Pot And Kettle Maybe?
Devil's Advocaat
unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable, yet when they are
asked questions such as, “where is your supporting evidence?” or “can
you provide citations for your source materials”, they either become
abusive, repeat their previous claims (as if repetition reinforces the
truth) or remain strangely silent on such issues. Why is that I
wonder?
Ron O
You have to see this through their perspective. Even though science
has changed and our scientific theories have improved over time
nothing changes for them because they are are always on the short end
of the stick no matter what changes. All they have experience with is
science telling them that they are wrong, no matter what new advance
science makes. That can probably feel pretty dogmatic to those on the
losing end that can't or won't change their views.
Just take one of the most extreme examples, the Big Bang. We have a
clear indication of a creation event because the evidence tells us
that our visible universe had some type of beginning. What do the
antiscience creationists do? When they got the votes in Kansas back
in 1999 they dropped the Big Bang out of the science standards along
with anything else they didn't like, like biological evolution and
geological timeframes. About the only decent science that supports
them in any significant way and they reject it because it isn't the
creation event that they believe in.
So far, the case has been that no matter what new things we discover,
they lose. That probably seems dogmatic to them as long as they can
rationalize that any changes don't really matter.
Ron Okimoto
Kermit
One characteristic common among Fundamentalists is the inability to
see the world from another's perspective - even to understand that
there *are different perspectives. We had two fundies who said they
were going to be missionaries sign up for the Comparative Religion
class I as taking <fortymumble> years ago. They told the professor
that he was "teaching the bible wrong". He reminded them that he was
on the Roman Catholic portion of the curriculum, and was only teaching
what several hundred million people believed, not what the bible
actually said. They stormed out of the classroom, shouting that he was
"teaching something the bible didn't say". The rest of us (most of my
classmates were Christian) were dumbfounded.
How can such people understand that they are applying different
standards to real science than they are to their own creationism?
And yet, at the same time, they act as though reality were entirely a
social construct. Evolution is wrong because it makes people do bad
things, and so forth.
They argue like a street fighter fights: if one jab doesn't get in,
maybe the next one will. They don't understand that if they assert
something which is shown to be wrong, they can't just keep asserting
it. "Maybe the *next time the argument from consequences will get
through their diabolical defenses..."
Kermit
T Pagano
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
>unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
they make no effort to search for refutations.
2. Remember that only a theory which can be refuted can be considered
scientific. However, since the atheists make no attempt whatsoever to
search for falsifications they treat the framework of evolutionary
theories as inviolate and unquestionable. Discordant observations are
ignored as anomolous. The lion share of work is to amass
cooroborative evidence which every false theory in history has been
able to accomplish. The creationist claim that atheists hold
evolutionary theory as inviolate is an historical, psychological, and
sociological statement of fact.
3. The fact that random mutations combined to natural (or even
artificial) selection has NEVER been observed to result in the
emergence or development of some novel structure, system, or organ has
never bothered atheists. Recall that this mechanism is supposed to be
the engine for the emergence and development of EVERY biological
structure, system and organ that has ever existed. The fact that the
fossil record which should have captured some of this emergence and
develpment of novelty shows NOTHING BUT sudden appearance of "mature"
structures and stasis of those structures over millions of years never
bothered the atheists.
4. What guides the atheist to treat evolutionary theory as inviolate?
The underlying atheistic philosophy (not scientific fact) is that
matter, its properties, and space have existed for a long time, that
small changes occur over time, and that these changes can be
aggregated progressively and coherently over long periods of time. It
is this underlying naturalistic philosophy (not science fact) which
guides the atheist to ignore the significant problems with
evolutionary theory and only look at the corroborative observations.
5. Finally atheists have cloaked their underlying naturalistic
philosophy in scientific language and then recast it as an underlying
pillar of scientific practice.
> yet when they are
>asked questions such as, “where is your supporting evidence?” or “can
>you provide citations for your source materials”, they either become
>abusive, repeat their previous claims (as if repetition reinforces the
>truth) or remain strangely silent on such issues. Why is that I
>wonder?
I'll cite two off the top of my head:
"What Evolution Is," Ernst Mayr, 2001, Basic Books, see especially
Chapter 1.
"Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science," 1998, National
Academy Press, see especially Chapter 3.
Regards,
T Pagano
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Ah, the pit yorkie yaps again.
Yap, yap, yap.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
hersheyh
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
>
> >Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
> >unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
>
> 1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
> itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
> secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
> Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
> they make no effort to search for refutations.
Every new organism that is found and every organism that has any of
its proteins or genome sequenced is a test of evolution. Every
observation that natural selection both occurs and is a cause of
change in genomes is a test of evolution. Every rock or geological
strata that is dated by multiple methods is a test of the age of the
earth, which is a necessary condition for the mechanisms of evolution
to work. Every new fossil that is found can be a test of evolution.
That nearly all of these tests are consistent with evolution is
considered to present support for the explanation. So much so that
most of the time the only results that are interesting are those in
which there is some reasonable hope (because, for example, the
organisms are poorly preserved in the fossil record and the morphology
is highly simplified) that new findings might reveal some discrepancy
in previous thought. An example can be found in the recent re-working
of bird phylogeny (birds fossilize poorly and bird morphology is
frustratingly similar) through analysis of DNA. Of course even then
the changes often were previously suspected as possible and no such
evidence has ever been so strange (except for the fraudulent ones such
as human footprints with the dinosaurs) as to call the entire
mechanism of common descent into question.
>
> 2. Remember that only a theory which can be refuted can be considered
> scientific.
Yes. And evolution clearly qualifies while so-called "intelligent
design" does not. Again, every time a sequence is determined, every
time a fossil is found in some geological layer, every time a new
organism is discovered, every time a layer is dated, we have a test of
evolution.
> However, since the atheists make no attempt whatsoever to
> search for falsifications they treat the framework of evolutionary
> theories as inviolate and unquestionable. Discordant observations are
> ignored as anomolous.
Not always. Sometimes the observations discordant with the past
observations are accepted. For data to be "anomolous" there has to be
a body of evidence to which it is "anomolous".
> The lion share of work is to amass
> cooroborative evidence which every false theory in history has been
> able to accomplish.
When a theory is as well-established as evolution, prediction of
expected results becomes easier. But any time one collects evidence
that tests a theory, it has the possibility of disagreement with
expectations. That that has not been the case, by and large, to any
great extent with common descent merely makes it more likely that
scientists are right.
> The creationist claim that atheists hold
> evolutionary theory as inviolate is an historical, psychological, and
> sociological statement of fact.
It is a lie, cloaked in wishful thinking, that is oft repeated by
creationists. But how is it not a test of common descent to predict a
particular pattern of change that arises naturally from common descent
and pointing out, quite regularly, that the evidence is consistent
with that theory *even when* there is no reason why that would be
expected from any non-duplicitous intelligent designer? The pattern
of change *looks* like and is *consistent with* a historical pattern
of change. The only reason why known intelligent designers produce
that pattern when, in fact, that was not the pattern, is to lie about
history to other intelligent agents (faking a geneology to pretend
noble birth or getting an inheritance being examples).
> 3. The fact that random mutations combined to natural (or even
> artificial) selection has NEVER been observed to result in the
> emergence or development of some novel structure, system, or organ has
> never bothered atheists.
Neither has the fact that no one has seen a quark, but only the
expected and predicted consequence of its existence. Testability does
not demand direct observation of all events and processes. It demands
that the mechanism have specific testable consequences and that the
underlying assumptions of the mechanism be testable.
> Recall that this mechanism is supposed to be
> the engine for the emergence and development of EVERY biological
> structure, system and organ that has ever existed.
But NOT by magical poofing by design, but by a serendipitous process
with intermediates. The *process* of mutation and selection has been
observed and tested. And the process predicts that (although evidence
will not always be available at the present time or perhaps never)
biological structures, systems, and organisms must always be a
modification of a previously existing ancestral feature. And
generally that the intermediate stages have *some* potential utility.
> The fact that the
> fossil record which should have captured some of this emergence and
> develpment of novelty shows NOTHING BUT sudden appearance of "mature"
> structures and stasis of those structures over millions of years never
> bothered the atheists.
The fossil record only catches an insignificant fraction of all the
organisms that have existed. If you only get one fossil every 10,000
years, you will see the amount of change that can occur in 10,000
years. And that includes the *disappearance* of species as well as
their appearance. The dodo and passenger pigeon fossils, for example,
could possibly have been found even 1000 years ago. They have now, on
a 10,000 year time frame, disappeared. The English sparrow and
starling, OTOH, has suddenly appeared in abundance in the Americas
(cane toads and rabbits in Australia).
> 4. What guides the atheist to treat evolutionary theory as inviolate?
What requires that creationists must lie about this?
> The underlying atheistic philosophy (not scientific fact) is that
> matter, its properties, and space have existed for a long time, that
> small changes occur over time, and that these changes can be
> aggregated progressively and coherently over long periods of time.
I see you have no idea what science says happened. Supernovas are not
slow, small changes. The Big Bang was not a slow change. The time
available is constrained to what the evidence supports: 13 billion
years since the Big Bangaroo, 4.5 billion since the formation of the
solar system, at least 3.5 billion since life on this planet occurred,
500 million years since the rapid (if 10 million years is rapid)
formation of hard-shelled multicellulars, a few million since the
split between the lineage leading to the two chimp species and the
multiple hominid species.
> It
> is this underlying naturalistic philosophy (not science fact) which
> guides the atheist to ignore the significant problems with
> evolutionary theory and only look at the corroborative observations.
>
> 5. Finally atheists have cloaked their underlying naturalistic
> philosophy in scientific language and then recast it as an underlying
> pillar of scientific practice.
>
> > yet when they are
> >asked questions such as, “where is your supporting evidence?” or “can
> >you provide citations for your source materials”, they either become
> >abusive, repeat their previous claims (as if repetition reinforces the
> >truth) or remain strangely silent on such issues. Why is that I
> >wonder?
>
> I'll cite two off the top of my head:
>
> "What Evolution Is," Ernst Mayr, 2001, Basic Books, see especially
> Chapter 1.
>
> "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science," 1998, National
> Academy Press, see especially Chapter 3.
Can you point out where those say any of the things you pointed out?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Steven L.
What offends religious people is statements in science textbooks of the
type "Species evolved through a blind, undirected process" and the like.
I myself have seen textbooks that assert such things.
Taken literally, such statements would deny theistic evolution too, not
just fundamentalism or creationism.
It's bad writing. What a textbook should say is only that the
*scientific* theory of evolution does not *depend* on conscious purpose.
Not implicitly assert that it can be ruled out or discarded by
Occam's razor. The former is a scientific statement. The latter is a
philosophical one.
There is a lot of confusion on this point, between methodological
naturalism (you don't need God to explain scientific natural law) versus
philosophical naturalism (there is only scientific natural law, no God).
It is all too easy for a proponent of evolution to stray beyond the
former into the latter. No science textbook should ever imply
philosophical naturalism. It's beyond the scope of science.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
> <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
>> unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
>
>
> 1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
> itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
> secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
> Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
> they make no effort to search for refutations.
Yes they do.
Remember that Darwin knew nothing about DNA as the carrier of the
genetic code--this hadn't been discovered yet. The discovery of the
genetic code, how DNA and RNA govern replication and transcription, was
unknown to him. One can imagine their discovery could have revealed
*something* that would have been totally inconsistent with Darwin's
theory. But in fact, what they revealed is entirely consistent with his
theory. And in fact, analysis of the genomes of various species has
shed new light on how they evolved.
When species have been arranged into an evolutionary order, it can be
determined what kinds of intermediate species ought to exist if the
evolutionary theory were right. If you believed that whales were
descended from land-living mammals, you yourself could imagine what an
intermediate species between them ought to be like--some kind of
amphibian, yes? And sure enough, when those species were discovered,
that is what they were like. One can imagine they would have been
radically different. But they weren't.
> 3. The fact that random mutations combined to natural (or even
> artificial) selection has NEVER been observed to result in the
> emergence or development of some novel structure, system, or organ has
> never bothered atheists. Recall that this mechanism is supposed to be
> the engine for the emergence and development of EVERY biological
> structure, system and organ that has ever existed.
We've discussed the Italian lizard example twice already on this NG at
least. I suggest you google for it. I don't want to do it yet again.
> 4. What guides the atheist to treat evolutionary theory as inviolate?
> The underlying atheistic philosophy (not scientific fact) is that
> matter, its properties, and space have existed for a long time, that
> small changes occur over time, and that these changes can be
> aggregated progressively and coherently over long periods of time. It
> is this underlying naturalistic philosophy (not science fact) which
> guides the atheist to ignore the significant problems with
> evolutionary theory and only look at the corroborative observations.
The notion of unbroken natural law, that the laws of physics were the
same 100 million years ago as they are today, that they are the same on
any planet of Sigma Draconis as they are here on earth, is indeed basic
to science. Investigating the existence of natural laws is indeed what
science is all about.
If you believe that God, or gods, or demons, or ghosts, any other
supernatural force, can interrupt natural law at any time and make a
miraculous event happen, you're perfectly free to believe that. But you
cannot call it "scientific" because it's outside of the purview of science.
As for small changes in phenomena aggregating progressively over time,
you certainly don't need to limit yourself to evolution of life and
species. We now know about continental drift too. Driven by plate
tectonics, the continents had moved all over the Earth. At one time,
much of India was an island continent similar to Australia today. It
then merged with Asia, some millions of years ago. But that collision
produced a major change: The earth's crust buckled and forced up the
Himalaya mountain chain.
The movement of continents is slow, maybe a few centimeters per year,
which is why we don't sense it in our daily lives. But over millions of
years, it adds up to thousands of miles.
Your problem, and the problem of many other critics of evolution, is
that you don't do your own homework. You keep asserting that
"Evolutionists don't do this or don't do that"--have you ever ASKED an
evolutionist whether they did this or that before you make your sweeping
denials? Maybe you'll find out they have answered your objections
already. They're not as limited as you think.
> 5. Finally atheists have cloaked their underlying naturalistic
> philosophy in scientific language and then recast it as an underlying
> pillar of scientific practice.
>
>
>> yet when they are
>> asked questions such as, “where is your supporting evidence?” or “can
>> you provide citations for your source materials”, they either become
>> abusive, repeat their previous claims (as if repetition reinforces the
>> truth) or remain strangely silent on such issues. Why is that I
>> wonder?
>
> I'll cite two off the top of my head:
>
> "What Evolution Is," Ernst Mayr, 2001, Basic Books, see especially
> Chapter 1.
>
> "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science," 1998, National
> Academy Press, see especially Chapter 3.
There is definitely a slant in the writing of some of these textbooks
toward implicitly *denying* anything supernatural. They go beyond
methodological naturalism (which is basic to science) toward actual
philosophical naturalism (which verges on atheism). And I agree with
you, it's bad writing and they shouldn't do that. All these books
should assert is that there is nothing *scientific* about the
supernatural, not that it does not exist.
Devil's Advocaat
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
>
> >Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
> >unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
>
> 1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
> itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
> secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
> Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
> they make no effort to search for refutations.
You have fallen at the first hurdle Pagano, if the theory of evolution
had never, as you suggest, been genuinely tested then it would still
be as Darwin formulated it over 150 years ago, and if you look at any
recent publication on the theory of evolution and compare it to
Darwin's own book you will see that the theory has been repeatedly
tested over that period of time.
[snipped for brevity]
>
> > yet when they are
> >asked questions such as, “where is your supporting evidence?” or “can
> >you provide citations for your source materials”, they either become
> >abusive, repeat their previous claims (as if repetition reinforces the
> >truth) or remain strangely silent on such issues. Why is that I
> >wonder?
>
> I'll cite two off the top of my head:
>
> "What Evolution Is," Ernst Mayr, 2001, Basic Books, see especially
> Chapter 1.
Ernst Mayr is pro-evolution not anti-evolution, so how may I ask does
his book support the creationist position?
>
> "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science," 1998, National
> Academy Press, see especially Chapter 3.
Extract from page 49 (in chapter 3 of the above publication):
“Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species developed
through gradual processes over many generations.”
So I ask you, how does this publication actually defend the
creationist position?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Cory Albrecht
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
> <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
>> unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
>
>
> 1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
> itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
> secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
> Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
> they make no effort to search for refutations.
Other than those many palaeontologists and even more numerous amateur
fossil hunters who would just absolutely love (no sarcasm!) the
publicity from being known as the person who found a bunny rabbit
fossilized alongside a trilobite.
> 2. Remember that only a theory which can be refuted can be considered
> scientific. However, since the atheists make no attempt whatsoever to
> search for falsifications they treat the framework of evolutionary
> theories as inviolate and unquestionable. Discordant observations are
> ignored as anomolous. The lion share of work is to amass
Every fossil found, and there have been millions, is a a potential
falisification of the theory of evolution, as is every act of molecular
genetics which produces a phylogenomic tree of species and how they are
related.
> cooroborative evidence which every false theory in history has been
Funny, then, how the dual nested trees of life from morphology and
molectular genetics corroborate each other.
> able to accomplish. The creationist claim that atheists hold
> evolutionary theory as inviolate is an historical, psychological, and
> sociological statement of fact.
I'll let others deal with the rest of your crap.
[...snippage...]
T Pagano
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote, On 04/07/08 02:19 PM:
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
>> <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
>>> unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
>>
>>
>> 1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
>> itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
>> secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
>> Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
>> they make no effort to search for refutations.
>
>Other than those many palaeontologists and even more numerous amateur
>fossil hunters who would just absolutely love (no sarcasm!) the
>publicity from being known as the person who found a bunny rabbit
>fossilized alongside a trilobite.
1. Making the finds Albrecht sacastically offers are not all that
unusual. As such we have observed how atheists deal with discordant
obsevations. They typically produce an ad hoc excuse or they vilify
the finder as a fraud or charlatan so they don't have to address the
find.
2. For example when this forum's own Ed Conrad produced fossil
evidence to members of the atheist scientific community of petrified
bones, teeth and even soft organs -- SOME HUMAN -- between coal veins
his evidence was re-interpreted and he was villified.
3. In any event the issue is not what the professional paleontologist
(or the amateur) would do if he "accidentally" found a falsification
but that professional paleontologists make no effort whatsoever to
determine what would count as a falsification and then to actively
search for such falsifications. Atheists only make efforts to
ensconce their dogma with verifications which tell us nothing about
whether their framework is true or false.
4. Albrecht's implication that any true believer in evolutionism
professional or amateur would joyfully interpret some observation as a
falsification or that the amateur who offered some discordant fossil
would be greeted with open arms by the professional community is
simple-minded nonsense. Or Albrecht is just plain niaive.
>
>> 2. Remember that only a theory which can be refuted can be considered
>> scientific. However, since the atheists make no attempt whatsoever to
>> search for falsifications they treat the framework of evolutionary
>> theories as inviolate and unquestionable. Discordant observations are
>> ignored as anomolous. The lion share of work is to amass
>
>Every fossil found, and there have been millions, is a a potential
>falisification of the theory of evolution,
I agree but unless the professional paleontologist determines what
would count as a falsification in advance and plans to actively look
for them it matters little how many fossils are swept in. As near as
I can determine no one is making much (or any) effort at determining
what would count as a falsification.
Gould himself made bitter enemies of the Dawkinsians when he had the
courage to offer "stasis" as a plain falsifier of the neoDarwinian
gradualism in 1971. As it is the word "stasis" can rarely if ever be
found outside of professional paleontological works. The atheists
make believe this characteristic doesn't exist or there are ad hoc
solutions.
>as is every act of molecular
>genetics which produces a phylogenomic tree of species and how they are
>related.
1. Concerning prehistoric life about all that exists are
"classification" trees. Whether the various nodes in some
classification scheme are actually lineally related is what Darwin
tried to achieve. Yet after 149 years atheists have yet show the
slightest observable proof (for example) that a mesonychid can
transmogrify into a whale or that a dinosaur forearm can transmogrify
into an avian wing.
2. Darwin did not invent classification schemes and darwinism does
not even predict such schemes. Furthermore most of the non cladistic
classification trees show isolated nested hierarchies which are
prohibited by purely naturalistic processes which are entirely linear
and do not produce discrete entities.
>
>> cooroborative evidence which every false theory in history has been
>
>Funny, then, how the dual nested trees of life from morphology and
>molectular genetics corroborate each other.
1. This is an example of how verificationism has ruined the thinking
of whole generations likely stagnating many disciplines. Also its
apparent that high schools and colleges no longer teach philosophy of
logic 101.
2. If they had Albrecht would be aware that internal consistency of
some framework is not a guarrantor of truth. A framework may be
utterly false while retaining internal consistency.
>
>> able to accomplish. The creationist claim that atheists hold
>> evolutionary theory as inviolate is an historical, psychological, and
>> sociological statement of fact.
>
>
>I'll let others deal with the rest of your crap.
I'd say you'd dished out some of your own.
Regards,
T Pagano
>[...snippage...]
chris thompson
snip
>
> 3. The fact that random mutations combined to natural (or even
> artificial) selection has NEVER been observed to result in the
> emergence or development of some novel structure, system, or organ has
> never bothered atheists. Recall that this mechanism is supposed to be
> the engine for the emergence and development of EVERY biological
> structure, system and organ that has ever existed. The fact that the
> fossil record which should have captured some of this emergence and
> develpment of novelty shows NOTHING BUT sudden appearance of "mature"
> structures and stasis of those structures over millions of years never
> bothered the atheists.
Steven L mentioned the Italian Wall Lizard, and said he didn't want to
look it up again, and I don't blame him.
But just to make sure everyone sees your position for the bankrupt
wreckage it is, I will provide the info. You can read it, then bray a
few times about victory and mercy rules before you slink off to your
cave for another few months (but watch out for the vestigial eyes in
those blind cave fish while you're in there!)
Here's the reference:
Herrel A, Huyghe K, Vanhooydonck B, Backeljau T, Breugelmans K, Grbac
I, Van Damme R, Irschick DJ. (2008) Rapid large-scale evolutionary
divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation
of a different dietary resource. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 105(12):
4792-4795.
PZ Myers discusses it here- and has some photos:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php
The lizards evolved a brand new structure- a cecal valve- when they
were introduced into a new habitat. There are other less dramatic
changes too, but the cecal valve is a novel structure.
Buh-bye, Tony.
Chris
John Stockwell
Actually, all of Ed's examples were either concretions or
misidentified
plant parts. Ed's credibility, as well as his sanity, are
questionable.
>
> 3. In any event the issue is not what the professional paleontologist
> (or the amateur) would do if he "accidentally" found a falsification
> but that professional paleontologists make no effort whatsoever to
> determine what would count as a falsification and then to actively
> search for such falsifications. Atheists only make efforts to
> ensconce their dogma with verifications which tell us nothing about
> whether their framework is true or false.
Falsification of what? Current standard models? The paleontological
view of today is considerably advanced over what people thought
when I took historical geology 25 years ago, or what my teachers
learned
40 or 50 years ago. Since such changes in view can only occur by
the falsification of past hypotheses, your statement is obviously
false.
As to the desires of "athiests", mainstream science, unlike
creationism,
is not about religious views.
>
> 4. Albrecht's implication that any true believer in evolutionism
> professional or amateur would joyfully interpret some observation as a
> falsification or that the amateur who offered some discordant fossil
> would be greeted with open arms by the professional community is
> simple-minded nonsense. Or Albrecht is just plain niaive.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so who said
it would be easy? Basically, creationists and other "alternate
science"
cranks are intellectual lightweight narcissists who simultaneously
believe
that the know some higher truth (after 5 minutes of contemplation with
their vastly superior intellects). They
believe that it can only be that there is a "vast conspiracy" keeping
their ideas from being recognized. The truth is, your ideas are
recognized--as
the drivel they are.
>
>
>
> >> 2. Remember that only a theory which can be refuted can be considered
> >> scientific. However, since the atheists make no attempt whatsoever to
> >> search for falsifications they treat the framework of evolutionary
> >> theories as inviolate and unquestionable. Discordant observations are
> >> ignored as anomolous. The lion share of work is to amass
>
> >Every fossil found, and there have been millions, is a a potential
> >falisification of the theory of evolution,
>
> I agree but unless the professional paleontologist determines what
> would count as a falsification in advance and plans to actively look
> for them it matters little how many fossils are swept in. As near as
> I can determine no one is making much (or any) effort at determining
> what would count as a falsification.
>
> Gould himself made bitter enemies of the Dawkinsians when he had the
> courage to offer "stasis" as a plain falsifier of the neoDarwinian
> gradualism in 1971. As it is the word "stasis" can rarely if ever be
> found outside of professional paleontological works. The atheists
> make believe this characteristic doesn't exist or there are ad hoc
> solutions.
Ancient history. Gradualism isn't really in biology anymore.
>
> >as is every act of molecular
> >genetics which produces a phylogenomic tree of species and how they are
> >related.
>
> 1. Concerning prehistoric life about all that exists are
> "classification" trees. Whether the various nodes in some
> classification scheme are actually lineally related is what Darwin
> tried to achieve. Yet after 149 years atheists have yet show the
> slightest observable proof (for example) that a mesonychid can
> transmogrify into a whale or that a dinosaur forearm can transmogrify
> into an avian wing.
You might want to learn about hox genes.
>
> 2. Darwin did not invent classification schemes and darwinism does
> not even predict such schemes. Furthermore most of the non cladistic
> classification trees show isolated nested hierarchies which are
> prohibited by purely naturalistic processes which are entirely linear
> and do not produce discrete entities.
Those classifcation schemes are called "laws", the notion of common
descent explains those laws. All organisms living or extinct fall into
one unique tree, and the evidence showing that relatedness is right
there in the genomes of all living things.
>
>
>
> >> cooroborative evidence which every false theory in history has been
>
> >Funny, then, how the dual nested trees of life from morphology and
> >molectular genetics corroborate each other.
>
> 1. This is an example of how verificationism has ruined the thinking
> of whole generations likely stagnating many disciplines. Also its
> apparent that high schools and colleges no longer teach philosophy of
> logic 101.
Really. The fact that the heirarchical structure of biology persists
to
the molecular level tends to falsify the notion of "separate descent".
Hence, this is an example of the victory of falsificationism.
>
> 2. If they had Albrecht would be aware that internal consistency of
> some framework is not a guarrantor of truth. A framework may be
> utterly false while retaining internal consistency.
Science is about theories and evidence, and inferences. The truths
are the observations. These are the things that creationists routinely
misrepresent. Hence scientists are more truthful than creationists.
>
>
>
> >> able to accomplish. The creationist claim that atheists hold
> >> evolutionary theory as inviolate is an historical, psychological, and
> >> sociological statement of fact.
>
> >I'll let others deal with the rest of your crap.
>
> I'd say you'd dished out some of your own.
When it comes to Tony, he can always come up with crap, because
he is so full of it.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
-John
DJT
> >Other than those many palaeontologists and even more numerous amateur
> >fossil hunters who would just absolutely love (no sarcasm!) the
> >publicity from being known as the person who found a bunny rabbit
> >fossilized alongside a trilobite.
>
> 1. Making the finds Albrecht sacastically offers are not all that
> unusual. As such we have observed how atheists deal with discordant
> obsevations. They typically produce an ad hoc excuse or they vilify
> the finder as a fraud or charlatan so they don't have to address the
> find.
Can you provide any examples of such observations published in any
peer reviewed scientific publication? Fraudulent claims by
creationists are quite common, but actual "discordant" fossils are
very rare.
>
> 2. For example when this forum's own Ed Conrad produced fossil
> evidence to members of the atheist scientific community of petrified
> bones, teeth and even soft organs -- SOME HUMAN -- between coal veins
> his evidence was re-interpreted and he was villified.
LOL! Tony you probably could not have picked a worse choice to
illustrate your "point". Ed Conrad's "fossil evidence" is obviously
a collection of ordinary rocks, which Ed has, in his own unique way,
interpreted to be bones, teeth, and "even soft organs". None of
Conrad's finds were human, and when Andrew McRae (sp?) was kind enough
to examine the objects, he conclusively showed they were ordinary
rocks.
Tell me, Tony, which of Ed's "evidence" was most convincing to you?
The petrified "penises", or the lab report of someone's kidney stone
that Ed kept insisting was a confirmation of "dried blood" on his
specimens? Does it matter to you, that the lab that Ed claimed did
the analysis was a medical lab, that doesn't accept specimens from the
general public? That they don't do any kind of geological testing,
only medical tests? That the owner of the lab himself stated that
they never tested any of Ed's "specimens"?
>
> 3. In any event the issue is not what the professional paleontologist
> (or the amateur) would do if he "accidentally" found a falsification
> but that professional paleontologists make no effort whatsoever to
> determine what would count as a falsification and then to actively
> search for such falsifications. Atheists only make efforts to
> ensconce their dogma with verifications which tell us nothing about
> whether their framework is true or false.
As pointed out before, any time a new fossil is discovered, it's a
potential falsification for evolutionary theory. You seem to be
complaining that scientists aren't actively trying to prove
creationist dogma.
>
> 4. Albrecht's implication that any true believer in evolutionism
> professional or amateur would joyfully interpret some observation as a
> falsification or that the amateur who offered some discordant fossil
> would be greeted with open arms by the professional community is
> simple-minded nonsense. Or Albrecht is just plain niaive.
>
Do you have any evidence that Cory is incorrect? "Evolutionism" is
not something that any really is a "true believer" of. Scientists,
both professional and amateur would truly welcome any finding that
would challenge the prevailing ideas, as it would open up vast new
territories to explore. The fact that finding anything that would
falsify evolution, or support creationism is extremely remote is not
the fault of scientists.
snipping
>
> 1. Concerning prehistoric life about all that exists are
> "classification" trees. Whether the various nodes in some
> classification scheme are actually lineally related is what Darwin
> tried to achieve. Yet after 149 years atheists have yet show the
> slightest observable proof (for example) that a mesonychid can
> transmogrify into a whale or that a dinosaur forearm can transmogrify
> into an avian wing.
since "trasmorgrifying" isn't not normally found outside of Calvin and
Hobbes comics, that's not unusual. There is, however plenty of
evidence that artiodactyls (not mesonychid) have produced a population
that has evolved into whales, (including both genetic and extensive
fossil evidence), and plenty of evidence that dinosaur forelimbs were
modified by evolutionary processes into avian wings. Simply
burying your head in the sand and refusing to look at the evidence
doesn't mean you are right.
>
> 2. Darwin did not invent classification schemes and darwinism does
> not even predict such schemes.
However they do fit Darwin's theory quite well, which is what one
would expect from a correct observation of life.
> Furthermore most of the non cladistic
> classification trees show isolated nested hierarchies which are
> prohibited by purely naturalistic processes which are entirely linear
> and do not produce discrete entities.
Care to provide any examples of such?
>
>
snip of more of Tony's blovation.
DJT
Frank J
I'll leave it to the lurkers to determine if he was vilified, or just
given the normal drill that every scientist gets when he states an
extraordinary claim. My question for you is: Do you agree with Ed that
modern humans were here on Earth 280 million years ago?
BTW, the scientists-atheists switch did not go unnoticed.
(snip)
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:
>On Jul 4, 2:19 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>> 3. The fact that random mutations combined to natural (or even
>> artificial) selection has NEVER been observed to result in the
>> emergence or development of some novel structure, system, or organ has
>> never bothered atheists. Recall that this mechanism is supposed to be
>> the engine for the emergence and development of EVERY biological
>> structure, system and organ that has ever existed. The fact that the
>> fossil record which should have captured some of this emergence and
>> develpment of novelty shows NOTHING BUT sudden appearance of "mature"
>> structures and stasis of those structures over millions of years never
>> bothered the atheists.
>
>Steven L mentioned the Italian Wall Lizard
Hey, Tony may be an arrogant jerk, but he's not in the same
class as "Leisure Suit Larry"!
Oh, wait, you meant a *real* lizard...
Never mind...
>, and said he didn't want to
>look it up again, and I don't blame him.
>
>But just to make sure everyone sees your position for the bankrupt
>wreckage it is, I will provide the info. You can read it, then bray a
>few times about victory and mercy rules before you slink off to your
>cave for another few months (but watch out for the vestigial eyes in
>those blind cave fish while you're in there!)
>
>Here's the reference:
>
>Herrel A, Huyghe K, Vanhooydonck B, Backeljau T, Breugelmans K, Grbac
>I, Van Damme R, Irschick DJ. (2008) Rapid large-scale evolutionary
>divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation
>of a different dietary resource. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 105(12):
>4792-4795.
>
>PZ Myers discusses it here- and has some photos:
>
>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php
>
>The lizards evolved a brand new structure- a cecal valve- when they
>were introduced into a new habitat. There are other less dramatic
>changes too, but the cecal valve is a novel structure.
>
>Buh-bye, Tony.
>
>Chris
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Rusty Sites
vanquished the evil evolutionists. If that's true, why do you bother
coming back? In truth you are a very ignorant man who is driven by
nothing but delusions of grandeur. I think you probably have mental
problems and should seek help. Your arguments are easily refuted and
have been again and again. One quickly learns that attempting to have a
rational discussion is an exercise in futility. You aren't "beating"
anybody. You are just a nut job.
Gregory A Greenman
Rusty Sites <Spame...@spamex.com> declared...
Who are you talking to?
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Tiny Bulcher
To whom are you referring? I mean, narrow it down a bit. The above could
apply to almost all creationist posters to TO. (And some of the
evolutionists, too).
Ron O
You have a point. It might be possible that you wouldn't be so
confused if he didn't relabel the thread "The Great Bloviator," but
labeled it "The Whimpy Persistent Bloviator." But then, again,
probably not.
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
> In article <R4-dneVYCetJiO3VnZ2dnUVZ_tLin...@supernews.com>,
> Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> declared...
>
> > You go on and on but you never say anything except that you have
> > vanquished the evil evolutionists. If that's true, why do you bother
> > coming back? In truth you are a very ignorant man who is driven by
> > nothing but delusions of grandeur. I think you probably have mental
> > problems and should seek help. Your arguments are easily refuted and
> > have been again and again. One quickly learns that attempting to have a
> > rational discussion is an exercise in futility. You aren't "beating"
> > anybody. You are just a nut job.
>
> Who are you talking to?
The top was snipped, but the reply list shows it as a reply to Pagano.
Not that the reply list is even needed, because TO threads rarely have
more than one anti-evolutionist participating.
In any case, Pagano did not "vanquish the evil evolutionists," Ray
Martinez did. ;-)
>
> --
> Greg
> ----http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> What offends religious people is statements in science textbooks of the
> type "Species evolved through a blind, undirected process" and the like.
> I myself have seen textbooks that assert such things.
>
> Taken literally, such statements would deny theistic evolution too, not
> just fundamentalism or creationism.
Taken literally, it is a restatement of the fact that there is no
evidence of any purpose or direction in the evolution of life.
>
> It's bad writing. What a textbook should say is only that the
> *scientific* theory of evolution does not *depend* on conscious purpose.
It's a science textbook. What sort of statements were you expecting it
to contain?
> Not implicitly assert that it can be ruled out or discarded by Occam's
> razor. The former is a scientific statement. The latter is a
> philosophical one.
The implicit assertion is only there if you insist on a philosophical
reading of the text. If you read it as a science textbook, it's a
statement of fact.
>
> There is a lot of confusion on this point, between methodological
> naturalism (you don't need God to explain scientific natural law) versus
> philosophical naturalism (there is only scientific natural law, no God).
> It is all too easy for a proponent of evolution to stray beyond the
> former into the latter. No science textbook should ever imply
> philosophical naturalism. It's beyond the scope of science.
Likewise, no theological work should ever make claims about the efficacy
of prayer or the causes of biological diversity.
>
>
Cory Albrecht
it" here in talk.origins? :-)
T Pagano wrote, On 05/07/08 03:53 PM:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:21:03 -0400, Cory Albrecht
> <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote, On 04/07/08 02:19 PM:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
>>> <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
>>>> unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
>>>
>>> 1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
>>> itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
>>> secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
>>> Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
>>> they make no effort to search for refutations.
>> Other than those many palaeontologists and even more numerous amateur
>> fossil hunters who would just absolutely love (no sarcasm!) the
>> publicity from being known as the person who found a bunny rabbit
>> fossilized alongside a trilobite.
>
> 1. Making the finds Albrecht sacastically offers are not all that
Once again you show that you are incapable of reading for comprehension.
Or did you just miss that part where I specifically disclaimed sarcasm
in what I wrote?
Oh, and please call me Cory - there's no need to be so formal.
> unusual. As such we have observed how atheists deal with discordant
> obsevations. They typically produce an ad hoc excuse or they vilify
> the finder as a fraud or charlatan so they don't have to address the
> find.
Cites. Show your evidence.
> 2. For example when this forum's own Ed Conrad produced fossil
> evidence to members of the atheist scientific community of petrified
> bones, teeth and even soft organs -- SOME HUMAN -- between coal veins
> his evidence was re-interpreted and he was villified.
Ed Conrad *claimed* he had such fossils, but I don't believe he actually
offered his specimens up to observation & testing by scientists.
Of course, now Ed's alter ego Lin Liangtai is claiming that NASA has
taken pictures of fossilized neurons on Mars as is withholding evidence
of past life on Mars. Such claims don't exactly have a positive effect
on the potential validity of his "man as old as coal" claims.
> 3. In any event the issue is not what the professional paleontologist
> (or the amateur) would do if he "accidentally" found a falsification
> but that professional paleontologists make no effort whatsoever to
> determine what would count as a falsification and then to actively
> search for such falsifications. Atheists only make efforts to
> ensconce their dogma with verifications which tell us nothing about
> whether their framework is true or false.
Every fossil ever discovered is a potential falsification of
evolutionary theory. You think that by now some creationist somewhere,
some time in the last 200 years would have found the hypothetical bunny
rabbit with the T. rex.
Your implication of a conspiracy theory amongst palaeontologists is only
an implication of your kookiness.
> 4. Albrecht's implication that any true believer in evolutionism
> professional or amateur would joyfully interpret some observation as a
> falsification or that the amateur who offered some discordant fossil
> would be greeted with open arms by the professional community is
> simple-minded nonsense. Or Albrecht is just plain niaive.
You bet the "professional community" would accept it joyfully. because
as soon as that fossil bunny rabbit was reliably dated scientists woudl
jump all over it in in a nearly orgasmic attempt afiguring out how this
could happen. The one who coudl come up with a new fundamental theory
that tied together all of biology and explained the anachronistic
lagomorph would be more famous than Stephen Hawking and would win the
Nobel Prize.
Science is extremely competitive. Scientists never miss a chance to
point out each others' bad data, non-logical inductions or faulty
experiments.
Again, only a kook implies a conspiracy theory.
ObSpellingFlame: "naïve" (optionally without the diaresis).
>>> 2. Remember that only a theory which can be refuted can be considered
>>> scientific. However, since the atheists make no attempt whatsoever to
>>> search for falsifications they treat the framework of evolutionary
>>> theories as inviolate and unquestionable. Discordant observations are
>>> ignored as anomolous. The lion share of work is to amass
>> Every fossil found, and there have been millions, is a a potential
>> falisification of the theory of evolution,
> I agree but unless the professional paleontologist determines what
> would count as a falsification in advance and plans to actively look
> for them it matters little how many fossils are swept in. As near as
> I can determine no one is making much (or any) effort at determining
> what would count as a falsification.
Gee. I wonder ho many times people have suggested something a bunny
rabbit found fossilized witha T. rex, or a human skeleton with a
trilobite? No, nobody has *ever* suggested anything like that. (No that
was sarcasm.)
[...more of Tony's blithering snipped...]
Shane
> Oh looky! My very own subject line! Does that mean I have finally "made
> it" here in talk.origins? :-)
Well you have finally made it with Tony, However, if you toe
a British Natrualist, Scottian, Paulian, Evangelical
Martinezian line, you can even make it with Rays God.
>
> T Pagano wrote, On 05/07/08 03:53 PM:
>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:21:03 -0400, Cory Albrecht
>> <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> T Pagano wrote, On 04/07/08 02:19 PM:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
>>>> <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Many creationists claim that evolutionary theory is dogmatic,
>>>>> unquestionable, inviolate or otherwise unassailable,
>>>>
>>>> 1. The creationist claim is not that evolutionary theory, in and of
>>>> itself, is dogmatic or unquestionable but that it is treated so by
>>>> secularists and atheists. In what way is it treated this way?
>>>> Evolutionists make no effort to genuinely test the theory; that is,
>>>> they make no effort to search for refutations.
>
>>> Other than those many palaeontologists and even more numerous amateur
>>> fossil hunters who would just absolutely love (no sarcasm!) the
>>> publicity from being known as the person who found a bunny rabbit
>>> fossilized alongside a trilobite.
>>
>> 1. Making the finds Albrecht sacastically offers are not all that
>
> Once again you show that you are incapable of reading for comprehension.
Which marries up remarkably well with his inability to write
for comprehension if that line above is any indication.
[...]
Greg Guarino
wrote:
>most of the non cladistic
>classification trees show isolated nested hierarchies which are
>prohibited by purely naturalistic processes which are entirely linear
>and do not produce discrete entities.
Would you mind fleshing out this bit with some specifics? Thanks.
Greg Guarino
David Wilson
Cory Albrecht <coryal...@hotmail.com wrote:
>T Pagano wrote, On 05/07/08 03:53 PM:
>
... [snip] ....
>
>> 2. For example when this forum's own Ed Conrad produced fossil
>> evidence to members of the atheist scientific community of petrified
>> bones, teeth and even soft organs -- SOME HUMAN -- between coal veins
>> his evidence was re-interpreted and he was villified.
>
>Ed Conrad *claimed* he had such fossils, but I don't believe he actually
>offered his specimens up to observation & testing by scientists.
>
Well, he did at least send _one_ specimen to a scientist, Andrew MacRae,
who was once a regular poster to talk.origins.
Of course, as a fully-fledged member of the Evil Atheist Consipiracy,
Dr. MacRae was naturally obliged to reinterpret the specimen as nothing
more than a lump of sandstone:
<http://tinyurl.com/7oytf>
<http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SPAMMERS_fingers@WILL_BE_fwi_PROSECUTED_.net.au
(Remove underlines and upper case letters to obtain my email address)
RAM
Big snip
> 2. For example when this forum's own Ed Conrad produced fossil
> evidence to members of the atheist scientific community of petrified
> bones, teeth and even soft organs -- SOME HUMAN -- between coal veins
> his evidence was re-interpreted and he was villified.
>
This is absolutely the stupidest thing you have ever produced as
evidence. Ed is certifiably kookie. Your willful ignorance has no
bounds. Your religiously saturated brain cannot deal with any reality
that conflicts with your doctrines. You are pathetic.
But keep up the good work; "Creationism" with your assistance will
lose all credibility.
RAM
Bigger snip
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> >[...snippage...]