to
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:58:12 AM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
> > >> On Dec 11, 6:21 am, Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
Well, if you require that any form of "selection" must have an 'intelligent
selector', then, by definition, natural selection is a metaphor. Is that
a problem? Normal people use metaphors all the time. The sun sets and
the sun rises, after all, without the need to explain in excruciating detail
that it really doesn't, but merely appears to do so from a certain perspective and
that the sun really doesn't "chose" to set or rise like it did when Apollo
rode his fiery chariot across the sky.
> On Dec 14, 2:31 am, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:57:53 -0800 (PST), Karel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <GCPAXS...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> > >On 13 dec, 22:27, Ray Martinez
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:57:53 -0800 (PST), Karel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <GCPAXS...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> > >On 13 dec, 22:27, Ray Martinez
> > >> On Dec 11, 6:21 am, Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
selector', then, by definition, natural selection is a metaphor. Is that
a problem? Normal people use metaphors all the time. The sun sets and
the sun rises, after all, without the need to explain in excruciating detail
that it really doesn't, but merely appears to do so from a certain perspective and
that the sun really doesn't "chose" to set or rise like it did when Apollo
rode his fiery chariot across the sky.
John Harshman
Dec 14, 2011, 10:48:41 AM12/14/11
to
descent, and among those degrees is common descent within species. Why not?
> CD doesn't just refer to Ray or you or I having ancestors. It refers to
> us having non-human ancestors.
can't those entities be two humans?
> Phillip Johnson has agreed that this is still compatible with
> Intelligent Design.
not saying?
backspace
Dec 14, 2011, 11:24:07 AM12/14/11
to
Dana Tweedy
Dec 14, 2011, 12:05:11 PM12/14/11
to
On 12/14/11 9:24 AM, backspace wrote:
snip
>>
>> Natural selection is a well attested in nature. That you deny it just
>> indicates your own lack of intelligence.
>>
>> DJT
>
> natural selection as metaphor for which full sentence?
Natural selection is not a metaphor for a sentence. It's a process that
happens to populations.
DJT
>
snip
>>
>> Natural selection is a well attested in nature. That you deny it just
>> indicates your own lack of intelligence.
>>
>> DJT
>
> natural selection as metaphor for which full sentence?
happens to populations.
DJT
>
backspace
Dec 14, 2011, 12:18:58 PM12/14/11
to
must be used only as a metaphor for a full sentence to avoid
ambiguity.
So again I ask, NS as a metaphor for which full sentence?
Dana Tweedy
Dec 14, 2011, 12:39:46 PM12/14/11
to
must it be used only as a metaphor? You aren't making sense.
>
> So again I ask, NS as a metaphor for which full sentence?
metaphor.
DJT
Bob Casanova
Dec 14, 2011, 1:13:09 PM12/14/11
to
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:17:30 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>On Dec 12, 10:00 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:00:47 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> >> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>> >> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
>> >> >adaptation themselves; if they
>> >> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>> >> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>>
>> >> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
>> >> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
>> >> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
>> >> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>>
>> >> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>>
>> >> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
>> >> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
>> >> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
>> >Rephrase, replacing selection with Erasmus Darwin's cultivation as in
>> >Artificial cultivation from his book Zoonomia. Darwin lifted AC and
>> >changed it to AS and Patrick Matthew restated Buffon, Lamarck and
>> >Erasmus as shown byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_Butler:
>>
>> >Rephrase:
>> >Any species which exists is comprised of individuals whose ancestors
>> >were survivors of a CULTIVATION process performed by the
>> >environment.
>>
>> >Rephrase again in terms of Patrick Matthew:
>>
>> >Species are comprised of individuals whose ancestors were survivors of
>> >a CULTIVATION process performed by the environment.
>>
>> >Reduce again:
>> >Species consist of individuals who survived the CULTIVATION process
>> >performed by the environment.
>>
>> >Finally:
>> >Species consist of those who survived the 'competitive means of
>> >natural cultivation' by the environment.
>>
>> >Possible interpretation:
>> >New species who's ancestors didn't possess the present attributes were
>> >constituted with new attributes
>> >by surviving the 'competitive means of natural cultivation' by the
>> >environment'.
>>
>> >Further interpretation:
>> >Anything that exists obtained attributes that weren't previously there
>> >by out-competing the other
>> >within a competitive cultivating environment'.
>>
>> OK so far, although the term "cultivation" has connotations
>> of intent not justified by the lack of intent in the
>> process. So your rephrase and interpretation adds no
>> clarity; in fact, it reduces it.
>>
>> >Which Reduces to Democritus Atomism or what Henry Fairfield Osborn
>> >referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms' -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
>> >in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
>>
>> >Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
>> >have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
>> >atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
>> >'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
>> >while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
>> >were thus eliminated.
>>
>> Oops; no, it doesn't. Atoms are unchangeable (except through
>> processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
>> and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
>> sense of biological evolution.
>>
>> >Problem with this story is that it ishttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
>> >unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
>> >atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
>>
>> You seem to think that since *some* descendants will replace
>> the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
>> extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
>> problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
>> predicts that in general a population will comprise those
>> descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
>> environment in which they lived.
>>
>> But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
>> you have no point.
>In pigeons we can *select* or *cultivate* as in Erasmus Darwin's
>Artificial Cultivation for chars. we desire. Wild pigeons and AC
>pigeons both implemented gyro, IMU control algorithms and compensate
>for their magnetometer delay using some type of feed-forward control.
>In magnetometers used on UAV's the delay is 0.08seconds between
>readings, which given the speed a uav travels at leads to orientation
>errors and thus feed-forward control is used to compensate .
>
>The uav isn't adapted or adapting to anything, it only expresses its
>attributes. Wild pigeons surviving natures 'natural competitive
>selection,survival,accumulation or cultivation' process as well as
>pigeons bred in captivity for certain attributes still do only one
>thing: express pre-existing control algorithm attributes that their
>ancestors possessed.
>
>At no point in time were the present attributes acquired, they were
>there hidden in the genome. Feed-forward control , PID or what pigeons
>use Neural network control were present in both the artificially
>cultivated(selected) and *naturally selected,preserved* pigeons.
>
>Control engineers inform us that control theory involves an
>indissoluble association between mathematical constructs. This control
>algorithm was passed from pigeon to pigeon in an Behe IC or D'Arcy
>Wentworth Thompson 'composite integrity' manner. The algorithm was
>'there' somewhere 'waiting' for the chick to grow and finally
>stabilize itself in flight.
And what, exactly, has this to do with selection, other than
the fact that selection can only act on existing traits,
something no one denies?
>Where exactly was this algorithm stored and how did this algorithm get
>transferred from the blob of amino acids that formed the egg?
In the genome, which we know exists and which we have begun
to decipher.
> The
>algorithm was stored in the mind of Jesus Christ
....which we have no evidence exists...
> it has no physical
>location.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:
>On Dec 12, 10:00 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:00:47 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> >> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>> >> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
>> >> >adaptation themselves; if they
>> >> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
>> >> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>>
>> >> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
>> >> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
>> >> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
>> >> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>>
>> >> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>>
>> >> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
>> >> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
>> >> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
>> >Rephrase, replacing selection with Erasmus Darwin's cultivation as in
>> >Artificial cultivation from his book Zoonomia. Darwin lifted AC and
>> >changed it to AS and Patrick Matthew restated Buffon, Lamarck and
>> >Erasmus as shown byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_Butler:
>>
>> >Rephrase:
>> >Any species which exists is comprised of individuals whose ancestors
>> >were survivors of a CULTIVATION process performed by the
>> >environment.
>>
>> >Rephrase again in terms of Patrick Matthew:
>>
>> >Species are comprised of individuals whose ancestors were survivors of
>> >a CULTIVATION process performed by the environment.
>>
>> >Reduce again:
>> >Species consist of individuals who survived the CULTIVATION process
>> >performed by the environment.
>>
>> >Finally:
>> >Species consist of those who survived the 'competitive means of
>> >natural cultivation' by the environment.
>>
>> >Possible interpretation:
>> >New species who's ancestors didn't possess the present attributes were
>> >constituted with new attributes
>> >by surviving the 'competitive means of natural cultivation' by the
>> >environment'.
>>
>> >Further interpretation:
>> >Anything that exists obtained attributes that weren't previously there
>> >by out-competing the other
>> >within a competitive cultivating environment'.
>>
>> OK so far, although the term "cultivation" has connotations
>> of intent not justified by the lack of intent in the
>> process. So your rephrase and interpretation adds no
>> clarity; in fact, it reduces it.
>>
>> >Which Reduces to Democritus Atomism or what Henry Fairfield Osborn
>> >referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms' -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
>> >in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
>>
>> >Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
>> >have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
>> >atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
>> >'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
>> >while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
>> >were thus eliminated.
>>
>> Oops; no, it doesn't. Atoms are unchangeable (except through
>> processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
>> and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
>> sense of biological evolution.
>>
>> >Problem with this story is that it ishttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
>> >unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
>> >atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
>>
>> You seem to think that since *some* descendants will replace
>> the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
>> extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
>> problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
>> predicts that in general a population will comprise those
>> descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
>> environment in which they lived.
>>
>> But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
>> you have no point.
>In pigeons we can *select* or *cultivate* as in Erasmus Darwin's
>Artificial Cultivation for chars. we desire. Wild pigeons and AC
>pigeons both implemented gyro, IMU control algorithms and compensate
>for their magnetometer delay using some type of feed-forward control.
>In magnetometers used on UAV's the delay is 0.08seconds between
>readings, which given the speed a uav travels at leads to orientation
>errors and thus feed-forward control is used to compensate .
>
>The uav isn't adapted or adapting to anything, it only expresses its
>attributes. Wild pigeons surviving natures 'natural competitive
>selection,survival,accumulation or cultivation' process as well as
>pigeons bred in captivity for certain attributes still do only one
>thing: express pre-existing control algorithm attributes that their
>ancestors possessed.
>
>At no point in time were the present attributes acquired, they were
>there hidden in the genome. Feed-forward control , PID or what pigeons
>use Neural network control were present in both the artificially
>cultivated(selected) and *naturally selected,preserved* pigeons.
>
>Control engineers inform us that control theory involves an
>indissoluble association between mathematical constructs. This control
>algorithm was passed from pigeon to pigeon in an Behe IC or D'Arcy
>Wentworth Thompson 'composite integrity' manner. The algorithm was
>'there' somewhere 'waiting' for the chick to grow and finally
>stabilize itself in flight.
And what, exactly, has this to do with selection, other than
the fact that selection can only act on existing traits,
something no one denies?
>Where exactly was this algorithm stored and how did this algorithm get
>transferred from the blob of amino acids that formed the egg?
In the genome, which we know exists and which we have begun
to decipher.
> The
>algorithm was stored in the mind of Jesus Christ
....which we have no evidence exists...
> it has no physical
>location.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Burkhard
Dec 14, 2011, 1:43:23 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 13, 8:27 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, we find the same forms, or forms which (save for external
> ornament) are mathematically identical, repeating themselves in all
> periods of the world's geological history ; and, irrespective of
> climate or local conditions, we see them mixed up, one with another,
> in the depths and on the shores of every sea. It is hard indeed (to my
> mind) to see where Natural Selection necessarily enters in, or to
> admit that it has had any share whatsoever in the production of these
> varied conformations. Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection
> in a sense so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
> significance; and so recognize as a sort of Natural Selection
> whatsoever nexus of causes suffices to differentiate between the
> likely and the unlikely, the scarce and the frequent, the easy and the
> hard : and leads accordingly, under the peculiar conditions,
> limitations and restraints which we call "ordinary circumstances," one
> type of crystal, one form of cloud, one chemical compound, to be of
> frequent occurrence and another to be rare. -
>
> By D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson
>
> I don't understand the passage quoted from Thompson, would somebody
> explain it to me please.
I don't know which part you find difficult, but essentially,
Thompson's argument was that the laws of physics constraint the
possible range of biological forms more massively than (he thought)
biological theories of evolution give credit for. The evidence he
gives for this are structural similarities that we find across animate
and inanimate nature, and across time and space.
> Again, we find the same forms, or forms which (save for external
> ornament) are mathematically identical, repeating themselves in all
> periods of the world's geological history ; and, irrespective of
> climate or local conditions, we see them mixed up, one with another,
> in the depths and on the shores of every sea. It is hard indeed (to my
> mind) to see where Natural Selection necessarily enters in, or to
> admit that it has had any share whatsoever in the production of these
> varied conformations. Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection
> in a sense so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
> significance; and so recognize as a sort of Natural Selection
> whatsoever nexus of causes suffices to differentiate between the
> likely and the unlikely, the scarce and the frequent, the easy and the
> hard : and leads accordingly, under the peculiar conditions,
> limitations and restraints which we call "ordinary circumstances," one
> type of crystal, one form of cloud, one chemical compound, to be of
> frequent occurrence and another to be rare. -
>
> By D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson
>
> I don't understand the passage quoted from Thompson, would somebody
> explain it to me please.
I don't know which part you find difficult, but essentially,
Thompson's argument was that the laws of physics constraint the
possible range of biological forms more massively than (he thought)
biological theories of evolution give credit for. The evidence he
gives for this are structural similarities that we find across animate
and inanimate nature, and across time and space.
jillery
Dec 14, 2011, 2:36:44 PM12/14/11
to
shorter "ns", is a metaphor. It refers to a process that scientists
have identified to occur in nature. As such, unless there is some
special reason to think otherwise, I assume that a proper use of the
metaphor "natural selection" will be understood by those who have
learned its metaphorical meaning and are capable of reconstructing
complete and coherent ideas from the multiple metaphors typically
found in sentences, paragraphs, and posts. IIRC that process is
metaphorically called "reading for comprehension".
With the above in mind, and to directly answer your question, the full
sentence for which my use of term "ns" as a metaphor is used is the
full sentence in which it appears, by definition. Your welcome.
To which I add, for no particular reason, that your question and my
answer can as easily be applied to any similarly used metaphor, such
as "artificial selection". That you limit your focus to just one
particular metaphor suggests to me that your real objection is not to
the use of it, or any metaphor generally, but to the process to which
it refers. ISTM your pettifoggery is a weak argument against the
process, and you might want to find another shtick.
Ray Martinez
Dec 14, 2011, 4:16:22 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
with me that Darwinism is Atheist "science."
> Darwin
> extrapolated from Malthus's hypothesis about human events to the
> biological world in general. That is, he hypothesized that perhaps
> all (or most) populations sharing ecological niches always and
> everywhere fought to consume limited resources. If true it would be a
> driving force in differential survival and differential reproduction.
> In hind sight we know that Darwin's extrapolation of Malthus's
> hypothesis is not true. And Darwin's assumption that favorable
> mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.
> Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
> something untoward.
>
> >>>>> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
> >>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
> >>>>> case you didn't know).
>
> 1. I never claim to be well versed in anything. Instead I repeatedly
> admit my infinite ignorance.
>
science is immersed in gross misundersatnding . Some time ago you
acquainted yourself with various on-topic historical literature. At
the time you thought you understood what was being said. Then in the
process of time your understanding gathered cobwebs. Your present
knowledge is wholly defective concerning on-topic basics.
I studied the same literature full time for 2 years THEN announced
conversion to species immutability. Microevolution is a pro-Atheist
assumption based on discovery of close morphological similarity and
the perceived impossibility of Special Creation; in other words it is
an anti-theological doctrine. This is why all Atheists accept
microevolution. They have no choice since no God exists, Tony. We
explain close similarity as what one should expect to see if ONE
Divine Mastermind is creating diversity.
> 2. While I don't like the term "microevolution," (and rarely use it)
> there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
> short hand label for any observable change from one generation to the
> next.
is INFERRED, not observed directly). Before, species were held
immutable by science. The claim and concept PRESUPPOSES unintelligent
causation a scientific fact. You are an IDist. I am an IDist. We do
not accept the main claims of Atheist "science." Since unintelligent
causation does not exist, the effect of microevolution cannot exist.
IF species change THEN said change must be called designed based on
the fact that it was and is caused by Intelligent causation. For you
to say there is little controversy about microevolution is true; in
fact there is NO scientific controversy, whatsoever. Science, since
the rise of Darwinism, holds species mutable. But again, the main
point is that said mutability was and is accepted as being caused by
unintelligent causation. Therefore for you to accept microevolution
means you accept its cause. Science, since Darwin, is wrong.
Unintelligent causation does not exist. The Atheists are deluded. It
is IMPOSSIBLE for species to change. The Atheists ASSUME micro-change.
Variation is NOT microevolution, but a product of the womb which is an
ID factory.
You have championed the fact that evolution is NOT seen in the
paleontological crust of the Earth. As the mantra goes: species appear
suddenly, fully formed, endure in a state of changelessness, then
disappear suddenly. The foregoing mantra equates to spectacular
evidence supporting immutability and Special Creation----exactly what
science accepted prior to the rise of Darwinism (Darwin 1859:6).
Again, this evidence, which science accepted as showing species
immutable prior to Darwin, says the Atheists are deluded. Stasis is
seen in the record, not microevolution.
Ray
>
> read more »
Dana Tweedy
Dec 14, 2011, 6:06:27 PM12/14/11
to
On 12/14/11 2:16 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
snip
> On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> In what way is there something wrong with Darwin's reasoning?
>
> SUDDENLY Tony is in Darwin's corner. Yet not too long ago he agreed
> with me that Darwinism is Atheist "science."
think is wrong with Darwin's reasoning here. Evolution is not atheist
at all, but it is science.
>
>> Darwin
>> extrapolated from Malthus's hypothesis about human events to the
>> biological world in general. That is, he hypothesized that perhaps
>> all (or most) populations sharing ecological niches always and
>> everywhere fought to consume limited resources. If true it would be a
>> driving force in differential survival and differential reproduction.
>> In hind sight we know that Darwin's extrapolation of Malthus's
>> hypothesis is not true. And Darwin's assumption that favorable
>> mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.
>> Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
>> something untoward.
>>
>
> Baffling; now Darwin's reasoning is not true?
preserved, and that Darwin's extrapolation from Malthus was wrong. He's
not saying that Darwin's reasoning was wrong, but what Darwin learned
from Malthus was wrong. This is, of course not true, but it's not an
attack on Darwin's reasoning.
>
>>>>>>> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
>>>>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
>>>>>>> case you didn't know).
>>
>> 1. I never claim to be well versed in anything. Instead I repeatedly
>> admit my infinite ignorance.
>>
>
> Not concerning anything specific. Your knowledge in the history of
> science is immersed in gross misundersatnding .
> Some time ago you
> acquainted yourself with various on-topic historical literature. At
> the time you thought you understood what was being said. Then in the
> process of time your understanding gathered cobwebs. Your present
> knowledge is wholly defective concerning on-topic basics.
still need to realize that your own personal opinions, fantasies, and
delusions are not facts.
>
> I studied the same literature full time for 2 years THEN announced
> conversion to species immutability. Microevolution is a pro-Atheist
> assumption based on discovery of close morphological similarity and
> the perceived impossibility of Special Creation; in other words it is
> an anti-theological doctrine.
that badly mistaken about it. Of course, your claim to have studied
any literature is suspect, but that's another topic.
Microevoltion is not "pro atheist", and not an assumption. It's an
observation which doesn't support, or oppose atheism. Anatomical
similarity is one observation that supports evolution, but not the only
one. Also, the supposed "impossibility" of special creation had
nothing to do with the discovery of evolution.
Special creation can't be judged to be "impossible" by science, but
it's never been observed, and science doesn't permit appeals to the
supernatural. Natural processes explain the presence of living things
much better than an unsupported assumption like "special creation",
which is why evolution is a scientific theory, and special creation is a
religious belief.
> This is why all Atheists accept
> microevolution.
atheists who do,( granted, the vast majority of atheists), accept
evolution for the same reason people of all religious positions do, ie,
it's the best scientific explanation for the evidence.
In short, microevolution is accepted by everyone except for Ray, because
it's been observed so often it's impossible for a sane person to deny.
That even the vast majority of creationists accept a small level of
evolution indicates that it's not rejecting God that leads one to that
conclusion.
> They have no choice since no God exists, Tony. We
> explain close similarity as what one should expect to see if ONE
> Divine Mastermind is creating diversity.
God exists, or not. Evolution is still a fact.
The "mastermind" assertion doesn't explain close similarities, or
diversity because this "mastermind" has never been observed, and no one
has any way of determining his/her/it's capabilities. There's no
reason to suspect a "mastermind" would produce *any* similarities
between independently created organisms, much less the specific pattern
of nested morphological, and genetic similarities that is explained by
common descent with modification.
>
>> 2. While I don't like the term "microevolution," (and rarely use it)
>> there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
>> short hand label for any observable change from one generation to the
>> next.
>
> Microevolution only came into acceptance based on Darwin 1859 (and it
> is INFERRED, not observed directly).
any meaningful definition of the term. Also, the term "microevolution"
came into use a fairly long time after Darwin, but the idea of species
change was already gaining ground among scientists before Darwin
published.
> Before, species were held
> immutable by science.
accepted that new species could come about by hybridization. Stock
breeders, and farmers knew that new varieties of animals and plants
could be bred from earlier populations.
> The claim and concept PRESUPPOSES unintelligent
> causation a scientific fact.
populations were known to have been brought about by selective breeding.
"Unintelligent causation" is just your scare word for "natural
processes". There's no reason why a supernatural being can't use
natural processes as a means of creation, if that's what you wish to
believe.
> You are an IDist. I am an IDist. We do
> not accept the main claims of Atheist "science."
because it conflicts with your personal religious assumptions.
> Since unintelligent
> causation does not exist,
just makes you look insane.
> the effect of microevolution cannot exist.
are under the direct control of a supernatural being the effect of
allele change in a population over generations can exist. What could
possibly stop it from happening, if God wished it to?
> IF species change THEN said change must be called designed based on
> the fact that it was and is caused by Intelligent causation.
frequencies in populations over time, ie evolution. If it takes place
at a level below speciation, it's microevolution BY DEFINITION.
> For you
> to say there is little controversy about microevolution is true; in
> fact there is NO scientific controversy, whatsoever.
> Science, since
> the rise of Darwinism, holds species mutable.
Darwin didn't change science, and he did not make it "atheist".
> But again, the main
> point is that said mutability was and is accepted as being caused by
> unintelligent causation.
is accepted to be caused by an observed mechanism, ie mutation and
selection, with a few other processes as well. It doesn't matter to
science if the cause is completely unintelligent, or if has a overriding
intelligence behind it, that science can't see.
Either way, "mutability" is a fact. The cause of the change is not
relevant to the fact of species change.
> Therefore for you to accept microevolution
> means you accept its cause.
Accepting the fact that change happens within populations does not mean
one must accept the cause of those changes.
> Science, since Darwin, is wrong.
> Unintelligent causation does not exist. The Atheists are deluded. It
> is IMPOSSIBLE for species to change. The Atheists ASSUME micro-change.
> Variation is NOT microevolution, but a product of the womb which is an
> ID factory.
by reality. Even if the womb were an "ID factory", that doesn't mean
that species are unable to change. Even if there were supernatural
influence on evolution, the "unintelligent causation" still exists, and
still produces species change over time. Instead of showing that
atheists are deluded, you are showing yourself to be deluded.
>
> You have championed the fact that evolution is NOT seen in the
> paleontological crust of the Earth.
several well known fossil sequences which show evolution happening over
time.
> As the mantra goes: species appear
> suddenly, fully formed, endure in a state of changelessness, then
> disappear suddenly.
because no organism that isn't "fully formed" could exist in the first
place. Fossil species don't "endure in a state of changelessness", as
often early individuals of a species are different from later
individuals. Those forms that "disappear suddenly" are usually followed
by a new species that closely resembles the older one. This is not what
one would expect from the creation stories in the Bible.
> The foregoing mantra equates to spectacular
> evidence supporting immutability and Special Creation----exactly what
> science accepted prior to the rise of Darwinism (Darwin 1859:6).
> Again, this evidence, which science accepted as showing species
> immutable prior to Darwin, says the Atheists are deluded. Stasis is
> seen in the record, not microevolution.
determine members of the same species. It's only by large
morphological change can one determine a specimen is a different species
in the fossil record. It would be difficult to see "microevolution" in
the fossil record, but it's fairly easy to observe it in living
populations. Not surprisingly, microevolution is clearly seen in
studies of living populations.
Obviously, the one deluded, is you, Ray.
snipping what Ray ignores.
DJT
John S. Wilkins
Dec 14, 2011, 8:28:23 PM12/14/11
to
two-barrelled but unhyphenated) was an Aristotelian, and held that the
laws of geometry constrain and occasionally generate evolutionary
novelty. He spurred a research program on allometry in development, but
to this day I fail to see how it is somehow extra or in opposition to
natural selection. This is because I am dumb.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Mitchell Coffey
Dec 14, 2011, 9:41:56 PM12/14/11
to
Darwin's concept of "correlations."
Mitchell
Ray Martinez
Dec 14, 2011, 5:21:12 PM12/14/11
to
have descended from one progenitor or common ancestor. This is a claim
that says species are connected in continuity having originated from
previously living species (through evolution). Your explanation above
is ad hoc.
> >> And of course it's a matter of
> >> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree".
>
> > The context was persons who accept concept existence (you and Tony).
>
> Then there are degrees. That's what "degrees" means.
>
> >> You
> >> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
> >> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
> >> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>
> > The concept of "common descent" does not exist in nature. I stand with
> > Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, Sedgwick, and very many other natural
> > theologians. Your comments might apply to Tony (who has Kurt Wise in
> > his corner, LOL), but you need to come to grips with the meaning of
> > "rejection" and "non-existence." These do not convey exceptions.
>
> Your ranting is becoming increasingly opaque.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
> >>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
> >>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
> >>> closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
> >>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
> >>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
> >> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
> >> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>
> >>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
> >>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
> >>> nature.
> >> Why is common descent incompatible with design? What if god made
> >> occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?
>
> > CD was accepted as being caused by unintelligent natural agencies
> > originating in and from the closed system of Nature itself.
>
> That isn't a necessary feature of common descent. It just happens to be
> true.
>
The first sentence is throwaway.
> > The
> > preceding claim of fact rejects, a priori, existence of design because
> > design can only originate outside of the closed system of Nature (from
> > Heaven). If design exists CD is illusory (to be kind), delusion (to be
> > accurate). In addition: both concepts, CD and design, presuppose
> > antonymic agents of causation. Either you are genuinely ignorant of
> > these basic facts or you are engaged in propaganda, attempting to keep
> > people like Dana Tweedy and Tony Pagano (CEists) in the prison of
> > pernicious misunderstanding. Since you are a declared Atheist, the
> > latter must be true.
>
> That's what passes for logic in your mind? Tony has the right of it
> here.
Your only goal is to keep Tony (your enemy) in the prison of his gross
misunderstanding via your propaganda. It is impossible for you, an
Atheist-Evolutionist with a doctorate, NOT to understand the most
basic fact of the debate: causation mutual exclusivity.
I, on the other hand, am trying to pierce Tony's understanding. So far
I have been unsuccessful.
> You take an absolutist position and don't even recognize that
> there is any middle ground.
cannot be A and not A at the same time); neither does **any**
historical fact. It is subjective ignorance to believe that
Intelligent and unintelligent causation could exist simultaneously in
nature. The entire Creation-Evolution debate is framed on one OR the
other, not both. You want Tony to believe otherwise because as it sits
now he at least accepts some of your main claims concerning nature.
Tony does not understand, unlike you and I, that the concepts of ID
and unintelligent evolution cannot both exist in nature at the same
time. It is one OR the other. TEism, as founded by Gray, and
encouraged by Darwin, started this confusion and mess. Darwin was
thrilled to hook and fool Gray as he outsmarted him like your kind
have done with Tony and his kind. My hat is tipped (believe me). Alls
fair in war.
> It's either alway[s] design or always nature;
Yes; absolutely true; are you listening Tony? (I am shocked that JH
has admitted!)....now prepare for some deflection bait....
> but it's clearly conceivable for events to be sometimes design and
> sometimes nature.
>
statement of fact. All he is saying here is that a debate exists. JH
does not accept the concept of design existing in nature. Unlike Tony
the "IDist" who accepts the concepts of selection, evolution, and CD
to exist in nature.
Tony: I want to remove the quote marks. JH just admitted the fact of
mutual exclusivity, what you are calling "absolutism." He is mocking
you. He is saying: "despite the fact that I just admitted that it is
one OR the other, and not both, Tony will remain in the prison of his
gross misunderstanding. In this I am confident."
> >>> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
> >>> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
> >> Do you think that descent within species happens? Is it natural?
> > Natural causation (Naturalism-Materialism), as understood since the
> > rise of Darwinism, does not exist.
>
> That's the answer to the second question. But what about the first
> question? Is there descent within species?
describe and support Darwinian unintelligent natural causation, the
answer is no because unintelligent natural causation does not exist
(except in the minds of Darwinists/Atheists). IF "descent" occurs then
we must use another term that corresponds to Intelligent agency, like
"designed." If not, that is, if we do not use the correct terms, then
the uninitiated might come to think that unintelligent agency exists
and Intelligent agency does not exist.
> If there is, then according
> to you it isn't natural. So why can't there be descent between species,
> also not natural? You aren't making sense here.
>
> > The delusion is working on persons who accept evolution, not God. But
> > Dawkins and I agree that a delusion is at work.
>
> Like I said to Tony, there's plenty of delusion to go around.
Atheist brother.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Dec 14, 2011, 10:27:16 PM12/14/11
to
On 12/14/11 3:21 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 13, 8:05 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip
> On Dec 13, 8:05 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as CD "within species." Variation itself is not
>>> microevolution or CD. You are attempting to cover your tracks by
>>> changing the subject to how CD allegedly occurs (birth)? Why?
>>
>> You seem to have invested common descent with all manner of mystical
>> connotations. It just refers to their being ancestors and descendants.
>> Do you have ancestors? One may hope you don't have descendants.
>>
>
> CD is one of three main claims made by Darwinism: it says all species
> have descended from one progenitor or common ancestor.
evidence. Evolution would be the same if there were multiple origins
of life.
> This is a claim
> that says species are connected in continuity having originated from
> previously living species (through evolution). Your explanation above
> is ad hoc.
are connected through descent is again a finding derived from the
evidence.
No one has ever observed a species coming into existence from any source
other than another species.
>
>
>>>> And of course it's a matter of
>>>> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree".
>>
>>> The context was persons who accept concept existence (you and Tony).
>>
>> Then there are degrees. That's what "degrees" means.
>>
>>>> You
>>>> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>>>> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>>>> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>>
>>> The concept of "common descent" does not exist in nature. I stand with
>>> Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, Sedgwick, and very many other natural
>>> theologians. Your comments might apply to Tony (who has Kurt Wise in
>>> his corner, LOL), but you need to come to grips with the meaning of
>>> "rejection" and "non-existence." These do not convey exceptions.
>>
>> Your ranting is becoming increasingly opaque.
>>
>
> Gross misrepresentation.
assertions are difficult to understand misrepresent anything?
snip
>>> CD was accepted as being caused by unintelligent natural agencies
>>> originating in and from the closed system of Nature itself.
>>
>> That isn't a necessary feature of common descent. It just happens to be
>> true.
>>
>
> Are you listening Tony?
>
> The first sentence is throwaway.
understand, and something you have missed entirely.
>
>>> The
>>> preceding claim of fact rejects, a priori, existence of design because
>>> design can only originate outside of the closed system of Nature (from
>>> Heaven). If design exists CD is illusory (to be kind), delusion (to be
>>> accurate). In addition: both concepts, CD and design, presuppose
>>> antonymic agents of causation. Either you are genuinely ignorant of
>>> these basic facts or you are engaged in propaganda, attempting to keep
>>> people like Dana Tweedy and Tony Pagano (CEists) in the prison of
>>> pernicious misunderstanding. Since you are a declared Atheist, the
>>> latter must be true.
>>
>> That's what passes for logic in your mind? Tony has the right of it
>> here.
>
> One does not actually expect you to admit. How absurd!
>
> Your only goal is to keep Tony (your enemy) in the prison of his gross
> misunderstanding via your propaganda. It is impossible for you, an
> Atheist-Evolutionist with a doctorate, NOT to understand the most
> basic fact of the debate: causation mutual exclusivity.
John's fault. Also, Ray, you really need to grasp that your own
delusional claims are not facts, and that other people who don't live
within your skull don't have to accept them as factual.
>
> I, on the other hand, am trying to pierce Tony's understanding. So far
> I have been unsuccessful.
>
>> You take an absolutist position and don't even recognize that
>> there is any middle ground.
>
> Because there is none; sound logic (Aristotelian) does not allow (A
> cannot be A and not A at the same time);
the properties of "A".
> neither does **any**
> historical fact. It is subjective ignorance to believe that
> Intelligent and unintelligent causation could exist simultaneously in
> nature.
causation existing simultaneously in the world. You deny this based on
your own invincible ignorance.
> The entire Creation-Evolution debate is framed on one OR the
> other, not both.
doesn't have to hold absolutist positions.
> You want Tony to believe otherwise because as it sits
> now he at least accepts some of your main claims concerning nature.
> Tony does not understand, unlike you and I, that the concepts of ID
> and unintelligent evolution cannot both exist in nature at the same
> time.
person isn't required to accept your personal insanities.
> It is one OR the other. TEism, as founded by Gray, and
> encouraged by Darwin, started this confusion and mess. Darwin was
> thrilled to hook and fool Gray as he outsmarted him like your kind
> have done with Tony and his kind. My hat is tipped (believe me). Alls
> fair in war.
of paranoia and fantasy. There's no reason to think Darwin wished to
"fool" Asa Gray, or that John is trying to do so to Tony.
>
>> It's either alway[s] design or always nature;
>
> Yes; absolutely true; are you listening Tony? (I am shocked that JH
> has admitted!)....now prepare for some deflection bait....
>
>> but it's clearly conceivable for events to be sometimes design and
>> sometimes nature.
>>
>
> Note JH said "conceivable" which does not contradict his previous
> statement of fact. All he is saying here is that a debate exists.
> JH
> does not accept the concept of design existing in nature. Unlike Tony
> the "IDist" who accepts the concepts of selection, evolution, and CD
> to exist in nature.
of what that person thinks. I'd imagine that John is aware that human
design exists in nature, and that evolution is capable of producing the
appearance of design. What John most likely denies is that mere
appearance of design is evidence of 'intelligent design'.
On the other hand, selection, evolution, and common descent are observed
to exist in nature. One would be foolish to deny that.
>
> Tony: I want to remove the quote marks. JH just admitted the fact of
> mutual exclusivity, what you are calling "absolutism."
saying is that position, the one you take, is mistaken.
> He is mocking
> you. He is saying: "despite the fact that I just admitted that it is
> one OR the other, and not both, Tony will remain in the prison of his
> gross misunderstanding. In this I am confident."
addressing your own gross misunderstanding than picking the speck out of
Tony's eye.
>
>>>>> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
>>>>> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>>>> Do you think that descent within species happens? Is it natural?
>>> Natural causation (Naturalism-Materialism), as understood since the
>>> rise of Darwinism, does not exist.
>>
>> That's the answer to the second question. But what about the first
>> question? Is there descent within species?
>
> Since "descent" is a term that belongs to a set of terms that exist to
> describe and support Darwinian unintelligent natural causation, the
> answer is no because unintelligent natural causation does not exist
> (except in the minds of Darwinists/Atheists).
offspring derived from individuals. Are you really trying to claim
that parents have no genetic connection to their offspring?
> IF "descent" occurs then
> we must use another term that corresponds to Intelligent agency, like
> "designed." If not, that is, if we do not use the correct terms, then
> the uninitiated might come to think that unintelligent agency exists
> and Intelligent agency does not exist.
incorrect terms, in order to avoid having to admit you were wrong.
>
>> If there is, then according
>> to you it isn't natural. So why can't there be descent between species,
>> also not natural? You aren't making sense here.
>>
>
> Your question does not make sense. It needs re-phrasing.
intelligent supernatural being cause descent producing new species?
What's to prevent this?
>
>>> The delusion is working on persons who accept evolution, not God. But
>>> Dawkins and I agree that a delusion is at work.
>>
>> Like I said to Tony, there's plenty of delusion to go around.
>
> You don't believe that you are deluded. You agree with Dawkins, your
> Atheist brother.
himself. Your ability to totally miss the point is astounding.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Dec 14, 2011, 10:30:41 PM12/14/11
to
admitting absolutism. I now correct myself and admit that you were
talking about my view. With this said: tell us John, what is designed
in nature?
Ray
John S. Wilkins
Dec 14, 2011, 10:55:23 PM12/14/11
to
Ray Martinez
Dec 14, 2011, 10:56:15 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:59:17 -0800, John Harshman
> extrapolated from Malthus's hypothesis about human events to the
> biological world in general. That is, he hypothesized that perhaps
> all (or most) populations sharing ecological niches always and
> everywhere fought to consume limited resources. If true it would be a
> driving force in differential survival and differential reproduction.
> In hind sight we know that Darwin's extrapolation of Malthus's
> hypothesis is not true. And Darwin's assumption that favorable
> mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.
> Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
> something untoward.
>
> biological world in general. That is, he hypothesized that perhaps
> all (or most) populations sharing ecological niches always and
> everywhere fought to consume limited resources. If true it would be a
> driving force in differential survival and differential reproduction.
> In hind sight we know that Darwin's extrapolation of Malthus's
> hypothesis is not true. And Darwin's assumption that favorable
> mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.
> Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
> something untoward.
>
> >>>>> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
> >>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
> >>>>> case you didn't know).
>
> >>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
> >>>>> case you didn't know).
>
> 1. I never claim to be well versed in anything. Instead I repeatedly
> admit my infinite ignorance.
>
> admit my infinite ignorance.
>
> 2. While I don't like the term "microevolution," (and rarely use it)
> there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
> short hand label for any observable change from one generation to the
> next. For example, the relative change in the numbers of light to
> there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
> short hand label for any observable change from one generation to the
> dark moths over time in a particular population.
> a. I don't have to irrationally deny microevolutionary change
> (as does Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show
> that such changes explain the origin of a single structure, system or
> creature.
> b. Ray's claim of immutability; that is, his position that
> there is absolutely no change from one generation to the next is
> nonsense and evidence that he is delusional.
>
Produce evidence that an unguided natural process caused any micro-
> a. I don't have to irrationally deny microevolutionary change
> (as does Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show
> that such changes explain the origin of a single structure, system or
> creature.
> b. Ray's claim of immutability; that is, his position that
> there is absolutely no change from one generation to the next is
> nonsense and evidence that he is delusional.
>
modification in any species and I will promptly concede.
Microevolution (species mutability) is an extraordinary claim that
lacks ordinary evidence in support, not to mention extraordinary
evidence.
Waiting....
> 3. Likewise there is little to upset me about the label "common
> descent" since it means little more than "a set of individuals share a
> common ancestor." Ray's family tree is evidence of "common descent."
> a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny common descent (as does
> Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show any
> continuity from extant life back to some unknown First Common
> Ancestor.
> b. Ray's absolutionism in this instance makes him appear
> delusional.
>
> 4. While atheists have inappropriately and inaccurately
> anthropomorphized "natural selection" it was neverthless a wonderfully
> interesting insight on the part of Darwin. Ray's delusional denials
> notwithstanding "natural selection" is nothing more than a term which
> collects the process of "differential survival" and "differential
> reproduction" which are quite observable.
The claim made in behalf of NS is that IT, not God, is causing species
to exist. This is the most basic fact of the Creation v. Evolution
dispute. And if you think NS is observable then please post any
YouTube showing it in action. No one denies differential reproduction
and survival; what is in dispute is the claim made in behalf of it----
that the same along with random mutation somehow causes evolution and
eventually species to exist.
Again, like I have been saying, you are totally ignorant of the most
basic facts in the Creation v. Evolution debate.
> a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny "natural
> selection" (as does Ray) to point out that it is largely conservative
> and has never been shown to be a force for progression, coherent
> change. David Wolpert proved that all evolutionary algorithms are no
> better at finding a fitness peak than a dumb, blind search.
> b. Ray's denialism makes him look delusional.
>
to deny that it produced any facts. Then you deride me for not
accepting the basis for these facts! The fact that you are
contradicting yourself egregiously without any awareness shows that
you are at the very least genuinely confused. I am happy to be
considered delusional by you.
Ray
> >>>> Just a comment on the "Tony...accepts...common descent." What made you
> >>>> conclude that?
>
> Limited Common Descent is indisputable. I doubt the Theory of Common
> Descent which claims that all species share common ancestors in a
> continuous, unbroken line to the First Common Ancestor.
>
> Descent which claims that all species share common ancestors in a
> continuous, unbroken line to the First Common Ancestor.
>
> >>>> The best I can recall from the rare times he alludes to
> >>>> his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
> >>>> every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
> >>>> YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
> >>>> going straight to geocentric YEC.
>
> >>>> his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
> >>>> every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
> >>>> YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
> >>>> going straight to geocentric YEC.
>
> I don't obsess over Darwinism. I argue unequivocally that it is
> false. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not show the
> continuity and transformationism his theory predicted. The fossil
> record shows nothing new today. Lenski's 20+ year, 40,000+ generation
> E coli experiment mirrors in the living world exactly what the 800
> million year fossil record shows---discontinuity, stasis, and
> limited/bounded change.
>
> false. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not show the
> continuity and transformationism his theory predicted. The fossil
> record shows nothing new today. Lenski's 20+ year, 40,000+ generation
> E coli experiment mirrors in the living world exactly what the 800
> million year fossil record shows---discontinuity, stasis, and
> limited/bounded change.
>
> >>>> Which strongly suggests that he
> >>>> thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
> >>>> matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
> >>>> contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.
>
> >>>> thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
> >>>> matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
> >>>> contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.
>
> Scripture's historical sketch of special creation of discontinuous
> kinds is corroborated by the fossil record. It corroborates Special
> Creation and not the ubiquitious, transformational change explained by
> Darwin's theory.
>
> kinds is corroborated by the fossil record. It corroborates Special
> Creation and not the ubiquitious, transformational change explained by
> Darwin's theory.
>
> >>>> Though I should add that anyone who evades questions about which
> >>>> "kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
> >>>> originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
> >>>> descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.
>
> >>>> "kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
> >>>> originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
> >>>> descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.
>
> The kinds were created approximately 6000-10000 years ago. I have
> repeatedly admitted that I simply don't know how to define "kind." I
> suggest that the kinds (whatever they might be) constitute the roots
> of several trees of common descent. I suggest that all the
> information necessary for any divergence from root to nodes was
> contained in the root. This is a wild ass guess which is not
> contradicted by the fossil record or the living world. Common descent
> is not denied only its extent.
>
> Our own Dr Theobald's relatively recent interesting scientific article
> purports to show that several "trees" is less likely than one. As of
> yet I don't have the time to adequately review his argument but intend
> to.
>
> repeatedly admitted that I simply don't know how to define "kind." I
> suggest that the kinds (whatever they might be) constitute the roots
> of several trees of common descent. I suggest that all the
> information necessary for any divergence from root to nodes was
> contained in the root. This is a wild ass guess which is not
> contradicted by the fossil record or the living world. Common descent
> is not denied only its extent.
>
> Our own Dr Theobald's relatively recent interesting scientific article
> purports to show that several "trees" is less likely than one. As of
> yet I don't have the time to adequately review his argument but intend
> to.
>
> >>> Common descent is a matter of degree. Ray denies that any two species
> >>> are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
> >>> never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
> >>> degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.
>
> >>> are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
> >>> never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
> >>> degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.
>
> Common descent is undeniable. And limited, minor change from one
> generation to the next within populations is undeniable. What I doubt
> is the uwarranted extrapolations drawn from these facts.
>
>
>
> generation to the next within populations is undeniable. What I doubt
> is the uwarranted extrapolations drawn from these facts.
>
>
>
> >> CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
> >> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
> >> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
> >> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
>
> >> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
> >> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
> >> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
>
> Ray's family tree is evidence of limited common descent.
>
> And cichlid speciation (and their observable species flocks) is
> evidence that species are not nearly as immutable as Ray believes.
> Furthermore the fact that they are not immutable does not imply that
> some purely naturalistic process possesed the power to create them in
> the first place.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And cichlid speciation (and their observable species flocks) is
> evidence that species are not nearly as immutable as Ray believes.
> Furthermore the fact that they are not immutable does not imply that
> some purely naturalistic process possesed the power to create them in
> the first place.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Ray, Ray, Ray. Of course you accept common descent. You accept it within
>
> ...
>
>
> read more »
Dana Tweedy
Dec 14, 2011, 11:49:28 PM12/14/11
to
On 12/14/11 8:56 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
snip
> On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
tability; that is, his position that
>> there is absolutely no change from one generation to the next is
>> nonsense and evidence that he is delusional.
>>
>
> Produce evidence that an unguided natural process caused any micro-
> modification in any species and I will promptly concede.
supernatural effects can't ever be ruled out by science, any process
could potentially be guided.
>
> Microevolution (species mutability) is an extraordinary claim that
> lacks ordinary evidence in support, not to mention extraordinary
> evidence.
"Species mutability" would be speciation, ie, macroevolution.
There's plenty of evidence that variations occur within species.
>
> Waiting....
Why do you keep ignoring the evidence already presented?
>
>> 3. Likewise there is little to upset me about the label "common
>> descent" since it means little more than "a set of individuals share a
>> common ancestor." Ray's family tree is evidence of "common descent."
>> a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny common descent (as does
>> Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show any
>> continuity from extant life back to some unknown First Common
>> Ancestor.
>> b. Ray's absolutionism in this instance makes him appear
>> delusional.
>>
>> 4. While atheists have inappropriately and inaccurately
>> anthropomorphized "natural selection" it was neverthless a wonderfully
>> interesting insight on the part of Darwin. Ray's delusional denials
>> notwithstanding "natural selection" is nothing more than a term which
>> collects the process of "differential survival" and "differential
>> reproduction" which are quite observable.
>
> That's not the claim.
>
> The claim made in behalf of NS is that IT, not God, is causing species
> to exist.
species to exist. Natural selection is only one part of the mechanism
of evolution.
> This is the most basic fact of the Creation v. Evolution
> dispute.
fact".
> And if you think NS is observable then please post any
> YouTube showing it in action.
observed? Can one find a video on youtube showing nuclear fusion?
The Grant's study of Galapagos Finches was one such observation of
natural selection in action. The Peppered Moth observation in England
was another. If you really want a youtube video explaining natural
selection, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RLU4-kySow
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgIm6i-Olc4
> No one denies differential reproduction
> and survival;
exist.
> what is in dispute is the claim made in behalf of it----
> that the same along with random mutation somehow causes evolution and
> eventually species to exist.
Natural selection is why adaptive variations are favored in that
population. It's not a "somehow", as the process is well known.
>
> Again, like I have been saying, you are totally ignorant of the most
> basic facts in the Creation v. Evolution debate.
same ballpark.
snip more of Ray and Tony's silliness.
DJT
jillery
Dec 15, 2011, 12:46:40 AM12/15/11
to
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:56:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>Produce evidence that an unguided natural process caused any micro-
>modification in any species and I will promptly concede.
>
>Microevolution (species mutability) is an extraordinary claim that
>lacks ordinary evidence in support, not to mention extraordinary
>evidence.
>
>Waiting....
This is Ray's version of denying lobsters exist.
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>Produce evidence that an unguided natural process caused any micro-
>modification in any species and I will promptly concede.
>
>Microevolution (species mutability) is an extraordinary claim that
>lacks ordinary evidence in support, not to mention extraordinary
>evidence.
>
>Waiting....
John Harshman
Dec 15, 2011, 1:14:57 AM12/15/11
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
>JH wrote:
>> You seem to have invested common descent with all manner of mystical
>> connotations. It just refers to their being ancestors and descendants.
>> Do you have ancestors? One may hope you don't have descendants.
>
> CD is one of three main claims made by Darwinism: it says all species
> have descended from one progenitor or common ancestor. This is a claim
> that says species are connected in continuity having originated from
> previously living species (through evolution). Your explanation above
> is ad hoc.
This is the maximum claim of common descent, one that Darwin in fact
didn't make ("breathed into one form or a few"). There are degrees of
common descent, like I said. One slight degree is descent within
species. Do you accept that? Tony doesn't accept common descent by your
definition -- he doesn't think all life has one common ancestor -- so
your criticism of him seems mistaken, unless you want to revise that
definition.
>>>> And of course it's a matter of
>>>> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree".
>>> The context was persons who accept concept existence (you and Tony).
>> Then there are degrees. That's what "degrees" means.
>>
>>>> You
>>>> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>>>> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>>>> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>>> The concept of "common descent" does not exist in nature. I stand with
>>> Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, Sedgwick, and very many other natural
>>> theologians. Your comments might apply to Tony (who has Kurt Wise in
>>> his corner, LOL), but you need to come to grips with the meaning of
>>> "rejection" and "non-existence." These do not convey exceptions.
>> Your ranting is becoming increasingly opaque.
>
> Gross misrepresentation.
Opacity is in the eye of the beholder. The proper response would have
been to clarify your claim.
>>>>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>>>>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>>>>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>>>>> closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>>>>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>>>>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>>>> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>>>> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>>>>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>>>>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>>>>> nature.
>>>> Why is common descent incompatible with design? What if god made
>>>> occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?
>>> CD was accepted as being caused by unintelligent natural agencies
>>> originating in and from the closed system of Nature itself.
>> That isn't a necessary feature of common descent. It just happens to be
>> true.
>
> Are you listening Tony?
>
> The first sentence is throwaway.
Tony: please don't use Ray as a guide to what listening is. He's very
bad at it.
>>> The
>>> preceding claim of fact rejects, a priori, existence of design because
>>> design can only originate outside of the closed system of Nature (from
>>> Heaven). If design exists CD is illusory (to be kind), delusion (to be
>>> accurate). In addition: both concepts, CD and design, presuppose
>>> antonymic agents of causation. Either you are genuinely ignorant of
>>> these basic facts or you are engaged in propaganda, attempting to keep
>>> people like Dana Tweedy and Tony Pagano (CEists) in the prison of
>>> pernicious misunderstanding. Since you are a declared Atheist, the
>>> latter must be true.
>> That's what passes for logic in your mind? Tony has the right of it
>> here.
>
> One does not actually expect you to admit. How absurd!
>
> Your only goal is to keep Tony (your enemy) in the prison of his gross
> misunderstanding via your propaganda. It is impossible for you, an
> Atheist-Evolutionist with a doctorate, NOT to understand the most
> basic fact of the debate: causation mutual exclusivity.
That's a bizarre, paranoid viewpoint. Am I really central in a vast
conspiracy to deceive the world? To what end?
> I, on the other hand, am trying to pierce Tony's understanding. So far
> I have been unsuccessful.
Don't take it too hard. Nobody has ever been successful.
>> You take an absolutist position and don't even recognize that
>> there is any middle ground.
>
> Because there is none; sound logic (Aristotelian) does not allow (A
> cannot be A and not A at the same time);
But can't something be sometimes A and sometimes not A, i.e. at
different times rather than the same time? That is indeed Tony's
position here, and I don't see a problem with the logic.
> neither does **any**
> historical fact. It is subjective ignorance to believe that
> Intelligent and unintelligent causation could exist simultaneously in
> nature.
Why not? Black and white exist simultaneously in nature, despite the
fact that nothing can be at the same time black and white. Nature is big.
> The entire Creation-Evolution debate is framed on one OR the
> other, not both.
No, that's just how you personally frame it. Your personal preferences
are not laws of nature.
> You want Tony to believe otherwise because as it sits
> now he at least accepts some of your main claims concerning nature.
> Tony does not understand, unlike you and I, that the concepts of ID
> and unintelligent evolution cannot both exist in nature at the same
> time.
Don't try to pin that one on me. I understand that the phenomena (not
concepts: phenomena) of ID and unintelligent evolution could easily both
exist at the same time. It's just that any particular event must be one
or the other. Some events could be one or the other as long as no single
event is claimed to be both at once.
> It is one OR the other. TEism, as founded by Gray, and
> encouraged by Darwin, started this confusion and mess. Darwin was
> thrilled to hook and fool Gray as he outsmarted him like your kind
> have done with Tony and his kind. My hat is tipped (believe me). Alls
> fair in war.
Your paranoia shows more at some times than at other times. Are you both
paranoid and not paranoid?
>> It's either alway[s] design or always nature;
>
> Yes; absolutely true; are you listening Tony? (I am shocked that JH
> has admitted!)....now prepare for some deflection bait....
Sorry; typo. Should say "It's not either always design or always
nature", as should be clear from context.
>> but it's clearly conceivable for events to be sometimes design and
>> sometimes nature.
>
> Note JH said "conceivable" which does not contradict his previous
> statement of fact. All he is saying here is that a debate exists.
No, that isn't what he's saying.
> JH
> does not accept the concept of design existing in nature. Unlike Tony
> the "IDist" who accepts the concepts of selection, evolution, and CD
> to exist in nature.
True, as long as we translate "concept" to "phenomenon", which makes sense.
> Tony: I want to remove the quote marks. JH just admitted the fact of
> mutual exclusivity, what you are calling "absolutism."
No he didn't.
> He is mocking
> you. He is saying: "despite the fact that I just admitted that it is
> one OR the other, and not both, Tony will remain in the prison of his
> gross misunderstanding. In this I am confident."
No, I'm mocking both of you, but not in the way you think. Your
confidence is seriously misplaced.
>>>>> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
>>>>> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>>>> Do you think that descent within species happens? Is it natural?
>>> Natural causation (Naturalism-Materialism), as understood since the
>>> rise of Darwinism, does not exist.
>> That's the answer to the second question. But what about the first
>> question? Is there descent within species?
>
> Since "descent" is a term that belongs to a set of terms that exist to
> describe and support Darwinian unintelligent natural causation, the
> answer is no because unintelligent natural causation does not exist
> (except in the minds of Darwinists/Atheists). IF "descent" occurs then
> we must use another term that corresponds to Intelligent agency, like
> "designed." If not, that is, if we do not use the correct terms, then
> the uninitiated might come to think that unintelligent agency exists
> and Intelligent agency does not exist.
So you're saying that you are not descended from your parents, but you
were designed. Is that correct?
>> If there is, then according
>> to you it isn't natural. So why can't there be descent between species,
>> also not natural? You aren't making sense here.
>
> Your question does not make sense. It needs re-phrasing.
Sure. Is it possible that species are designed in the same sense you
were designed from your parents? If not, why not?
>>> The delusion is working on persons who accept evolution, not God. But
>>> Dawkins and I agree that a delusion is at work.
>> Like I said to Tony, there's plenty of delusion to go around.
>
> You don't believe that you are deluded. You agree with Dawkins, your
> Atheist brother.
Of course. But I believe that you and Tony are both deluded, just in
different ways.
>JH wrote:
>> You seem to have invested common descent with all manner of mystical
>> connotations. It just refers to their being ancestors and descendants.
>> Do you have ancestors? One may hope you don't have descendants.
>
> CD is one of three main claims made by Darwinism: it says all species
> have descended from one progenitor or common ancestor. This is a claim
> that says species are connected in continuity having originated from
> previously living species (through evolution). Your explanation above
> is ad hoc.
didn't make ("breathed into one form or a few"). There are degrees of
common descent, like I said. One slight degree is descent within
species. Do you accept that? Tony doesn't accept common descent by your
definition -- he doesn't think all life has one common ancestor -- so
your criticism of him seems mistaken, unless you want to revise that
definition.
>>>> And of course it's a matter of
>>>> degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree".
>>> The context was persons who accept concept existence (you and Tony).
>> Then there are degrees. That's what "degrees" means.
>>
>>>> You
>>>> try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>>>> across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>>>> just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>>> The concept of "common descent" does not exist in nature. I stand with
>>> Linnaeus, Cuvier, Paley, Sedgwick, and very many other natural
>>> theologians. Your comments might apply to Tony (who has Kurt Wise in
>>> his corner, LOL), but you need to come to grips with the meaning of
>>> "rejection" and "non-existence." These do not convey exceptions.
>> Your ranting is becoming increasingly opaque.
>
> Gross misrepresentation.
been to clarify your claim.
>>>>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>>>>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>>>>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>>>>> closed system of Nature itself). Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>>>>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>>>>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>>>> You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>>>> or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>>>>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>>>>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
>>>>> nature.
>>>> Why is common descent incompatible with design? What if god made
>>>> occasional tweaks in otherwise perfectly ordinary zygotes?
>>> CD was accepted as being caused by unintelligent natural agencies
>>> originating in and from the closed system of Nature itself.
>> That isn't a necessary feature of common descent. It just happens to be
>> true.
>
> Are you listening Tony?
>
> The first sentence is throwaway.
bad at it.
>>> The
>>> preceding claim of fact rejects, a priori, existence of design because
>>> design can only originate outside of the closed system of Nature (from
>>> Heaven). If design exists CD is illusory (to be kind), delusion (to be
>>> accurate). In addition: both concepts, CD and design, presuppose
>>> antonymic agents of causation. Either you are genuinely ignorant of
>>> these basic facts or you are engaged in propaganda, attempting to keep
>>> people like Dana Tweedy and Tony Pagano (CEists) in the prison of
>>> pernicious misunderstanding. Since you are a declared Atheist, the
>>> latter must be true.
>> That's what passes for logic in your mind? Tony has the right of it
>> here.
>
> One does not actually expect you to admit. How absurd!
>
> Your only goal is to keep Tony (your enemy) in the prison of his gross
> misunderstanding via your propaganda. It is impossible for you, an
> Atheist-Evolutionist with a doctorate, NOT to understand the most
> basic fact of the debate: causation mutual exclusivity.
conspiracy to deceive the world? To what end?
> I, on the other hand, am trying to pierce Tony's understanding. So far
> I have been unsuccessful.
>> You take an absolutist position and don't even recognize that
>> there is any middle ground.
>
> Because there is none; sound logic (Aristotelian) does not allow (A
> cannot be A and not A at the same time);
different times rather than the same time? That is indeed Tony's
position here, and I don't see a problem with the logic.
> neither does **any**
> historical fact. It is subjective ignorance to believe that
> Intelligent and unintelligent causation could exist simultaneously in
> nature.
fact that nothing can be at the same time black and white. Nature is big.
> The entire Creation-Evolution debate is framed on one OR the
> other, not both.
are not laws of nature.
> You want Tony to believe otherwise because as it sits
> now he at least accepts some of your main claims concerning nature.
> Tony does not understand, unlike you and I, that the concepts of ID
> and unintelligent evolution cannot both exist in nature at the same
> time.
concepts: phenomena) of ID and unintelligent evolution could easily both
exist at the same time. It's just that any particular event must be one
or the other. Some events could be one or the other as long as no single
event is claimed to be both at once.
> It is one OR the other. TEism, as founded by Gray, and
> encouraged by Darwin, started this confusion and mess. Darwin was
> thrilled to hook and fool Gray as he outsmarted him like your kind
> have done with Tony and his kind. My hat is tipped (believe me). Alls
> fair in war.
paranoid and not paranoid?
>> It's either alway[s] design or always nature;
>
> Yes; absolutely true; are you listening Tony? (I am shocked that JH
> has admitted!)....now prepare for some deflection bait....
nature", as should be clear from context.
>> but it's clearly conceivable for events to be sometimes design and
>> sometimes nature.
>
> Note JH said "conceivable" which does not contradict his previous
> statement of fact. All he is saying here is that a debate exists.
> JH
> does not accept the concept of design existing in nature. Unlike Tony
> the "IDist" who accepts the concepts of selection, evolution, and CD
> to exist in nature.
> Tony: I want to remove the quote marks. JH just admitted the fact of
> mutual exclusivity, what you are calling "absolutism."
> He is mocking
> you. He is saying: "despite the fact that I just admitted that it is
> one OR the other, and not both, Tony will remain in the prison of his
> gross misunderstanding. In this I am confident."
confidence is seriously misplaced.
>>>>> The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
>>>>> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>>>> Do you think that descent within species happens? Is it natural?
>>> Natural causation (Naturalism-Materialism), as understood since the
>>> rise of Darwinism, does not exist.
>> That's the answer to the second question. But what about the first
>> question? Is there descent within species?
>
> Since "descent" is a term that belongs to a set of terms that exist to
> describe and support Darwinian unintelligent natural causation, the
> answer is no because unintelligent natural causation does not exist
> (except in the minds of Darwinists/Atheists). IF "descent" occurs then
> we must use another term that corresponds to Intelligent agency, like
> "designed." If not, that is, if we do not use the correct terms, then
> the uninitiated might come to think that unintelligent agency exists
> and Intelligent agency does not exist.
were designed. Is that correct?
>> If there is, then according
>> to you it isn't natural. So why can't there be descent between species,
>> also not natural? You aren't making sense here.
>
> Your question does not make sense. It needs re-phrasing.
were designed from your parents? If not, why not?
>>> The delusion is working on persons who accept evolution, not God. But
>>> Dawkins and I agree that a delusion is at work.
>> Like I said to Tony, there's plenty of delusion to go around.
>
> You don't believe that you are deluded. You agree with Dawkins, your
> Atheist brother.
different ways.
John Harshman
Dec 15, 2011, 1:18:53 AM12/15/11
to
now I see that it wasn't. You're right that I was referring to your view.
> With this said: tell us John, what is designed
> in nature?
people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that still
isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
and I don't see any evidence for that.
backspace
Dec 15, 2011, 5:23:34 AM12/15/11
to
On Dec 15, 1:28 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
The Geometry of a pigeon represents an abstract mathematical
algorithm , in the same way that the Feed-Forward control of the IMU
in the pigeon's head allowing it to orient itself is separate from the
carbon the pigeon is made off.
Feed-forward control can be represented using a cluster of
copper,silicon atoms as in a Japanese walking robot or it can be
represented using carbon 'meat'. The matter representing the algorithm
doesn't constitute the algorithm.
D'arcy Thompson didn't know this of course but if you read the passage
closely, that I quoted; he had a glimpse of http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
falsifiability
''........Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection in a sense
The man was clearly a genius, he pre-empted Popper by realizing that a
theory that explains everything explains nothing.
But like the Wikipedia NS article he begged the question in his book
that I quoted from, because he never defined NS, unless somebody can
show me the passage and then I will correct this post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
''........Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which
biological traits become either more or less common in a population as
a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key
mechanism of evolution.............''
This passage from wikipedia begs the question, meaning that the
premise isn't being stated. Either the premise is that ns is the
metaphor for a full sentence or it isn't: this must be clearly
indicated, which it isn't. Things whether biological or otherwise
always become more or less common, this is a truism.
Gas molecules become more or less common with such behavior described
by falsifiable physics equations. Thus in a sense as Berlinski wrote
''ns functions as some sort of universal mechanism, making it just as
implausible as single differential equation explaining all of
physics''. But he also begged the question, because he never defines
the full sentence that NS is the metaphor for.
The crux of the matter isn't what does NS mean, but what do you mean.
Whatever you mean must be formulated in a full sentence that doesn't
contain the word-couplet 'natural selection'. After this sentence is
defined, then only can we refer to this sentence using 'natural
selection'.
D'Arcy description of Composite Integrity is clear , that if we had
changed the names , toned down the flowery grammar and presented it to
PZ Myers he would have trashed it as a YEC screed. After taking the
bait and on revealing it was actually D'Arcy Thompson whom PZ Myers
thinks very highly of , one only wonders how he would then retract.
In anycase here is D'Arcy on Composite Integrity, IC or Irreducible
Functionality:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Composite_Integrity
algorithm , in the same way that the Feed-Forward control of the IMU
in the pigeon's head allowing it to orient itself is separate from the
carbon the pigeon is made off.
Feed-forward control can be represented using a cluster of
copper,silicon atoms as in a Japanese walking robot or it can be
represented using carbon 'meat'. The matter representing the algorithm
doesn't constitute the algorithm.
D'arcy Thompson didn't know this of course but if you read the passage
closely, that I quoted; he had a glimpse of http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
falsifiability
''........Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection in a sense
so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
significance;.....''
The man was clearly a genius, he pre-empted Popper by realizing that a
theory that explains everything explains nothing.
But like the Wikipedia NS article he begged the question in his book
that I quoted from, because he never defined NS, unless somebody can
show me the passage and then I will correct this post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
''........Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which
biological traits become either more or less common in a population as
a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key
mechanism of evolution.............''
This passage from wikipedia begs the question, meaning that the
premise isn't being stated. Either the premise is that ns is the
metaphor for a full sentence or it isn't: this must be clearly
indicated, which it isn't. Things whether biological or otherwise
always become more or less common, this is a truism.
Gas molecules become more or less common with such behavior described
by falsifiable physics equations. Thus in a sense as Berlinski wrote
''ns functions as some sort of universal mechanism, making it just as
implausible as single differential equation explaining all of
physics''. But he also begged the question, because he never defines
the full sentence that NS is the metaphor for.
The crux of the matter isn't what does NS mean, but what do you mean.
Whatever you mean must be formulated in a full sentence that doesn't
contain the word-couplet 'natural selection'. After this sentence is
defined, then only can we refer to this sentence using 'natural
selection'.
D'Arcy description of Composite Integrity is clear , that if we had
changed the names , toned down the flowery grammar and presented it to
PZ Myers he would have trashed it as a YEC screed. After taking the
bait and on revealing it was actually D'Arcy Thompson whom PZ Myers
thinks very highly of , one only wonders how he would then retract.
In anycase here is D'Arcy on Composite Integrity, IC or Irreducible
Functionality:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Composite_Integrity
backspace
Dec 15, 2011, 5:59:31 AM12/15/11
to
On Dec 15, 6:14 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >JH wrote:
> >> You seem to have invested common descent with all manner of mystical
> >> connotations. It just refers to their being ancestors and descendants.
> >> Do you have ancestors? One may hope you don't have descendants.
>
> > CD is one of three main claims made by Darwinism: it says all species
> > have descended from one progenitor or common ancestor. This is a claim
> > that says species are connected in continuity having originated from
> > previously living species (through evolution). Your explanation above
> > is ad hoc.
>
> This is the maximum claim of common descent, one that Darwin in fact
> didn't make ("breathed into one form or a few"). There are degrees of
> common descent, like I said. One slight degree is descent within
> species. Do you accept that? Tony doesn't accept common descent by your
> definition -- he doesn't think all life has one common ancestor -- so
> your criticism of him seems mistaken, unless you want to revise that
> definition.
Your premise is that Pigeons were a species that acquired attributes
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >JH wrote:
> >> You seem to have invested common descent with all manner of mystical
> >> connotations. It just refers to their being ancestors and descendants.
> >> Do you have ancestors? One may hope you don't have descendants.
>
> > CD is one of three main claims made by Darwinism: it says all species
> > have descended from one progenitor or common ancestor. This is a claim
> > that says species are connected in continuity having originated from
> > previously living species (through evolution). Your explanation above
> > is ad hoc.
>
> This is the maximum claim of common descent, one that Darwin in fact
> didn't make ("breathed into one form or a few"). There are degrees of
> common descent, like I said. One slight degree is descent within
> species. Do you accept that? Tony doesn't accept common descent by your
> definition -- he doesn't think all life has one common ancestor -- so
> your criticism of him seems mistaken, unless you want to revise that
> definition.
that weren't in the previous generations. How did pigeons acquire
their IMU control algorithms gradually if at present they can only
survive if this algorithm which is symbolically represented with small
bones in their nose operate in what D'Arcy Thompson would have called
a ''Composite Integrity'' manner?
This is of course the argument from Behe's IC or what I term
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Irreducible_Functionality
The entire write-up there is an interpretation of D'Arcy. Possible
problem with this though is that I am not the brightest YEC and have
great difficulty in understanding some passages by Thompson and am
thus open to correct any errors in the article.
Ernest Major
Dec 15, 2011, 7:02:59 AM12/15/11
to
In message
<f29e8810-2915-4cec...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Pesticide resistance in mosquitoes.
Herbicide resistance in weeds.
Beak size in ground finches.
Spines in sticklebacks
>
>Waiting....
It has been explained to you that several times that occasionalism (like
omphalism, simulationism and solipsism) is not subject to evidential
falsification.
That you can use occasionalism as an epistemological position to dismiss
all evidence doesn't make the evidence non-existent; instead it makes
you a nihilist.
--
alias Ernest Major
<f29e8810-2915-4cec...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>Produce evidence that an unguided natural process caused any micro-
>modification in any species and I will promptly concede.
You didn't on previous occasions.
>modification in any species and I will promptly concede.
>
>Microevolution (species mutability) is an extraordinary claim that
>lacks ordinary evidence in support, not to mention extraordinary
>evidence.
Industrial melanism in moths.
>Microevolution (species mutability) is an extraordinary claim that
>lacks ordinary evidence in support, not to mention extraordinary
>evidence.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Pesticide resistance in mosquitoes.
Herbicide resistance in weeds.
Beak size in ground finches.
Spines in sticklebacks
>
>Waiting....
It has been explained to you that several times that occasionalism (like
omphalism, simulationism and solipsism) is not subject to evidential
falsification.
That you can use occasionalism as an epistemological position to dismiss
all evidence doesn't make the evidence non-existent; instead it makes
you a nihilist.
--
alias Ernest Major
Steven L.
Dec 15, 2011, 7:49:31 AM12/15/11
to
news:86WdnRpR_YT...@giganews.com:
It could be--but it could also be that no matter how far back you go,
the common ancestor of all humans can't be found to be a human. Just
like there's no guarantee that all your ancestors were named Harshman.
At some point in the past, you had an ancestor who wasn't named
Harshman.
The moment you introduce a non-human life form, the common ancestor of
all three--you and I and that non-human creature--is non-human. Hence
humans have non-human ancestors.
>
> > Phillip Johnson has agreed that this is still compatible with
> > Intelligent Design.
>
> Doesn't Johnson still deny common descent (of all life), or is he just
> not saying?
No.
I've quoted him before on this NG as saying that he could even accept
common descent--just not entirely by natural selection.
-- Steven L.
the common ancestor of all humans can't be found to be a human. Just
like there's no guarantee that all your ancestors were named Harshman.
At some point in the past, you had an ancestor who wasn't named
Harshman.
The moment you introduce a non-human life form, the common ancestor of
all three--you and I and that non-human creature--is non-human. Hence
humans have non-human ancestors.
>
> > Phillip Johnson has agreed that this is still compatible with
> > Intelligent Design.
>
> Doesn't Johnson still deny common descent (of all life), or is he just
> not saying?
I've quoted him before on this NG as saying that he could even accept
common descent--just not entirely by natural selection.
-- Steven L.
Burkhard
Dec 15, 2011, 8:56:34 AM12/15/11
to
Of course they can. First, the issue is common descend, not
intelligent or unintelligent causation. It is perfectly possible, from
a purely logical point of view, to have theories of evolution that do
not have common descent of all life - in such a model, you have
polygenesis, naturalistic emergence of first life at different times
and places, and then each of them starting different evolutionary
pathways. Nothing logically impossible about this - it is after all
the most widely accepted model for the evolution of language.
In such a purely naturalistic model, we have a lower degree of common
descent than in the standard model, so CD can obviously come in
degrees, even within the purely naturalistic paradigm.
nor are there any logical reasons why in a model that has some design,
there could not be varying degrees of CD. God could have created the
first cell,and then let evolution take over - as much common descent
as the standard model of the ToE. Or he cloud have designed a certain
number of prototypes, and then let natural mechanisms such as
evolution care for the differentiation between members of these
prototypes. The more prototypes, the less CD - not just a singular
middle ground, but a continuum of degrees of CD.
Your position is just the extreme point on that spectrum of logically
possible theories of CD
>
> read more »
Greg Guarino
Dec 15, 2011, 9:31:21 AM12/15/11
to
On 12/15/2011 1:14 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> So you're saying that you are not descended from your parents, but you
> were designed. Is that correct?
As best I can tell, that is what he is saying.
> So you're saying that you are not descended from your parents, but you
> were designed. Is that correct?
There is no natural causation at all. The chemical properties of DNA are
not what forms new similar DNA, God shepherds each subatomic particle.
If I drop a lit match in a wastebasket, it is not the properties of
carbon and oxygen that causes them to form bonds and release energy, and
if I throw the burning garbage out the window it is not gravity that
pulls it toward the ground.
God controls all ... except whether or not human beings accept God, and
possibly other choices we make. But those choices are manifestly not the
result of chemical interactions in our brains.
I imagine, although I haven't actually seen Ray assert this, that the
regularities we see in nature are God's "favor" to us; He controls
nature in (usually) predictable ways so that we can grow crops, build
buildings, waste time on newsgroups etc.
If any of this is a distortion of your position Ray, I would be happy to
be corrected.
Greg Guarino
Burkhard
Dec 15, 2011, 9:25:44 AM12/15/11
to
On Dec 15, 1:28 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
events and exhibitions in Dundee. My understanding was that he meant
indeed the laws of physics - "Cell tissue, shell and bone, leaf and
flower, are so many portions of matter, and it is obedience to the
laws of physics that their particles have been moved, moulded and
conformed."
But then, his view of physics was highly mathematical, and so
ultimately this may be a distinction without a difference? As to the
difference with NS, I must admit I'm not sure, especially as he seems
to be talking of selection as source of novelty (maybe reflecting the
pre-synthesis times) , but it seems to me that he not so much rejected
NS, but thought that we need to state in addition physical constraints
that work independently of any environmental pressure - we don't
observe people with unequal number of arms not because they are
selected against and those with the gene have all died, but because
some underlying laws make anything but symmetrical layouts impossible
to start with,
Burkhard
Dec 15, 2011, 9:54:04 AM12/15/11
to
On Dec 15, 6:14 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> > You want Tony to believe otherwise because as it sits
> > now he at least accepts some of your main claims concerning nature.
> > Tony does not understand, unlike you and I, that the concepts of ID
> > and unintelligent evolution cannot both exist in nature at the same
> > time.
>
> Don't try to pin that one on me. I understand that the phenomena (not
> concepts: phenomena) of ID and unintelligent evolution could easily both
> exist at the same time. It's just that any particular event must be one
> or the other. Some events could be one or the other as long as no single
> event is claimed to be both at once.
>
way the late and great (and very very Christian) philosopher Anscombe
described, drawing on the concept of "double effect" from catholic
moral teaching: Peter died because a piece of led ruptured his heart
and the blood loss deprived his brain of oxygen (naturalistic) vs.
Peter died because Paul intentionally shot him (intelligent designed
death). Two different descriptions for the same event, both equally
valid and doing different jobs.
<snip.
>
> So you're saying that you are not descended from your parents, but you
> were designed. Is that correct?
Guess something just lost the truing test... :o)
> So you're saying that you are not descended from your parents, but you
> were designed. Is that correct?
<snip>
Greg Guarino
Dec 15, 2011, 10:06:24 AM12/15/11
to
On 12/15/2011 1:18 AM, John Harshman wrote:
you tacitly agree with his absolute duality. He sees all as designed,
you see none. What makes him wrong, empirically, is that there are many
people who do indeed occupy positions in between.
Some, and Ray even knows their name, believe that God designed the
universe and the properties of its contents, then let things unfold
according to the "rules".
There are probably people who go just one step further; God didn't just
rely on the interesting properties of Carbon compounds, He actually
seeded the Earth with the first life forms, then sat back to watch the
movie.
There are certainly people who think that God created the first life,
and then intervened with a fortuitous mutation here and there to "guide"
evolution.
Continuing along, there are the people Ray calls "fundies" (which always
makes me chuckle a little), the AIG folks who posit an "orchard" of life
rather than a tree. God creates Ur-creatures which then evolve extremely
quickly according to their initial programming.
There are any number of other permutations, positions that real people
actually hold, including those who accept natural causation for nearly
every event, but allow that God may intervene here and there, perhaps in
response to prayers.
Now obviously most of humanity must be wrong (all of it, perhaps), but
that doesn't mean that such positions don't exist.
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > With this said: tell us John, what is designed
> > in nature?
>
> In my opinion, nothing, at least in the sense you mean it. Of course
> people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
> claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that still
> isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
> and I don't see any evidence for that.
>
I predict that Ray will take your response as (further) evidence that
>
> > With this said: tell us John, what is designed
> > in nature?
>
> In my opinion, nothing, at least in the sense you mean it. Of course
> people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
> claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that still
> isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
> and I don't see any evidence for that.
>
you tacitly agree with his absolute duality. He sees all as designed,
you see none. What makes him wrong, empirically, is that there are many
people who do indeed occupy positions in between.
Some, and Ray even knows their name, believe that God designed the
universe and the properties of its contents, then let things unfold
according to the "rules".
There are probably people who go just one step further; God didn't just
rely on the interesting properties of Carbon compounds, He actually
seeded the Earth with the first life forms, then sat back to watch the
movie.
There are certainly people who think that God created the first life,
and then intervened with a fortuitous mutation here and there to "guide"
evolution.
Continuing along, there are the people Ray calls "fundies" (which always
makes me chuckle a little), the AIG folks who posit an "orchard" of life
rather than a tree. God creates Ur-creatures which then evolve extremely
quickly according to their initial programming.
There are any number of other permutations, positions that real people
actually hold, including those who accept natural causation for nearly
every event, but allow that God may intervene here and there, perhaps in
response to prayers.
Now obviously most of humanity must be wrong (all of it, perhaps), but
that doesn't mean that such positions don't exist.
John Harshman
Dec 15, 2011, 11:32:17 AM12/15/11
to
to which you are supposedly responding.
John Harshman
Dec 15, 2011, 11:43:43 AM12/15/11
to
fact there would be many choices, given the complex web of
relationships) would be human. But what does that have to do with anything?
> Just
> like there's no guarantee that all your ancestors were named Harshman.
> At some point in the past, you had an ancestor who wasn't named Harshman.
generation to find an ancestor who wasn't named Harshman: my mother. So
what?
> The moment you introduce a non-human life form, the common ancestor of
> all three--you and I and that non-human creature--is non-human. Hence
> humans have non-human ancestors.
non-human. My point is that you can accept common ancestry within humans
while rejecting common ancestry between species. What is your point? So
far I am not getting it.
>> > Phillip Johnson has agreed that this is still compatible with
>> > Intelligent Design.
>>
>> Doesn't Johnson still deny common descent (of all life), or is he just
>> not saying?
>
> No.
> I've quoted him before on this NG as saying that he could even accept
> common descent--just not entirely by natural selection.
something he cares about. You get a lot of IDers who take this position
on a surprising number of crucial scientific non-issues: how old the
earth is, whether humans are related to apes, whether the hypothetical
designer is a space alien, and so on. They seem in general oddly incurious.
Burkhard
Dec 15, 2011, 11:49:03 AM12/15/11
to
> falsifiability
>
> ''........Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection in a sense
> so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
> significance;.....''
>
> The man was clearly a genius, he pre-empted Popper by realizing that a
> theory that explains everything explains nothing.
I don't think you get him quite right. He is proposing an even more
>
> ''........Unless indeed we use the term Natural Selection in a sense
> so wide as to deprive it of any purely biological
> significance;.....''
>
> The man was clearly a genius, he pre-empted Popper by realizing that a
> theory that explains everything explains nothing.
ambitious project than the theory of evolution for biological
entities. In that hypothetical future theory of the "growth of forms",
NS, if it had any role at all, would indeed be so generic that one
could doubt what its actual role would be (as it would also apply to
entities that do not produce offspring) - but as he never developed
that theory by his own admission) the issue is moot. This however is
not a comment about NS as used in evolutionary biology (which for him
is too narrow, not too wide as you imply) He does have issues with NS,
but only in the sense that he thinks it tells only a small part of the
story. e wrote of course before the modern synthesis, and quite a lot
of biologists today would agree with that statement anyway, if for
different reasons.
at all. At the every best, it would fit all sorts of creationists
accounts, including OEC
And I would strongly expect Myers to be fully aware of the various non-
adaptionist or structuralist schools in evolutionary biology. While
none of them ever became exactly mainstream, they are argued for by
quite serious and perfectly secular scientists, such as Brian Goodwin
(of whom Dawkins said: "I don't think there's much good evidence to
support [his thesis], but it's important that somebody like Brian
Goodwin is saying that kind of thing, because it provides the other
extreme, and the truth probably lies somewhere between.")
Bob Casanova
Dec 15, 2011, 1:30:08 PM12/15/11
to
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:06:24 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Greg Guarino
<gdgu...@gmail.com>:
And all of this (thanks for the summary, BTW) is the reason
I believe that classic agnosticism is the only rational
approach - we don't know, and we probably can never know,
which of these is correct. Faith can choose which to
believe, but all science can do is find and evaluate
evidence and ignore anything which can't be demonstrated.
Ray calls this refusal to examine things which are
unevidenced "atheism", which only shows that Ray is
definition-challenged.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in talk.origins, posted by Greg Guarino
<gdgu...@gmail.com>:
I believe that classic agnosticism is the only rational
approach - we don't know, and we probably can never know,
which of these is correct. Faith can choose which to
believe, but all science can do is find and evaluate
evidence and ignore anything which can't be demonstrated.
Ray calls this refusal to examine things which are
unevidenced "atheism", which only shows that Ray is
definition-challenged.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Greg Guarino
Dec 15, 2011, 2:29:43 PM12/15/11
to
On 12/15/2011 1:30 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Now obviously most of humanity must be wrong (all of it, perhaps), but
>> >that doesn't mean that such positions don't exist.
> And all of this (thanks for the summary, BTW)
"Summary" is too grandiose a term for the few "beliefs" that occurred to
>> Now obviously most of humanity must be wrong (all of it, perhaps), but
>> >that doesn't mean that such positions don't exist.
> And all of this (thanks for the summary, BTW)
me as I wrote it.
is the reason
> I believe that classic agnosticism is the only rational
> approach - we don't know, and we probably can never know,
> which of these is correct.
is anything like a good approximation.
Ray Martinez
Dec 15, 2011, 3:56:51 PM12/15/11
to
On Dec 14, 5:11 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <0b92f092-0aed-45d3-9c6b-795b39d24...@h4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 13, 1:57 pm, Karel <GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> >> > Ray
>
> >> To appreciate Darwin's eureka-moment it is good to remember
> >> what Malthus was claiming: that populations, if unchecked,
> >> would increase in a power series which could not be matched
> >> by increases in resources and that therefore population
> >> increase would run into a wall of (relatively) diminishing
> >> resources.
>
> >> It is unclear to me if Darwin ever accepted Malthus completely,
> >> but it is clear what he picked up from him: in the natural world
> >> much more progeny is generated than can sustained by the
> >> resources of the environment (observed fact); resulting in a
> >> severe culling of the progeny (observed fact); offering the
> >> circumstances in which favourable variations would be preserved
> >> (the anchor point for his subsequent research).
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Karel
>
> >If you are seconding? then you must say so.
>
> [SNIP....] Claiming that you have no idea about w[hat]
> Charles Darwin was writing about makes a mockery of your claim to be
> writing a book that will refute evolution.
>
I said the quote and its claim is senseless, the #1 Chez Watt of all
time. What Darwin is on about does not exist (except in his
imagination). Remember: I am writing a book refuting evolution; this
means EVERYTHING I say can and will be supported scientifically.
Ray
> In message
> <0b92f092-0aed-45d3-9c6b-795b39d24...@h4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 13, 1:57 pm, Karel <GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
> >> To appreciate Darwin's eureka-moment it is good to remember
> >> what Malthus was claiming: that populations, if unchecked,
> >> would increase in a power series which could not be matched
> >> by increases in resources and that therefore population
> >> increase would run into a wall of (relatively) diminishing
> >> resources.
>
> >> It is unclear to me if Darwin ever accepted Malthus completely,
> >> but it is clear what he picked up from him: in the natural world
> >> much more progeny is generated than can sustained by the
> >> resources of the environment (observed fact); resulting in a
> >> severe culling of the progeny (observed fact); offering the
> >> circumstances in which favourable variations would be preserved
> >> (the anchor point for his subsequent research).
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Karel
>
> >If you are seconding? then you must say so.
>
> [SNIP....] Claiming that you have no idea about w[hat]
> Charles Darwin was writing about makes a mockery of your claim to be
> writing a book that will refute evolution.
>
I said the quote and its claim is senseless, the #1 Chez Watt of all
time. What Darwin is on about does not exist (except in his
imagination). Remember: I am writing a book refuting evolution; this
means EVERYTHING I say can and will be supported scientifically.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Dec 15, 2011, 4:04:26 PM12/15/11
to
On Dec 14, 10:13 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:17:30 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 12, 10:00 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:00:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> >On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> >> >> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> >> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >> >> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> >> >> >adaptation themselves; if they
> >> >> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
> >> >> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>
> >> >> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
> >> >> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
> >> >> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
> >> >> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>
> >> >> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>
> >> >> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
> >> >> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
> >> >> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
> >> >Rephrase, replacing selection with Erasmus Darwin's cultivation as in
> >> >Artificial cultivation from his book Zoonomia. Darwin lifted AC and
> >> >changed it to AS and Patrick Matthew restated Buffon, Lamarck and
> >> >Erasmus as shown byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_Butler:
>
> >> >Rephrase:
> >> >Any species which exists is comprised of individuals whose ancestors
> >> >were survivors of a CULTIVATION process performed by the
> >> >environment.
>
> >> >Rephrase again in terms of Patrick Matthew:
>
> >> >Species are comprised of individuals whose ancestors were survivors of
> >> >a CULTIVATION process performed by the environment.
>
> >> >Reduce again:
> >> >Species consist of individuals who survived the CULTIVATION process
> >> >performed by the environment.
>
> >> >Finally:
> >> >Species consist of those who survived the 'competitive means of
> >> >natural cultivation' by the environment.
>
> >> >Possible interpretation:
> >> >New species who's ancestors didn't possess the present attributes were
> >> >constituted with new attributes
> >> >by surviving the 'competitive means of natural cultivation' by the
> >> >environment'.
>
> >> >Further interpretation:
> >> >Anything that exists obtained attributes that weren't previously there
> >> >by out-competing the other
> >> >within a competitive cultivating environment'.
>
> >> OK so far, although the term "cultivation" has connotations
> >> of intent not justified by the lack of intent in the
> >> process. So your rephrase and interpretation adds no
> >> clarity; in fact, it reduces it.
>
> >> >Which Reduces to Democritus Atomism or what Henry Fairfield Osborn
> >> >referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms' -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
> >> >in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
>
> >> >Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
> >> >have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
> >> >atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
> >> >'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
> >> >while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
> >> >were thus eliminated.
>
> >> Oops; no, it doesn't. Atoms are unchangeable (except through
> >> processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
> >> and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
> >> sense of biological evolution.
>
> >> >Problem with this story is that it ishttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
> >> >unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
> >> >atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
>
> >> You seem to think that since *some* descendants will replace
> >> the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
> >> extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
> >> problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
> >> predicts that in general a population will comprise those
> >> descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
> >> environment in which they lived.
>
> >> But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
> >> you have no point.
> >In pigeons we can *select* or *cultivate* as in Erasmus Darwin's
> >Artificial Cultivation for chars. we desire. Wild pigeons and AC
> >pigeons both implemented gyro, IMU control algorithms and compensate
> >for their magnetometer delay using some type of feed-forward control.
> >In magnetometers used on UAV's the delay is 0.08seconds between
> >readings, which given the speed a uav travels at leads to orientation
> >errors and thus feed-forward control is used to compensate .
>
> >The uav isn't adapted or adapting to anything, it only expresses its
> >attributes. Wild pigeons surviving natures 'natural competitive
> >selection,survival,accumulation or cultivation' process as well as
> >pigeons bred in captivity for certain attributes still do only one
> >thing: express pre-existing control algorithm attributes that their
> >ancestors possessed.
>
> >At no point in time were the present attributes acquired, they were
> >there hidden in the genome. Feed-forward control , PID or what pigeons
> >use Neural network control were present in both the artificially
> >cultivated(selected) and *naturally selected,preserved* pigeons.
>
> >Control engineers inform us that control theory involves an
> >indissoluble association between mathematical constructs. This control
> >algorithm was passed from pigeon to pigeon in an Behe IC or D'Arcy
> >Wentworth Thompson 'composite integrity' manner. The algorithm was
> >'there' somewhere 'waiting' for the chick to grow and finally
> >stabilize itself in flight.
>
> And what, exactly, has this to do with selection, other than
> the fact that selection can only act on existing traits,
> something no one denies?
>
> >Where exactly was this algorithm stored and how did this algorithm get
> >transferred from the blob of amino acids that formed the egg?
>
> In the genome, which we know exists and which we have begun
> to decipher.
>
> > The
> >algorithm was stored in the mind of Jesus Christ
>
> ....which we have no evidence exists...
>
Bob's pro-Atheism bias showing AGAIN!
Only extreme fringe "scholars" deny the existence of Christ. The Jesus
Seminar is probably the most anti-orthodox Christianity group in
Western society (not counting the AtheistCLU). Even they admit Christ
existed.
Ray
> > it has no physical
> >location.
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:17:30 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 12, 10:00 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:00:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> >On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:53:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> >> >> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> >> >On Dec 11, 1:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> >> >> >orig...@moderators.isc.org" > Species do the measuring of favourable
> >> >> >adaptation themselves; if they
> >> >> >> survive and reproduce, they're favoured.
> >> >> >By this logic anything that exists if favored for being in existence,
>
> >> >> Not quite: Any species which exists is comprised of
> >> >> individuals whose ancestors were survivors of a selection
> >> >> process performed by the environment. You'll note that this
> >> >> reverses the cause/effect of your statement.
>
> >> >> >which is what Darwin's logic reduces to.
>
> >> >> Since Darwin's forte was primarily observation, and his
> >> >> conclusions were based on that observation, how does your
> >> >> evaluation of his logic enter the question?
> >> >Rephrase, replacing selection with Erasmus Darwin's cultivation as in
> >> >Artificial cultivation from his book Zoonomia. Darwin lifted AC and
> >> >changed it to AS and Patrick Matthew restated Buffon, Lamarck and
> >> >Erasmus as shown byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Samuel_Butler:
>
> >> >Rephrase:
> >> >Any species which exists is comprised of individuals whose ancestors
> >> >were survivors of a CULTIVATION process performed by the
> >> >environment.
>
> >> >Rephrase again in terms of Patrick Matthew:
>
> >> >Species are comprised of individuals whose ancestors were survivors of
> >> >a CULTIVATION process performed by the environment.
>
> >> >Reduce again:
> >> >Species consist of individuals who survived the CULTIVATION process
> >> >performed by the environment.
>
> >> >Finally:
> >> >Species consist of those who survived the 'competitive means of
> >> >natural cultivation' by the environment.
>
> >> >Possible interpretation:
> >> >New species who's ancestors didn't possess the present attributes were
> >> >constituted with new attributes
> >> >by surviving the 'competitive means of natural cultivation' by the
> >> >environment'.
>
> >> >Further interpretation:
> >> >Anything that exists obtained attributes that weren't previously there
> >> >by out-competing the other
> >> >within a competitive cultivating environment'.
>
> >> OK so far, although the term "cultivation" has connotations
> >> of intent not justified by the lack of intent in the
> >> process. So your rephrase and interpretation adds no
> >> clarity; in fact, it reduces it.
>
> >> >Which Reduces to Democritus Atomism or what Henry Fairfield Osborn
> >> >referred to as the 'Doctrine of Atoms' -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/HenryFairfieldOsborn
> >> >in his book: From the Greeks to Darwin.
>
> >> >Democritus believed that atoms existed for eternity , thus he didn't
> >> >have to explain where they came from in the first place. The present
> >> >atoms obtained attributes they did not previously posses via the
> >> >'natural means of competitive selection,cultivation or survival',
> >> >while the atoms they competed against didn't obtain the attributes and
> >> >were thus eliminated.
>
> >> Oops; no, it doesn't. Atoms are unchangeable (except through
> >> processes which are predictable regarding the change itself
> >> and the pathway). There is no "evolution" of atoms in the
> >> sense of biological evolution.
>
> >> >Problem with this story is that it ishttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Popper
> >> >unfalsifiable, because we would be told the same thing if the other
> >> >atom came to dominate its atomic ecological niche.
>
> >> You seem to think that since *some* descendants will replace
> >> the original population (assuming the species doesn't go
> >> extinct with no descendant species) this is somehow a
> >> problem for evolution. It's not, since evolution only
> >> predicts that in general a population will comprise those
> >> descendants whose ancestors were best adapted to the
> >> environment in which they lived.
>
> >> But since your analogy (atoms vs living things) is incorrect
> >> you have no point.
> >In pigeons we can *select* or *cultivate* as in Erasmus Darwin's
> >Artificial Cultivation for chars. we desire. Wild pigeons and AC
> >pigeons both implemented gyro, IMU control algorithms and compensate
> >for their magnetometer delay using some type of feed-forward control.
> >In magnetometers used on UAV's the delay is 0.08seconds between
> >readings, which given the speed a uav travels at leads to orientation
> >errors and thus feed-forward control is used to compensate .
>
> >The uav isn't adapted or adapting to anything, it only expresses its
> >attributes. Wild pigeons surviving natures 'natural competitive
> >selection,survival,accumulation or cultivation' process as well as
> >pigeons bred in captivity for certain attributes still do only one
> >thing: express pre-existing control algorithm attributes that their
> >ancestors possessed.
>
> >At no point in time were the present attributes acquired, they were
> >there hidden in the genome. Feed-forward control , PID or what pigeons
> >use Neural network control were present in both the artificially
> >cultivated(selected) and *naturally selected,preserved* pigeons.
>
> >Control engineers inform us that control theory involves an
> >indissoluble association between mathematical constructs. This control
> >algorithm was passed from pigeon to pigeon in an Behe IC or D'Arcy
> >Wentworth Thompson 'composite integrity' manner. The algorithm was
> >'there' somewhere 'waiting' for the chick to grow and finally
> >stabilize itself in flight.
>
> And what, exactly, has this to do with selection, other than
> the fact that selection can only act on existing traits,
> something no one denies?
>
> >Where exactly was this algorithm stored and how did this algorithm get
> >transferred from the blob of amino acids that formed the egg?
>
> In the genome, which we know exists and which we have begun
> to decipher.
>
> > The
> >algorithm was stored in the mind of Jesus Christ
>
> ....which we have no evidence exists...
>
Bob's pro-Atheism bias showing AGAIN!
Only extreme fringe "scholars" deny the existence of Christ. The Jesus
Seminar is probably the most anti-orthodox Christianity group in
Western society (not counting the AtheistCLU). Even they admit Christ
existed.
Ray
> > it has no physical
> >location.
Ray Martinez
Dec 15, 2011, 4:22:00 PM12/15/11
to
On Dec 14, 3:06 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/11 2:16 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > with me that Darwinism is Atheist "science."
>
> Tony didn't claim to be 'in Darwin's corner". He asked what do you
> think is wrong with Darwin's reasoning here. Evolution is not atheist
> at all, but it is science.
>
> Tony is falsely claiming here that favorable mutations are not
> preserved, and that Darwin's extrapolation from Malthus was wrong. He's
> not saying that Darwin's reasoning was wrong, but what Darwin learned
> from Malthus was wrong. This is, of course not true, but it's not an
> attack on Darwin's reasoning.
> > science is immersed in gross misundersatnding .
>
> As is your own, Ray. Both you and Tony are wrong in different ways.
>
> > Some time ago you
> > acquainted yourself with various on-topic historical literature. At
> > the time you thought you understood what was being said. Then in the
> > process of time your understanding gathered cobwebs. Your present
> > knowledge is wholly defective concerning on-topic basics.
>
> Also, Ray, your grasp of the "basics" is also completely mistaken. You
> still need to realize that your own personal opinions, fantasies, and
> delusions are not facts.
>
>
>
> > I studied the same literature full time for 2 years THEN announced
> > conversion to species immutability. Microevolution is a pro-Atheist
> > assumption based on discovery of close morphological similarity and
> > the perceived impossibility of Special Creation; in other words it is
> > an anti-theological doctrine.
>
> It's sad to think that you studied the literature for two years, and are
> that badly mistaken about it. Of course, your claim to have studied
> any literature is suspect, but that's another topic.
>
> Microevoltion is not "pro atheist", and not an assumption. It's an
> observation which doesn't support, or oppose atheism. Anatomical
> similarity is one observation that supports evolution, but not the only
> one. Also, the supposed "impossibility" of special creation had
> nothing to do with the discovery of evolution.
>
> Special creation can't be judged to be "impossible" by science, but
> it's never been observed, and science doesn't permit appeals to the
> supernatural. Natural processes explain the presence of living things
> much better than an unsupported assumption like "special creation",
> which is why evolution is a scientific theory, and special creation is a
> religious belief.
>
> > This is why all Atheists accept
> > microevolution.
>
> As Ray already knows, not all atheists do accept microevolution. Those
> atheists who do,( granted, the vast majority of atheists), accept
> evolution for the same reason people of all religious positions do, ie,
> it's the best scientific explanation for the evidence.
>
> In short, microevolution is accepted by everyone except for Ray, because
> it's been observed so often it's impossible for a sane person to deny.
> That even the vast majority of creationists accept a small level of
> evolution indicates that it's not rejecting God that leads one to that
> conclusion.
>
> > They have no choice since no God exists, Tony. We
> > explain close similarity as what one should expect to see if ONE
> > Divine Mastermind is creating diversity.
>
> Of course, atheists have many other choices, and it doesn't matter if
> God exists, or not. Evolution is still a fact.
>
> The "mastermind" assertion doesn't explain close similarities, or
> diversity because this "mastermind" has never been observed, and no one
> has any way of determining his/her/it's capabilities. There's no
> reason to suspect a "mastermind" would produce *any* similarities
> between independently created organisms, much less the specific pattern
> of nested morphological, and genetic similarities that is explained by
> common descent with modification.
> >> next.
>
> > Microevolution only came into acceptance based on Darwin 1859 (and it
> > is INFERRED, not observed directly).
>
> Ray, all observation requires inference. It's been observed directly by
> any meaningful definition of the term. Also, the term "microevolution"
> came into use a fairly long time after Darwin, but the idea of species
> change was already gaining ground among scientists before Darwin
> published.
>
> > Before, species were held
> > immutable by science.
>
> But that had begun to change, before Darwin came along. Even Linnaeus
> accepted that new species could come about by hybridization. Stock
> breeders, and farmers knew that new varieties of animals and plants
> could be bred from earlier populations.
>
> > The claim and concept PRESUPPOSES unintelligent
> > causation a scientific fact.
>
> No, it does not, as has been explained to you many times. Changes in
> populations were known to have been brought about by selective breeding.
> "Unintelligent causation" is just your scare word for "natural
> processes". There's no reason why a supernatural being can't use
> natural processes as a means of creation, if that's what you wish to
> believe.
>
"Natural processes," as understood since the rise of Darwinism, means
Nature itself is causing species to exist, supernatural Being is ruled
out.
And yes one can still choose to believe anything they want; that's
called "the subjective."
Like Tony, you do not understand the most basic fact of the Creation
v. Evolution dispute. Both of you are victims of Atheist propaganda.
> > You are an IDist. I am an IDist. We do
> > not accept the main claims of Atheist "science."
>
> Neither of you accept science in general. Science is not atheist, just
> because it conflicts with your personal religious assumptions.
>
> > Since unintelligent
> > causation does not exist,
>
> Natural processes can be observed to exist, Ray. Claiming otherwise
> just makes you look insane.
>
I agree with Dawkins in that one party is genuinely deluded. Natural
unintelligent processes do not exist in the wild. The Darwinists are
suffering delusion. A certain Stanford Ph.D. has unveiled the fact.
Only designed processes exist in nature.
Ray
> > the effect of microevolution cannot exist.
>
> Again, it doesn't follow. Even if you were correct, and all processes
> are under the direct control of a supernatural being the effect of
> allele change in a population over generations can exist. What could
> possibly stop it from happening, if God wished it to?
>
> > IF species change THEN said change must be called designed based on
> > the fact that it was and is caused by Intelligent causation.
>
> If so, it's simply directed evolution. It's still change in allele
> frequencies in populations over time, ie evolution. If it takes place
> at a level below speciation, it's microevolution BY DEFINITION.
>
> > For you
> > to say there is little controversy about microevolution is true; in
> > fact there is NO scientific controversy, whatsoever.
>
> Which shows you are wrong. Microevolution happens.
>
> > Science, since
> > the rise of Darwinism, holds species mutable.
>
> Science "holds" this because species have been observed to be mutable.
> Darwin didn't change science, and he did not make it "atheist".
>
> > But again, the main
> > point is that said mutability was and is accepted as being caused by
> > unintelligent causation.
>
> And that's your mistake, which you won't face up to. "Said mutability"
> is accepted to be caused by an observed mechanism, ie mutation and
> selection, with a few other processes as well. It doesn't matter to
> science if the cause is completely unintelligent, or if has a overriding
> intelligence behind it, that science can't see.
>
> Either way, "mutability" is a fact. The cause of the change is not
> relevant to the fact of species change.
>
> > Therefore for you to accept microevolution
> > means you accept its cause.
>
> Again, Ray, you are throwing out non sequiturs left and right.
> Accepting the fact that change happens within populations does not mean
> one must accept the cause of those changes.
>
> > Science, since Darwin, is wrong.
>
> That's something you have not shown, even in principle.
>
> > Unintelligent causation does not exist. The Atheists are deluded. It
> > is IMPOSSIBLE for species to change. The Atheists ASSUME micro-change.
> > Variation is NOT microevolution, but a product of the womb which is an
> > ID factory.
>
> These are just your own personal beliefs, and are entirely unsupported
> by reality. Even if the womb were an "ID factory", that doesn't mean
> that species are unable to change. Even if there were supernatural
> influence on evolution, the "unintelligent causation" still exists, and
> still produces species change over time. Instead of showing that
> atheists are deluded, you are showing yourself to be deluded.
>
>
>
> > You have championed the fact that evolution is NOT seen in the
> > paleontological crust of the Earth.
>
> Which is false. Evolution is seen in the fossil record. There are
> several well known fossil sequences which show evolution happening over
> time.
>
>
>
> > As the mantra goes: species appear
>
> ...
>
> read more »
> On 12/14/11 2:16 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Dec 13, 6:31 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> In what way is there something wrong with Darwin's reasoning?
>
> > SUDDENLY Tony is in Darwin's corner. Yet not too long ago he agreed
>
> > with me that Darwinism is Atheist "science."
>
> Tony didn't claim to be 'in Darwin's corner". He asked what do you
> think is wrong with Darwin's reasoning here. Evolution is not atheist
> at all, but it is science.
>
>
>
> >> Darwin
> >> extrapolated from Malthus's hypothesis about human events to the
> >> biological world in general. That is, he hypothesized that perhaps
> >> all (or most) populations sharing ecological niches always and
> >> everywhere fought to consume limited resources. If true it would be a
> >> driving force in differential survival and differential reproduction.
> >> In hind sight we know that Darwin's extrapolation of Malthus's
> >> hypothesis is not true. And Darwin's assumption that favorable
> >> mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.
> >> Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
> >> something untoward.
>
> > Baffling; now Darwin's reasoning is not true?
>
>
> >> Darwin
> >> extrapolated from Malthus's hypothesis about human events to the
> >> biological world in general. That is, he hypothesized that perhaps
> >> all (or most) populations sharing ecological niches always and
> >> everywhere fought to consume limited resources. If true it would be a
> >> driving force in differential survival and differential reproduction.
> >> In hind sight we know that Darwin's extrapolation of Malthus's
> >> hypothesis is not true. And Darwin's assumption that favorable
> >> mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.
> >> Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
> >> something untoward.
>
>
> Tony is falsely claiming here that favorable mutations are not
> preserved, and that Darwin's extrapolation from Malthus was wrong. He's
> not saying that Darwin's reasoning was wrong, but what Darwin learned
> from Malthus was wrong. This is, of course not true, but it's not an
> attack on Darwin's reasoning.
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
> >>>>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
> >>>>>>> case you didn't know).
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
> >>>>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
> >>>>>>> case you didn't know).
>
> >> 1. I never claim to be well versed in anything. Instead I repeatedly
> >> admit my infinite ignorance.
>
> > Not concerning anything specific. Your knowledge in the history of
> >> admit my infinite ignorance.
>
> > science is immersed in gross misundersatnding .
>
> As is your own, Ray. Both you and Tony are wrong in different ways.
>
> > Some time ago you
> > acquainted yourself with various on-topic historical literature. At
> > the time you thought you understood what was being said. Then in the
> > process of time your understanding gathered cobwebs. Your present
> > knowledge is wholly defective concerning on-topic basics.
>
> Also, Ray, your grasp of the "basics" is also completely mistaken. You
> still need to realize that your own personal opinions, fantasies, and
> delusions are not facts.
>
>
>
> > I studied the same literature full time for 2 years THEN announced
> > conversion to species immutability. Microevolution is a pro-Atheist
> > assumption based on discovery of close morphological similarity and
> > the perceived impossibility of Special Creation; in other words it is
> > an anti-theological doctrine.
>
> It's sad to think that you studied the literature for two years, and are
> that badly mistaken about it. Of course, your claim to have studied
> any literature is suspect, but that's another topic.
>
> Microevoltion is not "pro atheist", and not an assumption. It's an
> observation which doesn't support, or oppose atheism. Anatomical
> similarity is one observation that supports evolution, but not the only
> one. Also, the supposed "impossibility" of special creation had
> nothing to do with the discovery of evolution.
>
> Special creation can't be judged to be "impossible" by science, but
> it's never been observed, and science doesn't permit appeals to the
> supernatural. Natural processes explain the presence of living things
> much better than an unsupported assumption like "special creation",
> which is why evolution is a scientific theory, and special creation is a
> religious belief.
>
> > This is why all Atheists accept
> > microevolution.
>
> As Ray already knows, not all atheists do accept microevolution. Those
> atheists who do,( granted, the vast majority of atheists), accept
> evolution for the same reason people of all religious positions do, ie,
> it's the best scientific explanation for the evidence.
>
> In short, microevolution is accepted by everyone except for Ray, because
> it's been observed so often it's impossible for a sane person to deny.
> That even the vast majority of creationists accept a small level of
> evolution indicates that it's not rejecting God that leads one to that
> conclusion.
>
> > They have no choice since no God exists, Tony. We
> > explain close similarity as what one should expect to see if ONE
> > Divine Mastermind is creating diversity.
>
> Of course, atheists have many other choices, and it doesn't matter if
> God exists, or not. Evolution is still a fact.
>
> The "mastermind" assertion doesn't explain close similarities, or
> diversity because this "mastermind" has never been observed, and no one
> has any way of determining his/her/it's capabilities. There's no
> reason to suspect a "mastermind" would produce *any* similarities
> between independently created organisms, much less the specific pattern
> of nested morphological, and genetic similarities that is explained by
> common descent with modification.
>
>
>
> >> 2. While I don't like the term "microevolution," (and rarely use it)
> >> there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
> >> short hand label for any observable change from one generation to the
>
>
> >> 2. While I don't like the term "microevolution," (and rarely use it)
> >> there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
> >> next.
>
> > Microevolution only came into acceptance based on Darwin 1859 (and it
> > is INFERRED, not observed directly).
>
> Ray, all observation requires inference. It's been observed directly by
> any meaningful definition of the term. Also, the term "microevolution"
> came into use a fairly long time after Darwin, but the idea of species
> change was already gaining ground among scientists before Darwin
> published.
>
> > Before, species were held
> > immutable by science.
>
> But that had begun to change, before Darwin came along. Even Linnaeus
> accepted that new species could come about by hybridization. Stock
> breeders, and farmers knew that new varieties of animals and plants
> could be bred from earlier populations.
>
> > The claim and concept PRESUPPOSES unintelligent
> > causation a scientific fact.
>
> No, it does not, as has been explained to you many times. Changes in
> populations were known to have been brought about by selective breeding.
> "Unintelligent causation" is just your scare word for "natural
> processes". There's no reason why a supernatural being can't use
> natural processes as a means of creation, if that's what you wish to
> believe.
>
"Natural processes," as understood since the rise of Darwinism, means
Nature itself is causing species to exist, supernatural Being is ruled
out.
And yes one can still choose to believe anything they want; that's
called "the subjective."
Like Tony, you do not understand the most basic fact of the Creation
v. Evolution dispute. Both of you are victims of Atheist propaganda.
> > You are an IDist. I am an IDist. We do
> > not accept the main claims of Atheist "science."
>
> Neither of you accept science in general. Science is not atheist, just
> because it conflicts with your personal religious assumptions.
>
> > Since unintelligent
> > causation does not exist,
>
> Natural processes can be observed to exist, Ray. Claiming otherwise
> just makes you look insane.
>
I agree with Dawkins in that one party is genuinely deluded. Natural
unintelligent processes do not exist in the wild. The Darwinists are
suffering delusion. A certain Stanford Ph.D. has unveiled the fact.
Only designed processes exist in nature.
Ray
> > the effect of microevolution cannot exist.
>
> Again, it doesn't follow. Even if you were correct, and all processes
> are under the direct control of a supernatural being the effect of
> allele change in a population over generations can exist. What could
> possibly stop it from happening, if God wished it to?
>
> > IF species change THEN said change must be called designed based on
> > the fact that it was and is caused by Intelligent causation.
>
> If so, it's simply directed evolution. It's still change in allele
> frequencies in populations over time, ie evolution. If it takes place
> at a level below speciation, it's microevolution BY DEFINITION.
>
> > For you
> > to say there is little controversy about microevolution is true; in
> > fact there is NO scientific controversy, whatsoever.
>
> Which shows you are wrong. Microevolution happens.
>
> > Science, since
> > the rise of Darwinism, holds species mutable.
>
> Science "holds" this because species have been observed to be mutable.
> Darwin didn't change science, and he did not make it "atheist".
>
> > But again, the main
> > point is that said mutability was and is accepted as being caused by
> > unintelligent causation.
>
> And that's your mistake, which you won't face up to. "Said mutability"
> is accepted to be caused by an observed mechanism, ie mutation and
> selection, with a few other processes as well. It doesn't matter to
> science if the cause is completely unintelligent, or if has a overriding
> intelligence behind it, that science can't see.
>
> Either way, "mutability" is a fact. The cause of the change is not
> relevant to the fact of species change.
>
> > Therefore for you to accept microevolution
> > means you accept its cause.
>
> Again, Ray, you are throwing out non sequiturs left and right.
> Accepting the fact that change happens within populations does not mean
> one must accept the cause of those changes.
>
> > Science, since Darwin, is wrong.
>
> That's something you have not shown, even in principle.
>
> > Unintelligent causation does not exist. The Atheists are deluded. It
> > is IMPOSSIBLE for species to change. The Atheists ASSUME micro-change.
> > Variation is NOT microevolution, but a product of the womb which is an
> > ID factory.
>
> These are just your own personal beliefs, and are entirely unsupported
> by reality. Even if the womb were an "ID factory", that doesn't mean
> that species are unable to change. Even if there were supernatural
> influence on evolution, the "unintelligent causation" still exists, and
> still produces species change over time. Instead of showing that
> atheists are deluded, you are showing yourself to be deluded.
>
>
>
> > You have championed the fact that evolution is NOT seen in the
> > paleontological crust of the Earth.
>
> Which is false. Evolution is seen in the fossil record. There are
> several well known fossil sequences which show evolution happening over
> time.
>
>
>
> > As the mantra goes: species appear
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Ray Martinez
Dec 15, 2011, 5:16:33 PM12/15/11
to
to exist."
More evidence that the "Christian" Evolutionist is genuinely deluded.
If unintelligence indicates Intelligent cause then what indicates
unintelligent cause?
> > You are an IDist. I am an IDist. We do
> > not accept the main claims of Atheist "science."
>
> Neither of you accept science in general. Science is not atheist, just
> because it conflicts with your personal religious assumptions.
>
> > Since unintelligent
> > causation does not exist,
>
> Natural processes can be observed to exist, Ray. Claiming otherwise
> just makes you look insane.
>
> > the effect of microevolution cannot exist.
>
> Again, it doesn't follow. Even if you were correct, and all processes
> are under the direct control of a supernatural being the effect of
> allele change in a population over generations can exist.
Yes, okay...
>
> Again, it doesn't follow. Even if you were correct, and all processes
> are under the direct control of a supernatural being the effect of
> allele change in a population over generations can exist.
> What could
> possibly stop it from happening, if God wished it to?
>
called or described as evolutionary because "evolutionary" since the
rise of Darwinism means "caused by unintelligent material Nature
itself," not Intelligent immaterial Being.
Your other major mistake and/or misunderstanding is to assume
existence of alleles and any change to automatically be evolutionary.
Mere existence of these things does not support evolution.
> > IF species change THEN said change must be called designed based on
> > the fact that it was and is caused by Intelligent causation.
>
> If so, it's simply directed evolution.
then provide the names of scientists who say so, here:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
> It's still change in allele
> frequencies in populations over time, ie evolution. If it takes place
> at a level below speciation, it's microevolution BY DEFINITION.
>
Anyone can do that.
Its only evolution IF caused by an unintelligent-unguided natural
process or force.
If Intelligence is involved then it is directed or designed.
> > For you
> > to say there is little controversy about microevolution is true; in
> > fact there is NO scientific controversy, whatsoever.
>
> Which shows you are wrong. Microevolution happens.
>
controversy, whatsoever. It is my position that these scientists
remain correct. In my book I will vindicate them. They remain correct
because unintelligent natural processes do not exist in the wild. The
discovery of close similarity at any level does not indicate
evolution, but the work of one Divine Mastermind and Special Creation
in real time. Natural selection is extreme NONSENSE and impossible.
Darwinists are suffering delusion from God for denying ID to exist in
nature (reference available upon request).
> > Science, since
> > the rise of Darwinism, holds species mutable.
>
> Science "holds" this because species have been observed to be mutable.
> Darwin didn't change science, and he did not make it "atheist".
>
Darwinism. Again, you could not be anymore wrong (as usual). And all
Atheists are Darwinists for obvious reasons.
Ruse even wrote a book about the Revolution:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Revolution-Science-Tooth-Claw/dp/0226731693
> > But again, the main
> > point is that said mutability was and is accepted as being caused by
> > unintelligent causation.
>
> And that's your mistake, which you won't face up to. "Said mutability"
> is accepted to be caused by an observed mechanism, ie mutation and
> selection, with a few other processes as well. It doesn't matter to
> science if the cause is completely unintelligent, or if has a overriding
> intelligence behind it, that science can't see.
>
God is ruled out explicitly by Darwinian evolution (a basic fact).
> Either way, "mutability" is a fact. The cause of the change is not
> relevant to the fact of species change.
>
Selection" (1859).
Again, you could not be anymore wrong. Causation is the whole ball
game.
> > Therefore for you to accept microevolution
> > means you accept its cause.
>
> Again, Ray, you are throwing out non sequiturs left and right.
> Accepting the fact that change happens within populations does not mean
> one must accept the cause of those changes.
>
So long.
Ray
Robert Camp
Dec 15, 2011, 5:47:34 PM12/15/11
to
you say can be supported. There's a big difference, and that
difference is the very large elephant in the room you continue to
refuse to deal with, i.e., that the premises you adopt are shared by
no one else.
What is amply demonstrated by your silly comment about Darwin (with
which even most theists would disagree) is that your task is much
bigger than simply offering observations and logic in support of an
alternative theory. You have to explain why your fundamentally
different view of causality better explains reality than the empirical
framework society has constructed over the millennia. Barring that, it
will be clear that all you are offering is a semantic quibble ("you
say potato...").
RLC
Ray Martinez
Dec 15, 2011, 5:52:50 PM12/15/11
to
On Dec 15, 7:06 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 1:18 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > With this said: tell us John, what is designed
> > > in nature?
>
> > In my opinion, nothing, at least in the sense you mean it. Of course
> > people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
> > claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that still
> > isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
> > and I don't see any evidence for that.
>
> I predict that Ray will take your response as (further) evidence that
> you tacitly agree with his absolute duality.
Since JH rejects the concept of ID to exist in nature, he agrees with
> On 12/15/2011 1:18 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > With this said: tell us John, what is designed
> > > in nature?
>
> > In my opinion, nothing, at least in the sense you mean it. Of course
> > people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
> > claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that still
> > isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
> > and I don't see any evidence for that.
>
> I predict that Ray will take your response as (further) evidence that
> you tacitly agree with his absolute duality.
me concerning mutual exclusivity ("absolutism"). He engages in
obfuscation for the sake of Tony and stupid TEists, but he never
crosses the line.
> He sees all as designed,
> you see none. What makes him wrong, empirically, is that there are many
> people who do indeed occupy positions in between.
>
means empirically supported!
Crooked thinking at its worst.
> Some, and Ray even knows their name, believe that God designed the
> universe and the properties of its contents, then let things unfold
> according to the "rules".
>
> There are probably people who go just one step further; God didn't just
> rely on the interesting properties of Carbon compounds, He actually
> seeded the Earth with the first life forms, then sat back to watch the
> movie.
>
> There are certainly people who think that God created the first life,
> and then intervened with a fortuitous mutation here and there to "guide"
> evolution.
>
> Continuing along, there are the people Ray calls "fundies" (which always
> makes me chuckle a little), the AIG folks who posit an "orchard" of life
> rather than a tree. God creates Ur-creatures which then evolve extremely
> quickly according to their initial programming.
>
> There are any number of other permutations, positions that real people
> actually hold, including those who accept natural causation for nearly
> every event, but allow that God may intervene here and there, perhaps in
> response to prayers.
>
> Now obviously most of humanity must be wrong (all of it, perhaps), but
> that doesn't mean that such positions don't exist.
great number of subjective opinions exist.
Since Darwin, "natural" means "unintelligent," supernatural
Intelligence and power is explicitly ruled out.
The fact that many people are ignorant of this basic fact, who hold a
subjective belief or opinion, does not change the objective fact: the
Creation v. Evolution debate presupposes causation mutual exclusivity.
Their ignorance is caused by a lack of sound logic and straight
thinking, and the propaganda of Atheists ASSERTING Darwinism
compatible with Theism. Atheists accept Darwinism because Darwinism
says God does not exist in nature.
The Creation v. Evolution debate is simple: the former says the
Creator causes biological production; the latter says the former is
false; Nature itself causes biological production. This objective fact
renders DI "IDism," CEists, and the Fundies to be ignorant buffoons.
Anyone who denies is expressing a subjective opinion.
Ray (anti-evolutionist)
Ray Martinez
Dec 15, 2011, 6:09:37 PM12/15/11
to
> What is amply demonstrated by your silly comment about Darwin (with
> which even most theists would disagree) is that your task is much
> bigger than simply offering observations and logic in support of an
> alternative theory. You have to explain why your fundamentally
> different view of causality better explains reality than the empirical
> framework society has constructed over the millennia. Barring that, it
> will be clear that all you are offering is a semantic quibble ("you
> say potato...").
>
> RLC
superior to Darwin's.
Ray
John Harshman
Dec 15, 2011, 7:46:41 PM12/15/11
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Dec 15, 7:06 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2011 1:18 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> > With this said: tell us John, what is designed
>>> > in nature?
>>> In my opinion, nothing, at least in the sense you mean it. Of course
>>> people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
>>> claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that still
>>> isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
>>> and I don't see any evidence for that.
>> I predict that Ray will take your response as (further) evidence that
>> you tacitly agree with his absolute duality.
>
> Since JH rejects the concept of ID to exist in nature, he agrees with
> me concerning mutual exclusivity ("absolutism").
No he doesn't. I agree that it would be possible for there to be a
> On Dec 15, 7:06 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2011 1:18 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> > With this said: tell us John, what is designed
>>> > in nature?
>>> In my opinion, nothing, at least in the sense you mean it. Of course
>>> people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
>>> claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that still
>>> isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
>>> and I don't see any evidence for that.
>> I predict that Ray will take your response as (further) evidence that
>> you tacitly agree with his absolute duality.
>
> Since JH rejects the concept of ID to exist in nature, he agrees with
> me concerning mutual exclusivity ("absolutism").
mixture of ID and natural processes. It's just that we have no evidence
that the former actually happens.
Dana Tweedy
Dec 15, 2011, 8:42:36 PM12/15/11
to
snip
>> [SNIP....] Claiming that you have no idea about w[hat]
>> Charles Darwin was writing about makes a mockery of your claim to be
>> writing a book that will refute evolution.
>>
>
> I said the quote and its claim is senseless, the #1 Chez Watt of all
> time.
Which only shows your own lack of reading comprehension. Since you have
already admitted you aren't able to understand Hume's writings, why should
anyone think you could understand Darwin, writing just a half century later?
> What Darwin is on about does not exist (except in his
> imagination).
What Darwin wrote about has been directly observed, Ray.
> Remember: I am writing a book refuting evolution; this
> means EVERYTHING I say can and will be supported scientifically.
No, it means you assert that what you say will be supported scientifically.
That is belied by the fact that you don't understand basic science, much
less understand what Darwin was talking about.
DJT
>> [SNIP....] Claiming that you have no idea about w[hat]
>> Charles Darwin was writing about makes a mockery of your claim to be
>> writing a book that will refute evolution.
>>
>
> I said the quote and its claim is senseless, the #1 Chez Watt of all
> time.
already admitted you aren't able to understand Hume's writings, why should
anyone think you could understand Darwin, writing just a half century later?
> What Darwin is on about does not exist (except in his
> imagination).
> Remember: I am writing a book refuting evolution; this
> means EVERYTHING I say can and will be supported scientifically.
That is belied by the fact that you don't understand basic science, much
less understand what Darwin was talking about.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Dec 15, 2011, 8:47:00 PM12/15/11
to
snip
>> No, Ray, that's not what it means. It means *you believe* the things
>> you say can be supported. There's a big difference, and that
>> difference is the very large elephant in the room you continue to
>> refuse to deal with, i.e., that the premises you adopt are shared by
>> no one else.
>>
>
> What are my premises, Robert; and why are they invalid?
your premise is that your personal definitions, and flights of fancy are
accepted by anyone else. They are invalid because no one but yourself
accepts your assertions.
>
>> What is amply demonstrated by your silly comment about Darwin (with
>> which even most theists would disagree) is that your task is much
>> bigger than simply offering observations and logic in support of an
>> alternative theory. You have to explain why your fundamentally
>> different view of causality better explains reality than the
>> empirical framework society has constructed over the millennia.
>> Barring that, it will be clear that all you are offering is a
>> semantic quibble ("you say potato...").
>>
>> RLC
>
> I promise you that I will show and explain why my view of causality is
> superior to Darwin's.
And what, exactly is your promise worth, Ray? When have you ever kept a
promise? When have you ever been able to explain your views in a coherent
and rational manner?
DJT
>> No, Ray, that's not what it means. It means *you believe* the things
>> you say can be supported. There's a big difference, and that
>> difference is the very large elephant in the room you continue to
>> refuse to deal with, i.e., that the premises you adopt are shared by
>> no one else.
>>
>
> What are my premises, Robert; and why are they invalid?
accepted by anyone else. They are invalid because no one but yourself
accepts your assertions.
>
>> What is amply demonstrated by your silly comment about Darwin (with
>> which even most theists would disagree) is that your task is much
>> bigger than simply offering observations and logic in support of an
>> alternative theory. You have to explain why your fundamentally
>> different view of causality better explains reality than the
>> empirical framework society has constructed over the millennia.
>> Barring that, it will be clear that all you are offering is a
>> semantic quibble ("you say potato...").
>>
>> RLC
>
> I promise you that I will show and explain why my view of causality is
> superior to Darwin's.
promise? When have you ever been able to explain your views in a coherent
and rational manner?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Dec 15, 2011, 8:54:54 PM12/15/11
to
snipping points that Ray has ignored, or avoided
>> No, it does not, as has been explained to you many times. Changes in
>> populations were known to have been brought about by selective
>> breeding. "Unintelligent causation" is just your scare word for
>> "natural
>> processes". There's no reason why a supernatural being can't use
>> natural processes as a means of creation, if that's what you wish to
>> believe.
>>
>
> "Natural processes," as understood since the rise of Darwinism, means
> Nature itself is causing species to exist, supernatural Being is ruled
> out.
As has been shown to you many times, your assertion above is just not true.
Natural processes simply mean the regular operation of natural laws and
regularities. Theologians have always maintained that natural processes may
be created and maintained by God.
>
> And yes one can still choose to believe anything they want; that's
> called "the subjective."
As are all your claims. Science, on the other hand seeks objective answers
>
> Like Tony, you do not understand the most basic fact of the Creation
> v. Evolution dispute. Both of you are victims of Atheist propaganda.
Ray, you are simply showing your paranoia. Whatever your fevered brain
imagines to be the "most basic fact" is in reality just your personal
opinion. Personal opinions are not facts.
>>
Snip
>>> Since unintelligent
>>> causation does not exist,
>>
>> Natural processes can be observed to exist, Ray. Claiming otherwise
>> just makes you look insane.
>>
>
> I agree with Dawkins in that one party is genuinely deluded.
Then you should look in the mirror to see that "party".
> Natural
> unintelligent processes do not exist in the wild.
Then why are they observed? You keep avoiding this fact.
>The Darwinists are
> suffering delusion.
Then why is the evidence supporting the "Darwinist" position?
> A certain Stanford Ph.D. has unveiled the fact.
> Only designed processes exist in nature.
Your "certain Stanford Ph.D was wrong. Your continuing to worship this
failed claim is more indication of your own delusion.
DJT
>> No, it does not, as has been explained to you many times. Changes in
>> populations were known to have been brought about by selective
>> breeding. "Unintelligent causation" is just your scare word for
>> "natural
>> processes". There's no reason why a supernatural being can't use
>> natural processes as a means of creation, if that's what you wish to
>> believe.
>>
>
> "Natural processes," as understood since the rise of Darwinism, means
> Nature itself is causing species to exist, supernatural Being is ruled
> out.
Natural processes simply mean the regular operation of natural laws and
regularities. Theologians have always maintained that natural processes may
be created and maintained by God.
>
> And yes one can still choose to believe anything they want; that's
> called "the subjective."
>
> Like Tony, you do not understand the most basic fact of the Creation
> v. Evolution dispute. Both of you are victims of Atheist propaganda.
imagines to be the "most basic fact" is in reality just your personal
opinion. Personal opinions are not facts.
>>
Snip
>>> Since unintelligent
>>> causation does not exist,
>>
>> Natural processes can be observed to exist, Ray. Claiming otherwise
>> just makes you look insane.
>>
>
> I agree with Dawkins in that one party is genuinely deluded.
> Natural
> unintelligent processes do not exist in the wild.
>The Darwinists are
> suffering delusion.
> A certain Stanford Ph.D. has unveiled the fact.
> Only designed processes exist in nature.
failed claim is more indication of your own delusion.
DJT
Frank J
Dec 15, 2011, 8:54:43 PM12/15/11
to
On Dec 13, 6:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Frank J wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Frank J wrote:
> > > Just a comment on the "Tony...accepts...common descent." What made you
> > > conclude that? The best I can recall from the rare times he alludes to
> > > his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
> > > every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
> > > YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
> > > going straight to geocentric YEC. Which strongly suggests that he
> > > thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
> > > matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
> > > contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.
>
> > > Though I should add that anyone who evades questions about which
> > > "kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
> > > originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
> > > descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.
>
> > Common descent is a matter of degree. Ray denies that any two species
> > are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
> > never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
> > degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.
>
> CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
What is not "a matter of degree" is the "universal common descent"
> > > conclude that? The best I can recall from the rare times he alludes to
> > > his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
> > > every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
> > > YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
> > > going straight to geocentric YEC. Which strongly suggests that he
> > > thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
> > > matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
> > > contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.
>
> > > Though I should add that anyone who evades questions about which
> > > "kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
> > > originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
> > > descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.
>
> > Common descent is a matter of degree. Ray denies that any two species
> > are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
> > never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
> > degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.
>
> CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
caricature that anti-evolution activists like to prop up to knock
down. Like Dembski did in the same article in which he asserted that
Behe - whom he defends - accepts it, while Carl Woese - whom he lumps
with us "Darwinists" - "explicitly rejects" it. That is technically
true, but as Dembski well knew, is highly misleading. Woese merely
thinks that free-living systems might have originated several times
deep in the Precambrian. Apparently many "Darwinists" consider that
possible, and Darwin himself hinted at it. Whereas Behe once
speculated on the possibility of a single cell that's ancestral to
every subsequent organism, i.e. the UCD caricature.
>
> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
> closed system of Nature itself).
descended from your parents via "natural agency," or do you think a
designer intervened?
> Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
>
> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
> nature. The observation tells objective people that Intelligent agency
> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
> is operating in nature, causing species to exist, not natural agency.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gdgu...@gmail.com
Dec 15, 2011, 9:01:55 PM12/15/11
to
On Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:52:50 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
He engages in
> obfuscation for the sake of Tony and stupid TEists, but he never
> crosses the line.
>
> > He sees all as designed,
> > you see none. What makes him wrong, empirically, is that there are many
> > people who do indeed occupy positions in between.
> >
>
> Imagine that; the existence of "in between positions (the subjective)"
> means empirically supported!
That is what the argument is about, to wit: Is it possible to accept some "design" and some "natural causation"? People do, so it is empirically demonstrated to be possible.
> Crooked thinking at its worst.
Simple observation.
> > Some, and Ray even knows their name, believe that God designed the
> > universe and the properties of its contents, then let things unfold
> > according to the "rules".
Such a position exists, no?
> > There are probably people who go just one step further; God didn't just
> > rely on the interesting properties of Carbon compounds, He actually
> > seeded the Earth with the first life forms, then sat back to watch the
> > movie.
This one too, right?
> > Continuing along, there are the people Ray calls "fundies" (which always
> > makes me chuckle a little), the AIG folks who posit an "orchard" of life
> > rather than a tree. God creates Ur-creatures which then evolve extremely
> > quickly according to their initial programming.
There are whole web sites devoted to this proposition. Thus it is evidently possible to hold it.
> > There are any number of other permutations, positions that real people
> > actually hold, including those who accept natural causation for nearly
> > every event, but allow that God may intervene here and there, perhaps in
> > response to prayers.
> > Now obviously most of humanity must be wrong (all of it, perhaps), but
> > that doesn't mean that such positions don't exist.
> All Greg Guarino has said is to establish what is not in dispute: a
> great number of subjective opinions exist.
Some of which hold to some Divine activity and some natural causation.
> Since Darwin, "natural" means "unintelligent," supernatural
> Intelligence and power is explicitly ruled out.
> The fact that many people are ignorant of this basic fact, who hold a
> subjective belief or opinion, does not change the objective fact: the
> Creation v. Evolution debate presupposes causation mutual exclusivity.
So people who accept no intelligent causation of any kind and people who accept no natural causation of any kind are the only ones allowed in the debate? Or does the debate somehow proceed without people?
> Their ignorance is caused by a lack of sound logic and straight
> thinking, and the propaganda of Atheists ASSERTING Darwinism
> compatible with Theism.
I will agree that modern science has many conflicts with Biblical literalism. It is my opinion that much of modern science rules out the story told in the Bible. But it does not rule out any kind of God or design, just some. Yours appears to be one of them.
> The Creation v. Evolution debate is simple: the former says the
> Creator causes biological production; the latter says the former is
> false; Nature itself causes biological production. This objective fact
> renders DI "IDism," CEists, and the Fundies to be ignorant buffoons.
Even accepting your logic, they would be ignorant buffoons who EXIST. Thus their positions exist.
> On Dec 15, 7:06 am, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/15/2011 1:18 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > > > With this said: tell us John, what is designed
> > > > in nature?
> >
> > > In my opinion, nothing, at least in the sense you mean it. Of course
> > > people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
> > > claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that still
> > > isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
> > > and I don't see any evidence for that.
> >
> > I predict that Ray will take your response as (further) evidence that
> > you tacitly agree with his absolute duality.
>
> Since JH rejects the concept of ID to exist in nature, he agrees with
> me concerning mutual exclusivity ("absolutism").
He clearly does not. I think he agrees that you and he occupy opposite ends of a continuum of opinions on the subject, but recognizes that other opinions exist.
> > On 12/15/2011 1:18 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > > > With this said: tell us John, what is designed
> > > > in nature?
> >
> > > In my opinion, nothing, at least in the sense you mean it. Of course
> > > people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
> > > claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that still
> > > isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
> > > and I don't see any evidence for that.
> >
> > I predict that Ray will take your response as (further) evidence that
> > you tacitly agree with his absolute duality.
>
> Since JH rejects the concept of ID to exist in nature, he agrees with
> me concerning mutual exclusivity ("absolutism").
He engages in
> obfuscation for the sake of Tony and stupid TEists, but he never
> crosses the line.
>
> > He sees all as designed,
> > you see none. What makes him wrong, empirically, is that there are many
> > people who do indeed occupy positions in between.
> >
>
> Imagine that; the existence of "in between positions (the subjective)"
> means empirically supported!
> Crooked thinking at its worst.
> > Some, and Ray even knows their name, believe that God designed the
> > universe and the properties of its contents, then let things unfold
> > according to the "rules".
> > There are probably people who go just one step further; God didn't just
> > rely on the interesting properties of Carbon compounds, He actually
> > seeded the Earth with the first life forms, then sat back to watch the
> > movie.
> > There are certainly people who think that God created the first life,
> > and then intervened with a fortuitous mutation here and there to "guide"
> > evolution.
That's Behe, as far as I can tell. Is Behe impossible too?
> > and then intervened with a fortuitous mutation here and there to "guide"
> > evolution.
> > Continuing along, there are the people Ray calls "fundies" (which always
> > makes me chuckle a little), the AIG folks who posit an "orchard" of life
> > rather than a tree. God creates Ur-creatures which then evolve extremely
> > quickly according to their initial programming.
> > There are any number of other permutations, positions that real people
> > actually hold, including those who accept natural causation for nearly
> > every event, but allow that God may intervene here and there, perhaps in
> > response to prayers.
> > Now obviously most of humanity must be wrong (all of it, perhaps), but
> > that doesn't mean that such positions don't exist.
> All Greg Guarino has said is to establish what is not in dispute: a
> great number of subjective opinions exist.
> Since Darwin, "natural" means "unintelligent," supernatural
> Intelligence and power is explicitly ruled out.
> The fact that many people are ignorant of this basic fact, who hold a
> subjective belief or opinion, does not change the objective fact: the
> Creation v. Evolution debate presupposes causation mutual exclusivity.
> Their ignorance is caused by a lack of sound logic and straight
> thinking, and the propaganda of Atheists ASSERTING Darwinism
> compatible with Theism.
> The Creation v. Evolution debate is simple: the former says the
> Creator causes biological production; the latter says the former is
> false; Nature itself causes biological production. This objective fact
> renders DI "IDism," CEists, and the Fundies to be ignorant buffoons.
Ray Martinez
Dec 15, 2011, 9:28:56 PM12/15/11
to
"He engages in obfuscation for the sake of Tony and stupid TEists, but
he never
crosses the line."
"Since JH rejects the concept of ID to exist in nature, he agrees with
me concerning mutual exclusivity ("absolutism"). He engages in
obfuscation for the sake of Tony and stupid TEists, but he never
crosses the line."
Ray
obfuscation for the sake of Tony and stupid TEists, but he never
crosses the line."
Dana Tweedy
Dec 15, 2011, 9:50:57 PM12/15/11
to
snip
..
being be not able to create an unintelligent process?
>
> More evidence that the "Christian" Evolutionist is genuinely deluded.
Yet you, Ray are the one denying the evidence, and making claims directly
contradicted by evidence.
>
> If unintelligence indicates Intelligent cause then what indicates
> unintelligent cause?
You seem to be a bit confused here, Ray. When did anyone say
"unintelligence indicates intelligent cause"? Why would one need to
"indicate intelligent cause" at all?
My point is not that unintelligent causes indicate intelligence, but that
an intelligent being can create, and make use of an unintelligent process.
There are many examples of human beings, who are at least marginally
intelligent, using unintelligent processes to their advantage. Why would
unintelligent causes rule out the possibility that intelligence initiated
them?
snip
>>
>> Natural processes can be observed to exist, Ray. Claiming otherwise
>> just makes you look insane.
>>
>>> the effect of microevolution cannot exist.
>>
>> Again, it doesn't follow. Even if you were correct, and all processes
>> are under the direct control of a supernatural being the effect of
>> allele change in a population over generations can exist.
>
> Yes, okay...
Which means, evolution can exist, even if God is directly in control.
>
>> What could
>> possibly stop it from happening, if God wished it to?
>>
>
> If God is involved with biological production then effects cannot be
> called or described as evolutionary because "evolutionary" since the
> rise of Darwinism means "caused by unintelligent material Nature
> itself," not Intelligent immaterial Being.
Once more, I have to point out that this assertion of yours is only your own
mistaken assumption. No one, but NO ONE else believes such a silly thing.
Nature is not a being, it's the laws and constants of the universe. It's
physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, etc, etc....
It doesn't matter in the least if you wish to call it "microevolution"
or "guided design" or whatever label you want to hang on it. The fact
remains that allele frequencies undergo changes in populations over time.
That is what you are denying, and your action is absurd because it's been
observed to happen.
Given enough time, those allele frequency changes will ultimately result
in populations being unable to interbreed with their parent populations.
Over more time, those changes explain the diversity of life on Earth.
>
> Your other major mistake and/or misunderstanding is to assume
> existence of alleles and any change to automatically be evolutionary.
Ray, that's not a mistake. The existence of alleles in a population is an
observed fact. That allele frequencies change in populations is another
observed fact. They are "automatically evoloutionary" because evolution is
DEFINED as change in allele frequencies in populations over time. It's
the same as saying that the orbits of a planet are "automatically
gravitational". That's how it's defined.
If allele frequencies change in a population over time, for WHATEVER REASON
it's evolution. It's amazing that after all this time you don't
understand this point.
> Mere existence of these things does not support evolution.
Actually, "mere existence" of these things IS evolution. You seem to be
saying that "ok, allele frequencies in populations change over time, but
it's not evolution". That's completely abandoning the meaning of words,
and just making up whatever you want to avoid having to admit you are wrong.
For someone who claims to value objectivity, that's the ultimate in
subjectivity.
>
>>> IF species change THEN said change must be called designed based on
>>> the fact that it was and is caused by Intelligent causation.
>>
>> If so, it's simply directed evolution.
>
> There is no such thing as "directed evolution." If you think otherwise
> then provide the names of scientists who say so, here:
>
> 1.
Aubrey Jones
>
> 2.
Michael Lamsa
> 3.
Torben P. Frandsen
> 4.
Tina Spendler
>
> 5.
Paul Harris.
I'll even throw in: Alan Sloan, Feng Xu, Jack Bech Nielsen, and Joel R.
Cherry. All of the above were the author of this paper:
"Directed evolution of a maltogenic ?-amylase from Bacillus sp. TS-25"
published in Journal of Biotechnology
Volume 134, Issues 3-4, 30 April 2008, Pages 325-333
>> It's still change in allele
>> frequencies in populations over time, ie evolution. If it takes place
>> at a level below speciation, it's microevolution BY DEFINITION.
>>
>
> At least you admit that you are defining yourself correct.
I'm not defining myself correct, I'm correct because that's what the
accepted definition of the term is, as used by scientists all over the
world.
>
> Anyone can do that.
Except that it's difficult to get others to accept your private definitions.
That's why I don't use private ones. The word "microevolution" is
defined, not by me, but by scientists, as being evolution below the level of
species.
>
> Its only evolution IF caused by an unintelligent-unguided natural
> process or force.
That's your own attempt to re-define the word to suit your own paranoia.
Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in populations over
generations. The "causation" of the change is irrelevant to the
definition.
>
> If Intelligence is involved then it is directed or designed.
Again, that's your own bizarre, unsupported, and openly false assertion.
Can you show me a single scientist who makes such a claim?
>
>
>>> For you
>>> to say there is little controversy about microevolution is true; in
>>> fact there is NO scientific controversy, whatsoever.
>>
>> Which shows you are wrong. Microevolution happens.
>>
>
> Prior to Darwin species were held immutable.
Prior to Darwin, many naturalists thought that species were immutable, but
they were wrong. Similarily, before Lister, many surgeons operated without
regard to antisepsis. They didn't believe that microorganisms caused
disease. They too were wrong.
> There was NO scientific
> controversy, whatsoever.
Which is another assertion of yours that's a mistake. There was scientific
controversy, as Lamarck, Buffon, Grant and others demonstrate. I could
also point out that there was little or no scientific controversy in the16th
century that microorganisms could not cause disease as well. That doesn't
mean that it was correct.
> It is my position that these scientists
> remain correct.
those scientists were shown to be incorrect over 150 years ago. Even those
who were still around after Darwin published admitted as much. Your
position is based only on your own personal ignorance.
> In my book I will vindicate them.
That's mere empty boasting. No one believes you.
> They remain correct
> because unintelligent natural processes do not exist in the wild.
They were wrong because species were observed to change. The existance of
natural processes is beside the point. Even if natural processes didn't
exist, the fact of species change still is beyond any rational doubt.
Natural processes, of course do exist, and most rational people who wish to
believe in the supernatural accept that God makes use of these processes.
> The
> discovery of close similarity at any level does not indicate
> evolution, but the work of one Divine Mastermind and Special Creation
> in real time.
The problem with that assertion is, that no one has ever observed a "divine
mastermind", and no one has ever observed special creation happening...
ever. On the other hand, not only is close genetic similarity explained by
evolutionary theory, one can observe evolutionary mechanism in action.
That makes the "divine mastermind" idea to be less than satisfactory as an
explanation. Add that to the lack of any known mechanism for this "divine
mastermind" (unless he used evolution), it pretty much rules out "divine
mastermind" as an explanation.
> Natural selection is extreme NONSENSE and impossible.
Natural selection is sensible, possible, and more importantly, directly
observed. Whenever one variant in a population accheives reproductive
success and another variant does not, due to environmental factors, natural
selection has happened.
>
> Darwinists are suffering delusion from God for denying ID to exist in
> nature (reference available upon request).
As has been pointed out, this bizarre fantasy is absurd, and grossly insults
the nature of God. To claim that God punishes people for using their
intellect is a slap in the face of God.
>
>>> Science, since
>>> the rise of Darwinism, holds species mutable.
>>
>> Science "holds" this because species have been observed to be
>> mutable.
>> Darwin didn't change science, and he did not make it "atheist".
>>
>
> Google "the Darwinian Revolution." Creationism was conquered by
> Darwinism.
Creationism was a religious belief. It was replaced by a scientific
theory. It wasn't a change in science, and it wasn't anything to do with
atheism.
> Again, you could not be anymore wrong (as usual). And all
> Atheists are Darwinists for obvious reasons.
As you already know, not all atheists are "Darwinists". The reason those
who are, accept evolution is because of it's scientific worth.
>
> Ruse even wrote a book about the Revolution:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Revolution-Science-Tooth-Claw/dp/0226731693
Which you obviously have not read. Where does Ruse claim that Darwin
changed the nature of science?
>
>>> But again, the main
>>> point is that said mutability was and is accepted as being caused by
>>> unintelligent causation.
>>
>> And that's your mistake, which you won't face up to. "Said
>> mutability"
>> is accepted to be caused by an observed mechanism, ie mutation and
>> selection, with a few other processes as well. It doesn't matter to
>> science if the cause is completely unintelligent, or if has a
>> overriding
>> intelligence behind it, that science can't see.
>>
>
> All this says is that you are a victim of Atheist propaganda.
All this says is that you have paranoid fantasies about atheists, and
delusions about how powerful they are. You'd rather dream up some atheist
conspiracy than admit you were mistaken.
>
> God is ruled out explicitly by Darwinian evolution (a basic fact).
Your personal paranoia is not fact, Ray. Evolution does not rule out God,
and there's no reason why it should.
>
>> Either way, "mutability" is a fact. The cause of the change is not
>> relevant to the fact of species change.
>>
>
> Darwin disagrees: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> Selection" (1859).
Where does Darwin say that in the book, Ray? Darwin gave a mechanism
which explains species change, but he understood that species change
regardless of whether his mechanism was correct.
>
> Again, you could not be anymore wrong. Causation is the whole ball
> game.
Then why have you failed utterly to show that to be true?
>
>>> Therefore for you to accept microevolution
>>> means you accept its cause.
>>
>> Again, Ray, you are throwing out non sequiturs left and right.
>> Accepting the fact that change happens within populations does not
>> mean
>> one must accept the cause of those changes.
>>
>
> Extreme nonsense.
Yes, your posts often contain that. What do you wish to say about the
above? Do you dispute the fact that species change does not require one
to know how that change came about?
>
> So long.
and Ray runs off again.....
snipping more Ray is incapable of dealing with.
DJT
..
>>
>> No, it does not, as has been explained to you many times. Changes in
>> populations were known to have been brought about by selective
>> breeding. "Unintelligent causation" is just your scare word for
>> "natural
>> processes". There's no reason why a supernatural being can't use
>> natural processes as a means of creation, if that's what you wish to
>> believe.
>>
>
> Extreme illogic: "Intelligence caused unintelligent natural processes
> to exist."
Why do you imagine that to be "extreme illogic"? Why would a intelligent
>> No, it does not, as has been explained to you many times. Changes in
>> populations were known to have been brought about by selective
>> breeding. "Unintelligent causation" is just your scare word for
>> "natural
>> processes". There's no reason why a supernatural being can't use
>> natural processes as a means of creation, if that's what you wish to
>> believe.
>>
>
> Extreme illogic: "Intelligence caused unintelligent natural processes
> to exist."
being be not able to create an unintelligent process?
>
> More evidence that the "Christian" Evolutionist is genuinely deluded.
contradicted by evidence.
>
> If unintelligence indicates Intelligent cause then what indicates
> unintelligent cause?
"unintelligence indicates intelligent cause"? Why would one need to
"indicate intelligent cause" at all?
My point is not that unintelligent causes indicate intelligence, but that
an intelligent being can create, and make use of an unintelligent process.
There are many examples of human beings, who are at least marginally
intelligent, using unintelligent processes to their advantage. Why would
unintelligent causes rule out the possibility that intelligence initiated
them?
snip
>>
>> Natural processes can be observed to exist, Ray. Claiming otherwise
>> just makes you look insane.
>>
>>> the effect of microevolution cannot exist.
>>
>> Again, it doesn't follow. Even if you were correct, and all processes
>> are under the direct control of a supernatural being the effect of
>> allele change in a population over generations can exist.
>
> Yes, okay...
>
>> What could
>> possibly stop it from happening, if God wished it to?
>>
>
> If God is involved with biological production then effects cannot be
> called or described as evolutionary because "evolutionary" since the
> rise of Darwinism means "caused by unintelligent material Nature
> itself," not Intelligent immaterial Being.
mistaken assumption. No one, but NO ONE else believes such a silly thing.
Nature is not a being, it's the laws and constants of the universe. It's
physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, etc, etc....
It doesn't matter in the least if you wish to call it "microevolution"
or "guided design" or whatever label you want to hang on it. The fact
remains that allele frequencies undergo changes in populations over time.
That is what you are denying, and your action is absurd because it's been
observed to happen.
Given enough time, those allele frequency changes will ultimately result
in populations being unable to interbreed with their parent populations.
Over more time, those changes explain the diversity of life on Earth.
>
> Your other major mistake and/or misunderstanding is to assume
> existence of alleles and any change to automatically be evolutionary.
observed fact. That allele frequencies change in populations is another
observed fact. They are "automatically evoloutionary" because evolution is
DEFINED as change in allele frequencies in populations over time. It's
the same as saying that the orbits of a planet are "automatically
gravitational". That's how it's defined.
If allele frequencies change in a population over time, for WHATEVER REASON
it's evolution. It's amazing that after all this time you don't
understand this point.
> Mere existence of these things does not support evolution.
saying that "ok, allele frequencies in populations change over time, but
it's not evolution". That's completely abandoning the meaning of words,
and just making up whatever you want to avoid having to admit you are wrong.
For someone who claims to value objectivity, that's the ultimate in
subjectivity.
>
>>> IF species change THEN said change must be called designed based on
>>> the fact that it was and is caused by Intelligent causation.
>>
>> If so, it's simply directed evolution.
>
> There is no such thing as "directed evolution." If you think otherwise
> then provide the names of scientists who say so, here:
>
> 1.
>
> 2.
Michael Lamsa
> 3.
Torben P. Frandsen
> 4.
Tina Spendler
>
> 5.
Paul Harris.
I'll even throw in: Alan Sloan, Feng Xu, Jack Bech Nielsen, and Joel R.
Cherry. All of the above were the author of this paper:
"Directed evolution of a maltogenic ?-amylase from Bacillus sp. TS-25"
published in Journal of Biotechnology
Volume 134, Issues 3-4, 30 April 2008, Pages 325-333
>> It's still change in allele
>> frequencies in populations over time, ie evolution. If it takes place
>> at a level below speciation, it's microevolution BY DEFINITION.
>>
>
> At least you admit that you are defining yourself correct.
accepted definition of the term is, as used by scientists all over the
world.
>
> Anyone can do that.
Except that it's difficult to get others to accept your private definitions.
That's why I don't use private ones. The word "microevolution" is
defined, not by me, but by scientists, as being evolution below the level of
species.
>
> Its only evolution IF caused by an unintelligent-unguided natural
> process or force.
Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in populations over
generations. The "causation" of the change is irrelevant to the
definition.
>
> If Intelligence is involved then it is directed or designed.
Can you show me a single scientist who makes such a claim?
>
>
>>> For you
>>> to say there is little controversy about microevolution is true; in
>>> fact there is NO scientific controversy, whatsoever.
>>
>> Which shows you are wrong. Microevolution happens.
>>
>
> Prior to Darwin species were held immutable.
they were wrong. Similarily, before Lister, many surgeons operated without
regard to antisepsis. They didn't believe that microorganisms caused
disease. They too were wrong.
> There was NO scientific
> controversy, whatsoever.
controversy, as Lamarck, Buffon, Grant and others demonstrate. I could
also point out that there was little or no scientific controversy in the16th
century that microorganisms could not cause disease as well. That doesn't
mean that it was correct.
> It is my position that these scientists
> remain correct.
who were still around after Darwin published admitted as much. Your
position is based only on your own personal ignorance.
> In my book I will vindicate them.
> They remain correct
> because unintelligent natural processes do not exist in the wild.
natural processes is beside the point. Even if natural processes didn't
exist, the fact of species change still is beyond any rational doubt.
Natural processes, of course do exist, and most rational people who wish to
believe in the supernatural accept that God makes use of these processes.
> The
> discovery of close similarity at any level does not indicate
> evolution, but the work of one Divine Mastermind and Special Creation
> in real time.
mastermind", and no one has ever observed special creation happening...
ever. On the other hand, not only is close genetic similarity explained by
evolutionary theory, one can observe evolutionary mechanism in action.
That makes the "divine mastermind" idea to be less than satisfactory as an
explanation. Add that to the lack of any known mechanism for this "divine
mastermind" (unless he used evolution), it pretty much rules out "divine
mastermind" as an explanation.
> Natural selection is extreme NONSENSE and impossible.
observed. Whenever one variant in a population accheives reproductive
success and another variant does not, due to environmental factors, natural
selection has happened.
>
> Darwinists are suffering delusion from God for denying ID to exist in
> nature (reference available upon request).
the nature of God. To claim that God punishes people for using their
intellect is a slap in the face of God.
>
>>> Science, since
>>> the rise of Darwinism, holds species mutable.
>>
>> Science "holds" this because species have been observed to be
>> mutable.
>> Darwin didn't change science, and he did not make it "atheist".
>>
>
> Google "the Darwinian Revolution." Creationism was conquered by
> Darwinism.
theory. It wasn't a change in science, and it wasn't anything to do with
atheism.
> Again, you could not be anymore wrong (as usual). And all
> Atheists are Darwinists for obvious reasons.
who are, accept evolution is because of it's scientific worth.
>
> Ruse even wrote a book about the Revolution:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Revolution-Science-Tooth-Claw/dp/0226731693
changed the nature of science?
>
>>> But again, the main
>>> point is that said mutability was and is accepted as being caused by
>>> unintelligent causation.
>>
>> And that's your mistake, which you won't face up to. "Said
>> mutability"
>> is accepted to be caused by an observed mechanism, ie mutation and
>> selection, with a few other processes as well. It doesn't matter to
>> science if the cause is completely unintelligent, or if has a
>> overriding
>> intelligence behind it, that science can't see.
>>
>
> All this says is that you are a victim of Atheist propaganda.
delusions about how powerful they are. You'd rather dream up some atheist
conspiracy than admit you were mistaken.
>
> God is ruled out explicitly by Darwinian evolution (a basic fact).
and there's no reason why it should.
>
>> Either way, "mutability" is a fact. The cause of the change is not
>> relevant to the fact of species change.
>>
>
> Darwin disagrees: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> Selection" (1859).
which explains species change, but he understood that species change
regardless of whether his mechanism was correct.
>
> Again, you could not be anymore wrong. Causation is the whole ball
> game.
>
>>> Therefore for you to accept microevolution
>>> means you accept its cause.
>>
>> Again, Ray, you are throwing out non sequiturs left and right.
>> Accepting the fact that change happens within populations does not
>> mean
>> one must accept the cause of those changes.
>>
>
> Extreme nonsense.
above? Do you dispute the fact that species change does not require one
to know how that change came about?
>
> So long.
and Ray runs off again.....
snipping more Ray is incapable of dealing with.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Dec 15, 2011, 9:57:07 PM12/15/11
to
crippling paranoia.
DJT
>
> Ray
Mark Isaak
Dec 15, 2011, 10:00:41 PM12/15/11
to
On 12/15/11 4:46 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 7:06 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2011 1:18 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> > With this said: tell us John, what is designed
>>>> > in nature?
>>>> In my opinion, nothing, at least in the sense you mean it. Of course
>>>> people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
>>>> claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that
>>>> still
>>>> isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
>>>> and I don't see any evidence for that.
>>> I predict that Ray will take your response as (further) evidence that
>>> you tacitly agree with his absolute duality.
>>
>> Since JH rejects the concept of ID to exist in nature, he agrees with
>> me concerning mutual exclusivity ("absolutism").
>
> No he doesn't. I agree that it would be possible for there to be a
> mixture of ID and natural processes. It's just that we have no evidence
> that the former actually happens.
Nitpick: No evidence aside from humans' selective breeding and, more
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 7:06 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2011 1:18 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> > With this said: tell us John, what is designed
>>>> > in nature?
>>>> In my opinion, nothing, at least in the sense you mean it. Of course
>>>> people design things, but that isn't what you mean. One might loosely
>>>> claim that a few other animal species also design things, but that
>>>> still
>>>> isn't what you mean. What you mean is that things are designed by god,
>>>> and I don't see any evidence for that.
>>> I predict that Ray will take your response as (further) evidence that
>>> you tacitly agree with his absolute duality.
>>
>> Since JH rejects the concept of ID to exist in nature, he agrees with
>> me concerning mutual exclusivity ("absolutism").
>
> No he doesn't. I agree that it would be possible for there to be a
> mixture of ID and natural processes. It's just that we have no evidence
> that the former actually happens.
recently, genetic engineering.
This exception itself is telling. We have seen intelligent design, and
what we see in nature is not like it.
--
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
Robert Camp
Dec 15, 2011, 10:11:33 PM12/15/11
to
You have argued that all causality is directly attributable to God.
Now I have to admit there seems to be some ambiguity here. For example
there have been times when you've argued the position by insisting
that no one has yet given you evidence of the absence of God as a
cause, which, besides being a particularly vacuous argument suggests
that your position is rhetorical, not evidential. At other times you
appear to indicate a full-blown insistence upon divine causality to
the exclusion of observable, natural mechanisms ("What Darwin is on
about does not exist..."). If the latter is accurate, you are offering
a new (actually really old and really ignorant) model for the
acquisition and evaluation of knowledge. Its defense will present a
daunting task to say the least.
- That the "Design" of biological forms is evident,
Others have attempted substantive defenses of this position (e.g.,
complexity arguments) but you offer no positive observations, logic or
evidence in favor of this premise. You simply present it as an
extension of your position regarding the non-existence of natural
forces, all of which essentially boils down to a false dichotomy that
allows you to infer design. No one else of whom I'm aware identifies
design in this fashion.
If I have mischaracterized your positions I will happily accept
clarification.
RLC
Ray Martinez
Dec 15, 2011, 10:15:18 PM12/15/11
to
On Dec 15, 6:31 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 1:14 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > [John Harshman:] So you're saying that you are not descended from your parents, but you
> [Greg Guarino:] As best I can tell, that is what he is saying.
>
If you'd been paying attention you'd know that JH is arguing an ad hoc
example of CD in the context of attempting to justify his ridiculous
assertion that I accept a degree of CD in nature. I do not accept the
concept of CD as existing in nature. The rejection fact falsifies his
degree claim. But JH won't admit or let it go. The example given has
nothing to do with Darwinian CD. There is no such thing as "CD within
species."
> There is no natural causation at all. The chemical properties of DNA are
> not what forms new similar DNA, God shepherds each subatomic particle.
> If I drop a lit match in a wastebasket, it is not the properties of
> carbon and oxygen that causes them to form bonds and release energy, and
> if I throw the burning garbage out the window it is not gravity that
> pulls it toward the ground.
>
All this says is that you cannot fathom or communicate the claims of
Victorian Creationism. IOW, you are completely and utterly brainwashed
by Naturalism.
> God controls all ... except whether or not human beings accept God, and
> possibly other choices we make. But those choices are manifestly not the
> result of chemical interactions in our brains.
>
> I imagine, although I haven't actually seen Ray assert this, that the
> regularities we see in nature are God's "favor" to us; He controls
> nature in (usually) predictable ways so that we can grow crops, build
> buildings, waste time on newsgroups etc.
>
> If any of this is a distortion of your position Ray, I would be happy to
> be corrected.
>
> Greg Guarino
The double helix structure of DNA reflects a beautiful mesmerizing
design that could have only originated from a Divine Mastermind. Said
structure does not exhibit the slightest intimation of having been
produced by an unintelligent and unguided natural process or force.
The amount of paradoxical complexity that exists within the structure
is mind boggling. These facts forcefully rule out an unintelligent
material origin in the eyes of any objective observer.
And like I said you are literally incapable of understanding or
commiunicating our position because you are incapable of seeing
anything objectively.
A certain Stanford Ph.D. has explained why: acceptance of Naturalism
is a punishment from God for denying ID existing in nature. This
explains why an evolution theory with no evidence in support is
accepted.
In other words, Greg, you are completely and utterly deluded. Of
course one can substitute your name with the name of any Darwinist.
Ray (anti-evolutionist)
> On 12/15/2011 1:14 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > [John Harshman:] So you're saying that you are not descended from your parents, but you
> > were designed. Is that correct?
>
Harshman's ad hoc example of CD continues.
>
> [Greg Guarino:] As best I can tell, that is what he is saying.
>
If you'd been paying attention you'd know that JH is arguing an ad hoc
example of CD in the context of attempting to justify his ridiculous
assertion that I accept a degree of CD in nature. I do not accept the
concept of CD as existing in nature. The rejection fact falsifies his
degree claim. But JH won't admit or let it go. The example given has
nothing to do with Darwinian CD. There is no such thing as "CD within
species."
> There is no natural causation at all. The chemical properties of DNA are
> not what forms new similar DNA, God shepherds each subatomic particle.
> If I drop a lit match in a wastebasket, it is not the properties of
> carbon and oxygen that causes them to form bonds and release energy, and
> if I throw the burning garbage out the window it is not gravity that
> pulls it toward the ground.
>
All this says is that you cannot fathom or communicate the claims of
Victorian Creationism. IOW, you are completely and utterly brainwashed
by Naturalism.
> God controls all ... except whether or not human beings accept God, and
> possibly other choices we make. But those choices are manifestly not the
> result of chemical interactions in our brains.
>
> I imagine, although I haven't actually seen Ray assert this, that the
> regularities we see in nature are God's "favor" to us; He controls
> nature in (usually) predictable ways so that we can grow crops, build
> buildings, waste time on newsgroups etc.
>
> If any of this is a distortion of your position Ray, I would be happy to
> be corrected.
>
> Greg Guarino
The double helix structure of DNA reflects a beautiful mesmerizing
design that could have only originated from a Divine Mastermind. Said
structure does not exhibit the slightest intimation of having been
produced by an unintelligent and unguided natural process or force.
The amount of paradoxical complexity that exists within the structure
is mind boggling. These facts forcefully rule out an unintelligent
material origin in the eyes of any objective observer.
And like I said you are literally incapable of understanding or
commiunicating our position because you are incapable of seeing
anything objectively.
A certain Stanford Ph.D. has explained why: acceptance of Naturalism
is a punishment from God for denying ID existing in nature. This
explains why an evolution theory with no evidence in support is
accepted.
In other words, Greg, you are completely and utterly deluded. Of
course one can substitute your name with the name of any Darwinist.
Ray (anti-evolutionist)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages