Harshman Still Fears to follow in Elsberry's footsteps; The Transitional Forms Challenge Still in the Crapper
T Pagano
mid 2001. Elsberry was highly embarrassed and vanished from the forum
almost never to be seen again. Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
light of day.
Interestingly enough the foram observations Elsberry produced weren't
half bad and came close to what creationists sought (see Pearson, et
al.). But close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
If the evidence of molecules-to-man is overwhelming where is the
evidence of transformational change? Harshman is the resident
evolutionary biologist and this challenge is in his area of expertise.
Start the challenge anew with a scientific report providing
observational evidence of genuine transformational change. Throw the
gauntlet down or admit that there is no evidence of genuine
transformational change.
Forrest isn't up to the task and Okimoto is too busy playing grab ass
with Nyikos. IMHO Harshman is the best in the forum in his field. .
.. .
Regards,
T Pagano
raven1
wrote:
>If the evidence of molecules-to-man is overwhelming where is the
>evidence of transformational change?
Who knows? You still haven't provided a definition of
"transformational change".
John Harshman
> Elsberry's famous Transitional Forms Challenge was crushed by me in
> mid 2001.
....in your rich fantasy life, that is.
> Elsberry was highly embarrassed and vanished from the forum
> almost never to be seen again. Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
> thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
> light of day.
>
> Interestingly enough the foram observations Elsberry produced weren't
> half bad and came close to what creationists sought (see Pearson, et
> al.). But close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
>
> If the evidence of molecules-to-man is overwhelming where is the
> evidence of transformational change?
Everywhere. The problem is that you won't accept that evidence is
evidence, and in fact you deny that there can be such a thing as evidence.
But here's some more. The Early Bird project, on the basis of DNA
sequences, found a particular set of relationships among birds: that
songbirds were most closely related to parrots, and that pair closest to
falcons, and that trio closest to seriemas (Hackett et al. 2008). Now we
have independent confirmation of exactly that set of relationships from
retroposon insertions: Suh et al. 2011.
What possible explanation is there for two independent data sets coming
to exactly the same conclusion, other than that both sets of data
evolved on the same branching tree? And from that, transformational
change follows, as one common ancestral species ended up having such
disparate descendants as warblers, cockatoos, and peregrines.
Hackett, S. J., R. T. Kimball, S. Reddy, R. C. K. Bowie, E. L. Braun, M.
J. Braun, J. L. Chojnowski, W. A. Cox, K.-L. Han, J. Harshman, C. J.
Huddleston, B. D. Marks, K. J. Miglia, W. A. Moore, F. H. Sheldon, D. W.
Steadman, C. C. Witt, and T. Yuri. 2008. A phylogenomic study of birds
reveals their evolutionary history. Science 320:1763-1768.
http://www.biology.ufl.edu/earlybird/pubs.html#Deep_Avian_Phylogenetics
Suh, A. et al. 2011. Mesozoic retroposons reveal parrots as the closest
living relatives of passerines. Nature Communications 2:443.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n8/full/ncomms1448.html
> Harshman is the resident
> evolutionary biologist and this challenge is in his area of expertise.
> Start the challenge anew with a scientific report providing
> observational evidence of genuine transformational change. Throw the
> gauntlet down or admit that there is no evidence of genuine
> transformational change.
Notice that you have added another qualifier in that sentence:
"observational". What do you mean by that word? Does my evidence fit? If
not, why not? And more importantly, regardless of whether it's
"observational", what's wrong with the inference?
> Forrest isn't up to the task and Okimoto is too busy playing grab ass
> with Nyikos. IMHO Harshman is the best in the forum in his field. .
> .. .
I don't know why I bother. Last time I answered one of your challenges
you just plagiarized Gish and stopped responding. I have no doubt you
will exercise similar courage this time. There's a reason they call you
Brave Sir Tony.
Inez
I for one am glad you bother, I have learned a lot from your posts. I
now know more about neutral evolution than a whole double doctor!
John Harshman
> I for one am glad you bother, I have learned a lot from your posts. I
> now know more about neutral evolution than a whole double doctor!
>
You're setting the bar too low.
Ray Martinez
Once again: this is why I challenge the veracity of evolution based on
agency (causation), and not affinity (effect). I obtained the idea
from Paley. All Harshman has said is that macroevolution has occurred
based on close relationship between X and Y (Darwin did the same).
Unless HOW the transformation occurred is evidenced and explained,
Harshman has begged the question.
John: We don't see any evolutionary relationship between X and Y. I
do not contest that your two independent studies have come to that
conclusion, but we see the question begging in your closing paragraph,
read closely:
"What possible explanation is there for two independent data sets
coming to exactly the same conclusion, other than that both sets of
data evolved on the same branching tree?" (JH).
All you have established is a claim that says an effect of
evolutionary relationship exists. Until you establish cause, the
effect is not real, but assumed, begged.
I will admit that JH is very good at establishing the claim of effect.
Now he needs to establish cause or his effect is an illusion. Of
course we have a better explanation for these effects.
Ray (Paleyan IDist)
John Harshman
I reject your bizarre notion that we can't know an effect exists unless
we can determine the cause. And your idea of cause is itself ambiguous.
We do know the cause of the identical results from different data:
common descent on the same tree. What you seem to require is that we
know each and every difference in the DNA of the species, and why each
difference arose and became fixed.
But consider this often-used example. You come upon a neatly flat tree
stump. Near it, on the ground, is an entire tree, truncated in a
similarly nearly flat fashion. Sawdust is spread about. Do you conclude
that somebody cut the tree down, or do you reserve judgment until you
know who did it, the color of his shirt, and his brand of chainsaw?
Ray Martinez
"Cause and Effect" enjoys universal scientific acceptance. I have
examined your claims above and come to the conclusion that effect is
established provisionally. Note the latter **is dependent** upon the
former. How did the effect happen? How did X transmute into Y? Your
elucidation **assumes** that once "close relationship" (effect) is
established, evolution has occurred. This is question begging. The
mere establishment of "close relationship" COULD mean that evolution
has occurred, but the explanation and logic itself does not actually
lend any support to cause except by assumption. Case in point: Darwin
titled his book "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
Selection." The first chapters are concerned with cause; the latter
chapters are about effect (similarities; close relationships). Your
case for macroevolution is missing the first part, or the all
important how? The layout of Darwin's book is most logical. The reason
Darwin titled his book giving preeminence to cause is because, at the
time, science accepted "each species" to be immutable (Darwin 1859:6).
Thus for him to explicate the close relationship between X and Y
(without focussing on how) would have left naturalists wondering as to
what his point was? While he convinced his peers that species were
mutable, naturalists, for the most part, rejected natural selection in
his life time. But the crucial point is that Darwin accepted the logic
of cause and effect. He never, at anytime, based evolution on effect.
> And your idea of cause is itself ambiguous.
> We do know the cause of the identical results from different data:
> common descent on the same tree. What you seem to require is that we
> know each and every difference in the DNA of the species, and why each
> difference arose and became fixed.
>
I said no such things.
> But consider this often-used example. You come upon a neatly flat tree
> stump. Near it, on the ground, is an entire tree, truncated in a
> similarly nearly flat fashion. Sawdust is spread about. Do you conclude
> that somebody cut the tree down, or do you reserve judgment until you
> know who did it, the color of his shirt, and his brand of chainsaw?
Your point is well understood, but it's still question begging.
Ray
John Harshman
As usual, you fail to understand Darwin's argument. Darwin introduced
two theories in the Origin: natural selection and treelike common
descent. It should be obvious that the two are independent; you yourself
claim that scientists rejected the first yet accepted the second. How is
that possible if the second requires prior agreement on the first?
>> And your idea of cause is itself ambiguous.
>> We do know the cause of the identical results from different data:
>> common descent on the same tree. What you seem to require is that we
>> know each and every difference in the DNA of the species, and why each
>> difference arose and became fixed.
>
> I said no such things.
Then what did you mean by "cause".
>> But consider this often-used example. You come upon a neatly flat tree
>> stump. Near it, on the ground, is an entire tree, truncated in a
>> similarly nearly flat fashion. Sawdust is spread about. Do you conclude
>> that somebody cut the tree down, or do you reserve judgment until you
>> know who did it, the color of his shirt, and his brand of chainsaw?
>
> Your point is well understood, but it's still question begging.
I would ask why, but that might encourage you to post more.
Ray Martinez
To be kind, non-sequitur.
> Darwin introduced
> two theories in the Origin: natural selection and treelike common
> descent.
Inaccurate.
He introduced natural selection and its logical outcome (by
extrapolation): divergence. The only diagram in The Origin depicts
divergence, not the fully worked out model of branching descent.
> It should be obvious that the two are independent; you yourself
> claim that scientists rejected the first yet accepted the second. How is
> that possible if the second requires prior agreement on the first?
>
> >> And your idea of cause is itself ambiguous.
> >> We do know the cause of the identical results from different data:
> >> common descent on the same tree. What you seem to require is that we
> >> know each and every difference in the DNA of the species, and why each
> >> difference arose and became fixed.
>
> > I said no such things.
>
> Then what did you mean by "cause".
>
> >> But consider this often-used example. You come upon a neatly flat tree
> >> stump. Near it, on the ground, is an entire tree, truncated in a
> >> similarly nearly flat fashion. Sawdust is spread about. Do you conclude
> >> that somebody cut the tree down, or do you reserve judgment until you
> >> know who did it, the color of his shirt, and his brand of chainsaw?
>
> > Your point is well understood, but it's still question begging.
>
> I would ask why, but that might encourage you to post more.
I've made my points (mainly in my previous message). Your attempt to
establish macroevolution is exposed as question begging because
causation/agency is not addressed. All you got is a claim concerning
some effect that might exist. What's to stop some Creationist from
saying "God saw that it was good, so He made another quite similar"?
Hence: see the title of Darwin's book.
Ray
John Vreeland
"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one."
How is claiming that we all descend from one comnmon ancestor through
divergence NOT common descent? I can not imagine what you might be
thinking.
I always thought c.d. was an older idea but apparently Darwin was the
first to reach this conclusion.
>> It should be obvious that the two are independent; you yourself
>> claim that scientists rejected the first yet accepted the second. How is
>> that possible if the second requires prior agreement on the first?
>>
>> >> And your idea of cause is itself ambiguous.
>> >> We do know the cause of the identical results from different data:
>> >> common descent on the same tree. What you seem to require is that we
>> >> know each and every difference in the DNA of the species, and why each
>> >> difference arose and became fixed.
>>
>> > I said no such things.
>>
>> Then what did you mean by "cause".
>>
>> >> But consider this often-used example. You come upon a neatly flat tree
>> >> stump. Near it, on the ground, is an entire tree, truncated in a
>> >> similarly nearly flat fashion. Sawdust is spread about. Do you conclude
>> >> that somebody cut the tree down, or do you reserve judgment until you
>> >> know who did it, the color of his shirt, and his brand of chainsaw?
>>
>> > Your point is well understood, but it's still question begging.
>>
>> I would ask why, but that might encourage you to post more.
>
>I've made my points (mainly in my previous message). Your attempt to
>establish macroevolution is exposed as question begging because
>causation/agency is not addressed. All you got is a claim concerning
>some effect that might exist. What's to stop some Creationist from
>saying "God saw that it was good, so He made another quite similar"?
>Hence: see the title of Darwin's book.
>
>Ray
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.
RAM
Maybe his name should be changed to Plagiarizer Pagano the Liar. It
appears to be equally as accurate as he also lies about defeating
Elsberry.
Ray Martinez
I said divergence is more accurate, and I stated why. Then I referred
to CD as "branching descent," which again is more accurate. Perhaps
you need to think more carefully before posting?
Ray
[....]
MG
Oh wait, I thought Mr. Pagano addressed the whole plagiarizing thing
during one of the GG outages... you mean he's never brought it up
after being caught red-handed?
T Pagano
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>> Elsberry's famous Transitional Forms Challenge was crushed by me in
>> mid 2001.
>
>....in your rich fantasy life, that is.
One need only watch the atheist contortions over Abiogenesis, the
origin of space-matter-time, and IC systems to see that we all live in
our metaphysical fantasy worlds. Harshman, of course, is above this.
.. . .but is he?
>
>> Elsberry was highly embarrassed and vanished from the forum
>> almost never to be seen again. Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
>> thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
>> light of day.
>>
>> Interestingly enough the foram observations Elsberry produced weren't
>> half bad and came close to what creationists sought (see Pearson, et
>> al.). But close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
>>
>> If the evidence of molecules-to-man is overwhelming where is the
>> evidence of transformational change?
>
>Everywhere. The problem is that you won't accept that evidence is
>evidence, and in fact you deny that there can be such a thing as evidence.
This is both nonsense and irrelevent to Elsberry's defunct
Transitional Forms Challenge.
1. Both Darwinism and neoDarwinism retrodict transformational change
from Abiogenesis to extant forms. And that transformational change
must be continuous. Discontinuites are PROHIBITED in purely
naturalistic processes.
2. The fossil record shows nothing but discontinuity in the prehistory
of life. This falsifies both Darwinism and neoDarwinism as the
universal engine of biological diversity and transformational change.
The fossil record is voluminous and considered (by some) to be an
adequate sampling of prehistoric life.
3. The label "Evidence" is a conclusion about some raw observation
AFTER that raw observation has been interpreted in the light of some
theory. Sadly for poor Harshman characterizing an observation as
"evidence" only tells us that the observation is consistent with the
theory. And as I've pointed out repeatedly raw observations can be
quite consistent with any number of false theory. "Consistency" does
NOT transmit truth.
4. Finally, all false theories can garner "evidence."
>
>But here's some more. The Early Bird project, on the basis of DNA
>sequences, found a particular set of relationships among birds: that
>songbirds were most closely related to parrots, and that pair closest to
>falcons, and that trio closest to seriemas (Hackett et al. 2008). Now we
>have independent confirmation of exactly that set of relationships from
>retroposon insertions: Suh et al. 2011.
>
>What possible explanation is there for two independent data sets coming
>to exactly the same conclusion, other than that both sets of data
>evolved on the same branching tree? And from that, transformational
>change follows, as one common ancestral species ended up having such
>disparate descendants as warblers, cockatoos, and peregrines.
>
>Hackett, S. J., R. T. Kimball, S. Reddy, R. C. K. Bowie, E. L. Braun, M.
>J. Braun, J. L. Chojnowski, W. A. Cox, K.-L. Han, J. Harshman, C. J.
>Huddleston, B. D. Marks, K. J. Miglia, W. A. Moore, F. H. Sheldon, D. W.
>Steadman, C. C. Witt, and T. Yuri. 2008. A phylogenomic study of birds
>reveals their evolutionary history. Science 320:1763-1768.
>
>http://www.biology.ufl.edu/earlybird/pubs.html#Deep_Avian_Phylogenetics
>
>Suh, A. et al. 2011. Mesozoic retroposons reveal parrots as the closest
>living relatives of passerines. Nature Communications 2:443.
These are discussions about birds. All birds. I'd be more interested
in the transition from mesonychid to whale.
Harshman does little more than show the similarities on both side of
the river without producing the bridge. While Harshman repeatedly
tries to distance himself from Darwin his profession does little more
today than did Darwin over 160 years ago. Darwin looked at the
relationships (that is the similarities) discovered by taxonimists and
hypothesized that those isolated hierarchical groupings were not
really isolated but possibly connected by some continuous naturalistic
process. He felt sure that the fossil record would reveal the
transitional forms connecting the isolated groups. It didn't then and
it hasn't today.
The fossil record of prehistoric life mirrors the isolated
discontinuities of Linnaeus's classification scheme of extant forms.
Behe's IC systems are also discontinuities completely unexplained by
any real world, probable, naturalistic process. There are other
examples of the profound discontinuities in the history of life.
Considering the number of species which have arisen, the tremendous
complexity of structures and systems, and the relatively limited time
for their creation transformational change should abound. Yet no one
can find it. Not the paleontologists and not Lenski.
Elsberry knew what should be found and what creationists demanded. In
2001 he offered the report by Pearson, et al. Elsberry thought that
the observations of the finely graded changes of foram shell from less
spherical to more spherical was the ticket even Darwin would have
loved. Problem was the two branches of foram (one changed to more
spherical and the other did not) existed together for 15 million
years. The foram shell existed at the branch point and remained a
foram shell after 15 million years. Nothing new emerged. Elsberry
unwittingly had produced a perfect example of stasis. He quickly
vanished with his tail between his legs.
>
>http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n8/full/ncomms1448.html
>
>> Harshman is the resident
>> evolutionary biologist and this challenge is in his area of expertise.
>> Start the challenge anew with a scientific report providing
>> observational evidence of genuine transformational change. Throw the
>> gauntlet down or admit that there is no evidence of genuine
>> transformational change.
>
>Notice that you have added another qualifier in that sentence:
>"observational". What do you mean by that word? Does my evidence fit? If
>not, why not? And more importantly, regardless of whether it's
>"observational", what's wrong with the inference?
The only thing evolutionists since Darwin have produced is
similarities separated by chasms which are prohibited by purely
naturalistic processes. Harshman essentially argues that the
similarities are so compelling that it doesn't really matter whether
the mechanism meant to bridge the gap is observable or not. This is
the attitude of a faithful, religious, zealot and not the scientific
empiricist. The fact that Harshman insists that I explain the label
"observational" makes it more likely that my assessment of his
attitude is correct.
>
>> Forrest isn't up to the task and Okimoto is too busy playing grab ass
>> with Nyikos. IMHO Harshman is the best in the forum in his field. .
>> .. .
>
>I don't know why I bother. Last time I answered one of your challenges
>you just plagiarized Gish and stopped responding. I have no doubt you
>will exercise similar courage this time. There's a reason they call you
>Brave Sir Tony.
Harshman bothers because he can't afford to leave the regular attacks
on his religion unanswered.
This is amusing. How on earth would Harshman know whether I quote
from Gish or not? Harshman is too lazy to read Behe which is
available in most libraries. Bluff called?
Regards,
T Pagano
.. . .he jumps, he shoots, and s w i s s s s h.
Harshman's game needs to get way better than this. BTW Dworetsky is
in his final death gasps on the GeoCentric/Heliocentric front. Unless
he or Carlip can pull a rabbit out of the hat; they're both finished.
The rest of the usual suspects are doing their Keystone Cop routine.
Boikat
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:44:57 -0700, John Harshman
>
However, your somewhat slower than most's, mental atributes seem to
block the simple fact from your mental processes thast not all
organisms that ever lived had to become fossilized, or that those that
did, have been discovered. Apparently, in your fantasy world, you
imagine that there is some sort of "fossil pit", where representatives
from each and every generation of all organisms whent to dies and be
pereserved, and that said "fossil pit" has been discovered.
> Discontinuites are PROHIBITED in purely
> naturalistic processes.
A spotty fossil record does not mean that there were gaps in the
actual succession of species.
Besides, not all transitionals were "retrodictions" You ran form one
such example: Tiktaalik, remember?
Tik-Taalik... Tik-taalik... Tik-taalik...
And, you are still running.
Boikat
John Harshman
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:44:57 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> Elsberry's famous Transitional Forms Challenge was crushed by me in
>>> mid 2001.
>> ....in your rich fantasy life, that is.
>
> One need only watch the atheist contortions over Abiogenesis, the
> origin of space-matter-time, and IC systems to see that we all live in
> our metaphysical fantasy worlds. Harshman, of course, is above this.
> .. . .but is he?
So you're admitting that you live in a fantasy world, but your defense
is to claim that everyone else does too. Good try.
>>> Elsberry was highly embarrassed and vanished from the forum
>>> almost never to be seen again. Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
>>> thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
>>> light of day.
>>>
>>> Interestingly enough the foram observations Elsberry produced weren't
>>> half bad and came close to what creationists sought (see Pearson, et
>>> al.). But close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
>>>
>>> If the evidence of molecules-to-man is overwhelming where is the
>>> evidence of transformational change?
>> Everywhere. The problem is that you won't accept that evidence is
>> evidence, and in fact you deny that there can be such a thing as evidence.
>
> This is both nonsense and irrelevent to Elsberry's defunct
> Transitional Forms Challenge.
> 1. Both Darwinism and neoDarwinism retrodict transformational change
> from Abiogenesis to extant forms. And that transformational change
> must be continuous. Discontinuites are PROHIBITED in purely
> naturalistic processes.
You have never managed to support that claim. There are in fact many
discontinuities in nature. One may look to something as simple as
boiling water. There is no state of matter half-way between liquid and
gas. Nor is it at all relevant to any argument on my point.
> 2. The fossil record shows nothing but discontinuity in the prehistory
> of life. This falsifies both Darwinism and neoDarwinism as the
> universal engine of biological diversity and transformational change.
> The fossil record is voluminous and considered (by some) to be an
> adequate sampling of prehistoric life.
Who considers it adequate? And what do they mean by "adequate". I think
this is a third-hand quote mine of something Michael J. Benton once
said. But if we're going to discuss this claim, you will have to present
your support first.
> 3. The label "Evidence" is a conclusion about some raw observation
> AFTER that raw observation has been interpreted in the light of some
> theory. Sadly for poor Harshman characterizing an observation as
> "evidence" only tells us that the observation is consistent with the
> theory. And as I've pointed out repeatedly raw observations can be
> quite consistent with any number of false theory. "Consistency" does
> NOT transmit truth.
That's your characterization of what "evidence" means, not mine. Stop
with the strawman. Good evidence is compatible with some theories but
not with others. The evidence I have presented is compatible with common
descent but not with any other theory. If you disagree, present that
other theory.
> 4. Finally, all false theories can garner "evidence."
Not true for any reasonable definition of "evidence".
I will point out that so far you have not addressed my challenge at all.
Avoidance?
>> But here's some more. The Early Bird project, on the basis of DNA
>> sequences, found a particular set of relationships among birds: that
>> songbirds were most closely related to parrots, and that pair closest to
>> falcons, and that trio closest to seriemas (Hackett et al. 2008). Now we
>> have independent confirmation of exactly that set of relationships from
>> retroposon insertions: Suh et al. 2011.
>>
>> What possible explanation is there for two independent data sets coming
>> to exactly the same conclusion, other than that both sets of data
>> evolved on the same branching tree? And from that, transformational
>> change follows, as one common ancestral species ended up having such
>> disparate descendants as warblers, cockatoos, and peregrines.
>>
>> Hackett, S. J., R. T. Kimball, S. Reddy, R. C. K. Bowie, E. L. Braun, M.
>> J. Braun, J. L. Chojnowski, W. A. Cox, K.-L. Han, J. Harshman, C. J.
>> Huddleston, B. D. Marks, K. J. Miglia, W. A. Moore, F. H. Sheldon, D. W.
>> Steadman, C. C. Witt, and T. Yuri. 2008. A phylogenomic study of birds
>> reveals their evolutionary history. Science 320:1763-1768.
>>
>> http://www.biology.ufl.edu/earlybird/pubs.html#Deep_Avian_Phylogenetics
>>
>> Suh, A. et al. 2011. Mesozoic retroposons reveal parrots as the closest
>> living relatives of passerines. Nature Communications 2:443.
>
> These are discussions about birds. All birds. I'd be more interested
> in the transition from mesonychid to whale.
I don't care what you would be more interested in. You asked for
evidence of "transformational change". You didn't specify what species
should be involved. More attempts at distraction.
> Harshman does little more than show the similarities on both side of
> the river without producing the bridge.
Was that an attempt at addressing the issue? Do you in fact reject all
conceivable evidence of common descent other than fossil evidence? On
what grounds?
> While Harshman repeatedly
> tries to distance himself from Darwin his profession does little more
> today than did Darwin over 160 years ago.
No idea where you got any of that.
> Darwin looked at the
> relationships (that is the similarities) discovered by taxonimists and
> hypothesized that those isolated hierarchical groupings were not
> really isolated but possibly connected by some continuous naturalistic
> process. He felt sure that the fossil record would reveal the
> transitional forms connecting the isolated groups. It didn't then and
> it hasn't today.
Archaeopteryx is one such form. There are thousands of others. That
isn't what you're really asking for. But of course if you admitted what
you were really asking for everyone could see how absurd your request
was. And so you avoid specifying.
> The fossil record of prehistoric life mirrors the isolated
> discontinuities of Linnaeus's classification scheme of extant forms.
> Behe's IC systems are also discontinuities completely unexplained by
> any real world, probable, naturalistic process. There are other
> examples of the profound discontinuities in the history of life.
I'm waiting for you to present some argument against anything I've said.
In vain, apparently.
> Considering the number of species which have arisen, the tremendous
> complexity of structures and systems, and the relatively limited time
> for their creation transformational change should abound. Yet no one
> can find it. Not the paleontologists and not Lenski.
>
[snip Tony's fantasy about Wesley Elsberry]
>>> Harshman is the resident
>>> evolutionary biologist and this challenge is in his area of expertise.
>>> Start the challenge anew with a scientific report providing
>>> observational evidence of genuine transformational change. Throw the
>>> gauntlet down or admit that there is no evidence of genuine
>>> transformational change.
>> Notice that you have added another qualifier in that sentence:
>> "observational". What do you mean by that word? Does my evidence fit? If
>> not, why not? And more importantly, regardless of whether it's
>> "observational", what's wrong with the inference?
>
> The only thing evolutionists since Darwin have produced is
> similarities separated by chasms which are prohibited by purely
> naturalistic processes. Harshman essentially argues that the
> similarities are so compelling that it doesn't really matter whether
> the mechanism meant to bridge the gap is observable or not. This is
> the attitude of a faithful, religious, zealot and not the scientific
> empiricist. The fact that Harshman insists that I explain the label
> "observational" makes it more likely that my assessment of his
> attitude is correct.
Still waiting. This is a good spot to note again that you have not
addressed a single issue I raised. But I suspect you will count this as
a victory and run away again. I'm expecting you not to post further in
this thread. Surprise me.
>>> Forrest isn't up to the task and Okimoto is too busy playing grab ass
>>> with Nyikos. IMHO Harshman is the best in the forum in his field. .
>>> .. .
>> I don't know why I bother. Last time I answered one of your challenges
>> you just plagiarized Gish and stopped responding. I have no doubt you
>> will exercise similar courage this time. There's a reason they call you
>> Brave Sir Tony.
>
> Harshman bothers because he can't afford to leave the regular attacks
> on his religion unanswered.
>
> This is amusing. How on earth would Harshman know whether I quote
> from Gish or not? Harshman is too lazy to read Behe which is
> available in most libraries. Bluff called?
"Quote"? No, it was plagiarism. And it's on the web, so even the laziest
person can conduct a search for himself. Many have. I note that you
don't exactly deny plagiarism.
> .. . .he jumps, he shoots, and s w i s s s s h.
It's generally a good idea to score some points before declaring
victory. So far you haven't addressed my challenge at all, just as you
failed to address the bit about Archaeopteryx (and not even your
plagiarized Gish actually addressed that particular issue).
[snip remaining empty trash talk]
Vincent Maycock
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-e9es57tk20egr...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:44:57 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>> Elsberry's famous Transitional Forms Challenge was crushed by me in
>>> mid 2001.
>>
>>....in your rich fantasy life, that is.
>
> One need only watch the atheist contortions over Abiogenesis,
There's no reason to think non-natural forces were involved with
abiogenesis. No
contortions are needed to arrive at this conclusion.
>the
> origin of space-matter-time,
The Big Bang is a well-supported theory which explains this.
>and IC systems
Probably evolved to increase efficiency, after the basic structure
of the system has evolved.
snip
>1. Both Darwinism and neoDarwinism retrodict transformational change
>from Abiogenesis to extant forms. And that transformational change
>must be continuous. Discontinuites are PROHIBITED in purely
>naturalistic processes.
They are not prohibited, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread.
> 2. The fossil record shows nothing but discontinuity in the prehistory
> of life.
Ape-like creatures have been seen to gradually morph into humans in the
fossil record.
>This falsifies both Darwinism and neoDarwinism as the
> universal engine of biological diversity and transformational change.
> The fossil record is voluminous and considered (by some) to be an
> adequate sampling of prehistoric life.
Which explains why we have so many transitional forms: apes to humans,
reptiles to mammals, fish to amphibians, birds to
dinosaurs, and ungulates to whales.
> 3. The label "Evidence" is a conclusion about some raw observation
> AFTER that raw observation has been interpreted in the light of some
> theory. Sadly for poor Harshman characterizing an observation as
> "evidence" only tells us that the observation is consistent with the
> theory. And as I've pointed out repeatedly raw observations can be
> quite consistent with any number of false theory. "Consistency" does
> NOT transmit truth.
Consistency is evidence that we're in the right ball park, in terms of
truth.
> 4. Finally, all false theories can garner "evidence."
They can, but true theories are much better at it. That's why we favor
theories based on
good evidence to those that are not based on good evidence.
>>But here's some more. The Early Bird project, on the basis of DNA
>>sequences, found a particular set of relationships among birds: that
>>songbirds were most closely related to parrots, and that pair closest to
>>falcons, and that trio closest to seriemas (Hackett et al. 2008). Now we
>>have independent confirmation of exactly that set of relationships from
>>retroposon insertions: Suh et al. 2011.
>>
>>What possible explanation is there for two independent data sets coming
>>to exactly the same conclusion, other than that both sets of data
>>evolved on the same branching tree? And from that, transformational
>>change follows, as one common ancestral species ended up having such
>>disparate descendants as warblers, cockatoos, and peregrines.
>>
>>Hackett, S. J., R. T. Kimball, S. Reddy, R. C. K. Bowie, E. L. Braun, M.
>>J. Braun, J. L. Chojnowski, W. A. Cox, K.-L. Han, J. Harshman, C. J.
>>Huddleston, B. D. Marks, K. J. Miglia, W. A. Moore, F. H. Sheldon, D. W.
>>Steadman, C. C. Witt, and T. Yuri. 2008. A phylogenomic study of birds
>>reveals their evolutionary history. Science 320:1763-1768.
>>
>>http://www.biology.ufl.edu/earlybird/pubs.html#Deep_Avian_Phylogenetics
>>
>>Suh, A. et al. 2011. Mesozoic retroposons reveal parrots as the closest
>>living relatives of passerines. Nature Communications 2:443.
>
> These are discussions about birds. All birds. I'd be more interested
> in the transition from mesonychid to whale.
Why is that?
> Harshman does little more than show the similarities on both side of
> the river without producing the bridge.
There is no such river.
>While Harshman repeatedly
> tries to distance himself from Darwin his profession does little more
> today than did Darwin over 160 years ago. Darwin looked at the
> relationships (that is the similarities) discovered by taxonimists and
> hypothesized that those isolated hierarchical groupings were not
> really isolated but possibly connected by some continuous naturalistic
> process. He felt sure that the fossil record would reveal the
> transitional forms connecting the isolated groups. It didn't then and
> it hasn't today.
In most cases, the groups are not isolated.
> The fossil record of prehistoric life mirrors the isolated
> discontinuities of Linnaeus's classification scheme of extant forms.
> Behe's IC systems are also discontinuities completely unexplained by
> any real world, probable, naturalistic process. There are other
> examples of the profound discontinuities in the history of life.
There are discontinuities, but many continuities as well.
> Considering the number of species which have arisen, the tremendous
> complexity of structures and systems, and the relatively limited time
> for their creation transformational change should abound. Yet no one
> can find it. Not the paleontologists and not Lenski.
Paleontologists have found numerous transitional forms.
> Elsberry knew what should be found and what creationists demanded. In
> 2001 he offered the report by Pearson, et al. Elsberry thought that
> the observations of the finely graded changes of foram shell from less
> spherical to more spherical was the ticket even Darwin would have
> loved. Problem was the two branches of foram (one changed to more
> spherical and the other did not) existed together for 15 million
> years. The foram shell existed at the branch point and remained a
> foram shell after 15 million years. Nothing new emerged.
Greater sphericity emerged. And there's nothing wrong with ancestors and
descendants
(or in this case, apparently sister groups) from living at the same time.
>Elsberry
> unwittingly had produced a perfect example of stasis. He quickly
> vanished with his tail between his legs.
>>
>>http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n8/full/ncomms1448.html
>>
>>> Harshman is the resident
>>> evolutionary biologist and this challenge is in his area of expertise.
>>> Start the challenge anew with a scientific report providing
>>> observational evidence of genuine transformational change. Throw the
>>> gauntlet down or admit that there is no evidence of genuine
>>> transformational change.
>>
>>Notice that you have added another qualifier in that sentence:
>>"observational". What do you mean by that word? Does my evidence fit? If
>>not, why not? And more importantly, regardless of whether it's
>>"observational", what's wrong with the inference?
>
> The only thing evolutionists since Darwin have produced is
> similarities separated by chasms which are prohibited by purely
> naturalistic processes.
Why are chimpanzees 96% the same as humans in their genomes?
>Harshman essentially argues that the
> similarities are so compelling that it doesn't really matter whether
> the mechanism meant to bridge the gap is observable or not.
Natural selection is observable.
Dana Tweedy
Neither "challenge" is rational, and are pointless. Causation isn't relevant to science, as all natural processes must ultimately have natural causation. Even if there is a supernatural being behind that causation, that being has to have used natural processes.
> I obtained the idea
> from Paley.
Except that Paley himself believed that God uses natural processes.
>All Harshman has said is that macroevolution has occurred
> based on close relationship between X and Y (Darwin did the same).
Macroevolution is known to have occurred because the evidence indicates it has. The theory of evolution is what explains this fact.
> Unless HOW the transformation occurred is evidenced and explained,
> Harshman has begged the question.
Ray, it's well known how the transformation occurred. It occurred by the process of variation and selection in a population over time. The evidence for this variation and selection is found throughout the scientific literature.
>
> John: We don't see any evolutionary relationship between X and Y.
Ray, that's because you refuse to accept the evidence right before your face.
> I
> do not contest that your two independent studies have come to that
> conclusion, but we see the question begging in your closing paragraph,
> read closely:
>
> "What possible explanation is there for two independent data sets
> coming to exactly the same conclusion, other than that both sets of
> data evolved on the same branching tree?" (JH).
No begging the question there, Ray. You must be misunderstanding what the term "begging the question" means.
>
> All you have established is a claim that says an effect of
> evolutionary relationship exists. Until you establish cause, the
> effect is not real, but assumed, begged.
Ray, the "cause" is already known. Variation in a population, acted on by selection over many generations. It's the same mechanism that Darwin recognized more than 150 years ago.
>
> I will admit that JH is very good at establishing the claim of effect.
> Now he needs to establish cause or his effect is an illusion. Of
> course we have a better explanation for these effects.
Once again, Ray, the cause is evolution. The "effect" is change over time. What better explanation do you want?
>
> Ray (Paleyan IDist) Of course, Paley would have rejected your position.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Yes, as long as the cause and effect are natural, and can be observed and tested. Assuming supernatural cause, when a natural one explains the effect much better is not rational.
> I have
> examined your claims above and come to the conclusion that effect is
> established provisionally. Note the latter **is dependent** upon the
> former.
Except that it's not. The effect is observed. It's "causation" is not a question to know that it happened.
> How did the effect happen? How did X transmute into Y?
Through the process called "evolution". Certainly you've heard of it?
> Your
> elucidation **assumes** that once "close relationship" (effect) is
> established, evolution has occurred.
Ray, the effect is what evolution produces. Evolution IS the explanation for the effect.
> This is question begging.
Wrong again, Ray. Do you even know what 'begging the question' means? An example of begging the question would be "If one sees design, one knows there must be a designer".
> The
> mere establishment of "close relationship" COULD mean that evolution
> has occurred, but the explanation and logic itself does not actually
> lend any support to cause except by assumption.
Except that no other mechanism is known to produce the same effect. If you wish to offer another explanation, present your evidence for that explanation.
> Case in point: Darwin
> titled his book "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> Selection." The first chapters are concerned with cause; the latter
> chapters are about effect (similarities; close relationships). Your
> case for macroevolution is missing the first part, or the all
> important how?
Again, Ray, the "how" is "evolution". Macroevolution is produced by lots of allele change in populations over lots of generations.
> The layout of Darwin's book is most logical. The reason
> Darwin titled his book giving preeminence to cause is because, at the
> time, science accepted "each species" to be immutable (Darwin 1859:6).
Scientists at the time were becoming more accepting of the idea that species changed. Darwin's book showed clearly not only that species were not immutable, but also provided a testable mechanism to explain HOW the changed.
> Thus for him to explicate the close relationship between X and Y
> (without focussing on how) would have left naturalists wondering as to
> what his point was? While he convinced his peers that species were
> mutable, naturalists, for the most part, rejected natural selection in
> his life time.
Not really. They didn't think that natural selection combined with variation was enough, as they didn't understand the principles of heredity. Once genetics was brought into the mix, the mechanism of variation and selection was vindicated.
> But the crucial point is that Darwin accepted the logic
> of cause and effect. He never, at anytime, based evolution on effect.
Ray, Darwin showed evolution based on "effect" and also provided a workable cause. Your own view lacks any identifiable cause, and is refuted by the evidence that species do change.
>
> > And your idea of cause is itself ambiguous.
> > We do know the cause of the identical results from different data:
> > common descent on the same tree. What you seem to require is that we
> > know each and every difference in the DNA of the species, and why each
> > difference arose and became fixed.
> >
>
> I said no such things.
Maybe you don't understand what you have been saying.
>
> > But consider this often-used example. You come upon a neatly flat tree
> > stump. Near it, on the ground, is an entire tree, truncated in a
> > similarly nearly flat fashion. Sawdust is spread about. Do you conclude
> > that somebody cut the tree down, or do you reserve judgment until you
> > know who did it, the color of his shirt, and his brand of chainsaw?
>
> Your point is well understood, but it's still question begging.
Again, Ray, what question do you think is being begged? The mechanism of evolution is variation and selection (with other mechanisms such as drift). There's no "cause" that's being left out.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 30, 7:28 pm, John Vreeland <john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:20:55 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
Yet it's not. Divergence and common descent are the same thing.
> Then I referred
> to CD as "branching descent," which again is more accurate. Perhaps
> you need to think more carefully before posting?
Ray, perhaps you need to think before posting.....
DJT
>
> [....]
Dana Tweedy
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:20:55 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Aug 30, 6:48 pm, John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Aug 30, 5:25 pm, John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> Ray Martinez wrote:
To be accurate, it's not a non sequitur. Once again, Ray, don't use terms you don't understand.
>
> > Darwin introduced
> > two theories in the Origin: natural selection and treelike common
> > descent.
>
> Inaccurate
Wrong again, Ray.
>
> He introduced natural selection and its logical outcome (by
> extrapolation): divergence. The only diagram in The Origin depicts
> divergence, not the fully worked out model of branching descent.
Ray, that's what divergence is: ie, branching descent. Also, you still seem to be confusing "natural selection" with "natural causes". Natural selection is only PART of Darwin's mechanism. Variation acted on by natural selection is what Darwin saw as the mechanism of evolution.
>
> > It should be obvious that the two are independent; you yourself
> > claim that scientists rejected the first yet accepted the second. How is
> > that possible if the second requires prior agreement on the first?
> >
> > >> And your idea of cause is itself ambiguous.
> > >> We do know the cause of the identical results from different data:
> > >> common descent on the same tree. What you seem to require is that we
> > >> know each and every difference in the DNA of the species, and why each
> > >> difference arose and became fixed.
> >
> > > I said no such things.
> >
> > Then what did you mean by "cause".
No response here is very telling.
> >
> > >> But consider this often-used example. You come upon a neatly flat tree
> > >> stump. Near it, on the ground, is an entire tree, truncated in a
> > >> similarly nearly flat fashion. Sawdust is spread about. Do you conclude
> > >> that somebody cut the tree down, or do you reserve judgment until you
> > >> know who did it, the color of his shirt, and his brand of chainsaw?
> >
> > > Your point is well understood, but it's still question begging.
> >
> > I would ask why, but that might encourage you to post more.
>
> I've made my points (mainly in my previous message).
Whatever "points" you may have thought you were making were obscured by your inaccurate terminology, and your false assumptions. You keep saying there isn't a "how" when that "how" is well known, and well evidenced.
> Your attempt to
> establish macroevolution is exposed as question begging because
> causation/agency is not addressed.
Ray, "causation" is well known. It's addressed in that the mechanism of evolution is observed on a daily basis. You have not been able to even offer a reasonable alternative to the mechanism of evolution.
>All you got is a claim concerning
> some effect that might exist.
The effect is directly observed. The process that produced that effect is also directly observed. What more do you want?
> What's to stop some Creationist from
> saying "God saw that it was good, so He made another quite similar"?
The lack of a testable mechanism. As pointed out many times, "Goddidit" is not a scientific theory. If God did as you describe above, why not just admit that God used evolution to create?
> Hence: see the title of Darwin's book.
Once more, Ray, you are confusing natural selection, in Darwin's title, with "natural causes". Natural selection was part of the mechanism of evolution, and refers to the environment being the deciding factor as to which traits led to reproductive success. It's not the same as saying "God didn't do it".
DJT
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
[snip irrelevant material....]
>
> >All you got is a claim concerning
> > some effect that might exist.
>
> The effect is directly observed. The process that produced that effect is also directly >..observed. What more do you want?
>
The effect is not "directly observed." Harshman admitted that he and
his colleagues were using scientific inference.
And Harshman, like I said, did not address cause; therefore his effect
is supported only by assumption, question begging. I spent
considerable time showing him that Darwin rejected his method of
establishing evolution. In response JH played the misunderstanding
card (= total evasion of what I argued).
You, on the other hand, have said the cause is more or less selection.
Why has JH refused to say the same or even tell us how his effects
were produced? He has refused to posit any genetic mechanisms. He has
refused because he doesn't know. JH has no confidence in the concept
of selection above the level of species.
Again, without cause, evolution is an unsupported claim. All you got
is mere discovery of a pattern without any knowledge of how the
pattern was produced. And like I argued: Darwin NEVER at anytime based
evolution on any pattern or close relationship. In context, he offered
a mechanism/cause. Harshman, doctor of evolutionary biology, only
offers us an effect.
Ray
[snip....]
pnyikos
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:44:57 -0700, John Harshman
>
> >T Pagano wrote:
> >> Elsberry's famous Transitional Forms Challenge was crushed by me in
> >> mid 2001.
>
> >....in your rich fantasy life, that is.
>
> One need only watch the atheist contortions over Abiogenesis, the
> origin of space-matter-time, and IC systems to see that we all live in
> our metaphysical fantasy worlds. Harshman, of course, is above this.
> .. . .but is he?
I've never seen him state his personal beliefs or hopes. And, unlike
with some people I name, I'm not sure what they are.
> >> Elsberry was highly embarrassed and vanished from the forum
> >> almost never to be seen again.
Is this another "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy," like the ones
the low-lives who dominate talk.abortion love to indulge in?
> >> Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
> >> thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
> >> light of day.
I forget--what was that challenge?
> >> Interestingly enough the foram observations Elsberry produced weren't
> >> half bad and came close to what creationists sought (see Pearson, et
> >> al.). But close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
>
> >> If the evidence of molecules-to-man is overwhelming where is the
> >> evidence of transformational change?
>
> >Everywhere. The problem is that you won't accept that evidence is
> >evidence, and in fact you deny that there can be such a thing as evidence.
>
> This is both nonsense and irrelevent to Elsberry's defunct
> Transitional Forms Challenge.
>
> 1. Both Darwinism and neoDarwinism retrodict transformational change
> from Abiogenesis to extant forms.
Would you settle for change from *Hyracotherium* to *Equus*?
> And that transformational change
> must be continuous. Discontinuites are PROHIBITED in purely
> naturalistic processes.
>
> 2. The fossil record shows nothing but discontinuity in the prehistory
> of life.
The fossils we have are just a tiny sample of the whole fossil record,
most of which has been subducted into the earth's mantle during plate
tectonics, never to be seen again. Most of the rest is yet to be
discovered.
Add to that the great odds against any organism being fossilized, and
it's a wonder we have as much as we do.
And it keeps getting better all the time. Here is something I posted
just today about a discovery that was announced right in the middle of
my near-decade of absence from talk.origins:
Subject: A successful prediction of evolutionary theory: Tiktaalik
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d21b1306e1250405
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9e26719b98fd1a8a
It's been predicted on that thread that you would "not be able to see
it".
Might that be another prediction of evolutionary theory? :-)
> This falsifies both Darwinism and neoDarwinism as the
> universal engine of biological diversity and transformational change.
> The fossil record is voluminous and considered (by some) to be an
> adequate sampling of prehistoric life.
I'd like to see ONE non-creationist who would consider it to be
adequate. I certainly do not. [See above.]
> 3. The label "Evidence" is a conclusion about some raw observation
> AFTER that raw observation has been interpreted in the light of some
> theory.
Well, duh, evidence has to be evidence of *something,* and you have to
do some reasoning to make the connection.
> Sadly for poor Harshman characterizing an observation as
> "evidence" only tells us that the observation is consistent with the
> theory.
Do you apply that standard to Sherlock Holmes? If so, Arthur Conan
Doyle's stories of him must hold very little interest for you.
> And as I've pointed out repeatedly raw observations can be
> quite consistent with any number of false theory. "Consistency" does
> NOT transmit truth.
There's a lot more to it than mere consistency. See that thread of
mine--if you have the guts for it.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Martinez
All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
> Most of the rest is yet to be
> discovered.
>
Exactly what Darwin said 150 years ago. Same old song and dance.
> Add to that the great odds against any organism being fossilized, and
> it's a wonder we have as much as we do.
>
All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
> And it keeps getting better all the time.
You've just contradicted yourself. If true, you wouldn't have made the
"but it was there" argument above. Again, missing evidence? Too bad.
Ray
Ilas
> This is amusing. How on earth would Harshman know whether I quote
> from Gish or not? Harshman is too lazy to read Behe which is
> available in most libraries. Bluff called?
Here it is again:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f57c2845fbbeefe7?
You then denied having plagiarised Gish:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9114d1bf4d9d23d7?hl=en
I posted what I suspect any reasonable person would say is proof that you
did just that:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f22064037ccc8878?hl=en
You didn't "quote" from Gish, you plagiarised Gish. You then denied having
done so. You then ignored the proof. Baby Jeebus is in floods of tears.
pnyikos
> On Aug 31, 5:29 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 31, 11:41 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:44:57 -0700, John Harshman
>
> > > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >T Pagano wrote:
> > > >> Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
> > > >> thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
> > > >> light of day.
>
> > I forget--what was that challenge?
Apparently Ray is clueless about all this, so I'm deleting the rest of
the back-and-forth to which he didn't respond.
[...]
> > > 2. The fossil record shows nothing but discontinuity in the prehistory
> > > of life.
>
> > The fossils we have are just a tiny sample of the whole fossil record,
> > most of which has been subducted into the earth's mantle during plate
> > tectonics, never to be seen again.
>
> All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
Wrong. Keep reading.
> > Most of the rest is yet to be
> > discovered.
>
> Exactly what Darwin said 150 years ago.
And we have many times the evidence he had.
>Same old song and dance.
Next time someone stomps on your cherished beliefs with that line,
don't go begging for help.
> > Add to that the great odds against any organism being fossilized, and
> > it's a wonder we have as much as we do.
>
> All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
Do you have a closed mind? Too bad. :-)
> > And it keeps getting better all the time.
>
> You've just contradicted yourself.
Great fossil finds are being made all the time. I see the one I gave
links for below got the mmimudcmwtf ("my mind is made up, don't
confuse me with the facts") treatment.
> If true, you wouldn't have made the
> "but it was there" argument above.
That's not a fair description of my argument.
> Again, missing evidence? Too bad.
Hmmmm.... DO you have any cherished beliefs? Or are you a nihilist
pretending to be a Christian and an Objectivist?
> Ray
I see you buried your head in the sand about what I wrote below.
Do YOU have the guts for it? It sure doesn't look that way.
Peter Nyikos- -
Schenck
> 1. Both Darwinism and neoDarwinism retrodict transformational change
> from Abiogenesis to extant forms. And that transformational change
> must be continuous. Discontinuites are PROHIBITED in purely
> naturalistic processes.
>
> 2. The fossil record shows nothing but discontinuity in the prehistory
> of life.
Truly you must be an idiot to say that, because the fossil record is
imperfect, evolution is wrong.
> This falsifies both Darwinism and neoDarwinism as the
> universal engine of biological diversity and transformational change.
snip
I suggest you look up the meaning of 'falsification'. Bold assertion
indeed. *rolls eyes in a Popperian manner (which presumably means with
an Austrian demeanor*
Ray Martinez
> On Aug 31, 10:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 31, 5:29 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 31, 11:41 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:44:57 -0700, John Harshman
>
> > > > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >T Pagano wrote:
> > > > >> Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
> > > > >> thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
> > > > >> light of day.
>
> > > I forget--what was that challenge?
>
> Apparently Ray is clueless about all this, so I'm deleting the rest of
> the back-and-forth to which he didn't respond.
>
I have my own challenge too:
Microevolution:
Show any Darwinian modification in species accomplished by an unguided
natural process (and I will promptly concede the Creationism v.
Darwinism debate to Darwinism)?
I posted a separate topic on two different occasions, yet you never
showed your face.
> [...]
>
> > > > 2. The fossil record shows nothing but discontinuity in the prehistory
> > > > of life.
>
> > > The fossils we have are just a tiny sample of the whole fossil record,
> > > most of which has been subducted into the earth's mantle during plate
> > > tectonics, never to be seen again.
>
> > All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
>
> Wrong. Keep reading.
>
"never to be seen again" (PN). You said X did exist, if so where is
the evidence? How far would a Flood argument get that blamed plate
tectonics for the so called missing evidence? Like I said, too bad.
> > > Most of the rest is yet to be
> > > discovered.
>
> > Exactly what Darwin said 150 years ago.
>
> And we have many times the evidence he had.
>
> >Same old song and dance.
>
> Next time someone stomps on your cherished beliefs with that line,
> don't go begging for help.
>
So you admit your missing evidence is a cherished belief?
> > > Add to that the great odds against any organism being fossilized, and
> > > it's a wonder we have as much as we do.
>
> > All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
>
> Do you have a closed mind? Too bad. :-)
>
Either its the odds (as you say) or lack of evidence (as we say). Both
admit to the fact of the latter. Again, too bad for ToE.
> > > And it keeps getting better all the time.
>
> > You've just contradicted yourself.
>
> Great fossil finds are being made all the time. I see the one I gave
> links for below got the mmimudcmwtf ("my mind is made up, don't
> confuse me with the facts") treatment.
>
If you actually had what you are implying to have you would not have
mentioned equine lineages in your reply to Tony. These are offered in
just about every book attempting to show macroevolution. Like Gould
has remarked, how embarrassing for ToE!
> > If true, you wouldn't have made the
> > "but it was there" argument above.
>
> That's not a fair description of my argument.
>
Yes, it is.
> > Again, missing evidence? Too bad.
>
> Hmmmm.... DO you have any cherished beliefs? Or are you a nihilist
> pretending to be a Christian and an Objectivist?
>
We recognize that Peter's use of the phrase "cherished beliefs" to be
an admission that the evidence at issue is lacking. Aint I right,
Peter?
> Peter Nyikos- -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I really don't know what your point is here.
Ray
DanaTweedy
> On Aug 31, 3:24 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip irrelevant material....]
The material above was hardly irrelevant, and your fear of addressing
the material is noted.
>
>>
>>> All you got is a claim concerning
>>> some effect that might exist.
>>
>> The effect is directly observed. The process that produced that effect is also directly>..observed. What more do you want?
>>
>
> The effect is not "directly observed."
Yes, Ray, the effect is directly observed.
> Harshman admitted that he and
> his colleagues were using scientific inference.
As pointed out many times, direct observation requires inference.
>
> And Harshman, like I said, did not address cause; therefore his effect
> is supported only by assumption, question begging.
Once again, Ray, the cause is already well known. It's not begging the
question, as evolution as a process is already well established.
> I spent
> considerable time showing him that Darwin rejected his method of
> establishing evolution.
You obviously don't know what Darwin did, nor did not do.
> In response JH played the misunderstanding
> card (= total evasion of what I argued).
Ray, when you do misunderstand something, it's not a "card" for someone
to point out your misunderstanding.
>
> You, on the other hand, have said the cause is more or less selection.
Wrong again, Ray. Selection is only a part of the cause. Selection
acts on variation in the population. Without that variation, selection
would not have anything to work with.
> Why has JH refused to say the same or even tell us how his effects
> were produced?
He has not refused to say that. Anyone who knows anything about
science knows how the effects were produced.
> He has refused to posit any genetic mechanisms.
You mean like mutation? Good grief! Mutations are also well
established facts.
> He has
> refused because he doesn't know. JH has no confidence in the concept
> of selection above the level of species.
Ray, all selection happens on the level of the population. "Selection
above the level of species" doesn't make sense in this context.
>
> Again, without cause, evolution is an unsupported claim.
Again, that's being silly. We know the cause of evolution, it's
variation in populations, with selection acting on those variations to
produce adaptive changes.
> All you got
> is mere discovery of a pattern without any knowledge of how the
> pattern was produced.
While the above statement is false, even without knowledge of how the
pattern was produced, the pattern itself is a fact. You are trying to
ignore the pattern, ie. common descent, by claiming not to know how the
pattern is produced. The fact remains that it's both known that the
pattern exists, and HOW the pattern was formed.
> And like I argued: Darwin NEVER at anytime based
> evolution on any pattern or close relationship.
Which is false. Darwin pointed out the pattern of close relationships
between many groups, including the Galapagos mockingbirds, and finches.
> In context, he offered
> a mechanism/cause. Harshman, doctor of evolutionary biology, only
> offers us an effect.
Again, this is false. Dr Harshman doesn't have to "offer" a cause,
because the cause is already known. It's the process of evolution.
That's what produces the pattern of common descent, and close genetic
relationships between related groups.
>
> Ray
>
> [snip....]
Likewise the material below was important, and Ray's evasion of the
points is noted.
DJT
>
DanaTweedy
> On Sep 1, 4:24 am, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 10:48 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 31, 5:29 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Aug 31, 11:41 am, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:44:57 -0700, John Harshman
>>
>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>>>>> Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
>>>>>>> thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
>>>>>>> light of day.
>>
>>>> I forget--what was that challenge?
>>
>> Apparently Ray is clueless about all this, so I'm deleting the rest of
>> the back-and-forth to which he didn't respond.
>>
>
> I have my own challenge too:
>
> Microevolution:
>
> Show any Darwinian modification in species accomplished by an unguided
> natural process (and I will promptly concede the Creationism v.
> Darwinism debate to Darwinism)?
Since Ray won't state what he'd admit as a "unguided natural process"
his so called "challenge" is pointless.
>
> I posted a separate topic on two different occasions, yet you never
> showed your face.
How would you know, Ray? You ran away after many people met your
challenge, and you reneged on your promise above.
>
>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> 2. The fossil record shows nothing but discontinuity in the prehistory
>>>>> of life.
>>
>>>> The fossils we have are just a tiny sample of the whole fossil record,
>>>> most of which has been subducted into the earth's mantle during plate
>>>> tectonics, never to be seen again.
>>
>>> All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
>>
>> Wrong. Keep reading.
>>
>
> "never to be seen again" (PN). You said X did exist, if so where is
> the evidence?
Most likely, it's somewhere in the rocks, not yet discovered. If it is
indeed gone forever, the genetic evidence shows it did exist.
> How far would a Flood argument get that blamed plate
> tectonics for the so called missing evidence?
That depends on whether the argument was consistent with the evidence,
or not.
> Like I said, too bad.
and like others have said, you were wrong.
>
>>>> Most of the rest is yet to be
>>>> discovered.
>>
>>> Exactly what Darwin said 150 years ago.
>>
>> And we have many times the evidence he had.
>>
>>> Same old song and dance.
>>
>> Next time someone stomps on your cherished beliefs with that line,
>> don't go begging for help.
>>
>
> So you admit your missing evidence is a cherished belief?
Where did he "admit" any such thing?
>
>>>> Add to that the great odds against any organism being fossilized, and
>>>> it's a wonder we have as much as we do.
>>
>>> All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
>>
>> Do you have a closed mind? Too bad. :-)
>>
>
> Either its the odds (as you say) or lack of evidence (as we say). Both
> admit to the fact of the latter. Again, too bad for ToE.
Except that there is more than enough evidence for the theory of
evolution. Fossil evidence is nice, but it's not necessary.
>
>>>> And it keeps getting better all the time.
>>
>>> You've just contradicted yourself.
>>
>> Great fossil finds are being made all the time. I see the one I gave
>> links for below got the mmimudcmwtf ("my mind is made up, don't
>> confuse me with the facts") treatment.
>>
>
> If you actually had what you are implying to have you would not have
> mentioned equine lineages in your reply to Tony. These are offered in
> just about every book attempting to show macroevolution. Like Gould
> has remarked, how embarrassing for ToE!
>
>>> If true, you wouldn't have made the
>>> "but it was there" argument above.
>>
>> That's not a fair description of my argument.
>>
>
> Yes, it is.
Wrong again, Ray.
>
>>> Again, missing evidence? Too bad.
>>
>> Hmmmm.... DO you have any cherished beliefs? Or are you a nihilist
>> pretending to be a Christian and an Objectivist?
>>
>
> We recognize that Peter's use of the phrase "cherished beliefs" to be
> an admission that the evidence at issue is lacking. Aint I right,
> Peter?
Wrong again, Ray.
DJT
pnyikos
> On Sep 1, 4:24 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 10:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 31, 5:29 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 31, 11:41 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:44:57 -0700, John Harshman
>
> > > > > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > >T Pagano wrote:
> > > > > >> Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
> > > > > >> thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
> > > > > >> light of day.
>
> > > > I forget--what was that challenge?
>
> > Apparently Ray is clueless about all this, so I'm deleting the rest of
> > the back-and-forth to which he didn't respond.
>
> I have my own challenge too:
>
> Microevolution:
>
> Show any Darwinian modification in species accomplished by an unguided
> natural process
The modification of horse feet and teeth is a good candidate. Where
is the evidence that the transition from *Hyracotherium* to *Equus*
was guided?
> (and I will promptly concede the Creationism v.
> Darwinism debate to Darwinism)?
Or you will claim that there are missing links between creatures that
resemble each other more than Barack Obama's kids resemble him. :-)
> I posted a separate topic on two different occasions, yet you never
> showed your face.
Indeed, I am only involved in a minority of threads, because I take
the threads I'm involved in seriously, unlike e.g. Tony Pagano, who
comes on strong in thread after thread and then disappears when the
going gets rough, only to reappear on a new thread with no sign of any
recollection of the rough going that caused him to disappear.
> > [...]
>
> > > > > 2. The fossil record shows nothing but discontinuity in the prehistory
> > > > > of life.
>
> > > > The fossils we have are just a tiny sample of the whole fossil record,
> > > > most of which has been subducted into the earth's mantle during plate
> > > > tectonics, never to be seen again.
>
> > > All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
>
> > Wrong. Keep reading.
>
> "never to be seen again" (PN).
That's the majority of fossils, but there is a sizable minority that
we keep finding, that did not get subducted into ocean trenches as a
result of plate tectonics.
> You said X did exist, if so where is
> the evidence?
Among the fossils that have NOT disappeared, including most on the
continents. But some of those are buried under miles of rock, or
cities, or forests, or farms, indeed wherever there are no outcrops of
rocks (except where miners dig).
> How far would a Flood argument get
Flood arguments never provide credible evidence to begin with for a
*worldwide* flood. They are as credible as Churchwald's Lost
Continent of Mu, or the Lemuria of the Theosophists.
>that blamed plate
> tectonics for the so called missing evidence?
You are equivocating in your use of "missing evidence," treating it as
though there were NO evidence for macroevolution and ALL of it is
missing.
There is "missing evidence" for you being sane, but I'm willing to
treat the evidence I have as grounds for saying you are saner than Ron
Okimoto and maybe even than jillery.
.
> > > > Most of the rest is yet to be
> > > > discovered.
>
> > > Exactly what Darwin said 150 years ago.
>
> > And we have many times the evidence he had.
<crickets chirping>
> > >Same old song and dance.
>
> > Next time someone stomps on your cherished beliefs with that line,
> > don't go begging for help.
>
> So you admit your missing evidence is a cherished belief?
See above about this equivocation "missing evidence." You keep using
it while the crickets keep on chirping.
My point was that although you have a good idea what I actually
believe in, I know very little about yours. Do you believe in a
worldwide flood? Do you believe Jesus physically rose from the dead?
Both of these have more "missing evidence" than what is missing from
our evidence for evolution
However, I haven't a clue whether you really believe in these two
things, or whether you just love to argue about them.
So, not knowing what sorts of "missing evidence" events you seriously
believe in, I used the words "cherished beliefs" as a catchall.
Continued in next reply.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Sep 1, 4:24 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 10:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 31, 5:29 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Continuing where I left off in my previous reply:
> > > > Add to that the great odds against any organism being fossilized, and
> > > > it's a wonder we have as much as we do.
>
> > > All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
>
> > Do you have a closed mind? Too bad. :-)
>
> Either its the odds (as you say) or lack of evidence (as we say).
I'd like to see you argue against the huge amount of evidence for the
evolution of *Equus* (the modern horse) from *Hyracotherium* (aka.
Eohippus, "the dawn horse"). THAT evidence is not "missing"; it is
very much there, and creationists are more and more forced to come up
with specious arguments that don't even address it.
> Both
> admit to the fact of the latter.
...for most other transitions. But we have a hell of a lot more for
e.g. whale evolution than we had even forty years ago. We have
*Ambulocetus*, *Rodhocetus*, and (AFAIK) *Pakicetus* that were not
known about back then. Forty years ago, no one would have seriously
argued that whales' closest relatives today are artiodactyls,
specifically hippos. Now we have very strong evidence for it.
Heck, Darwin didn't even know about Archaeopteryx. That's why he
called the evolution of birds from reptiles such a mystery.
> > > > And it keeps getting better all the time.
>
> > > You've just contradicted yourself.
>
> > Great fossil finds are being made all the time. I see the one I gave
> > links for below got the mmimudcmwtf ("my mind is made up, don't
> > confuse me with the facts") treatment.
>
> If you actually had what you are implying to have you would not have
> mentioned equine lineages in your reply to Tony.
You are getting to sound more and more like a troll, coming up with
specious excuses for not looking at evidence.
The horse lineage is the BEST evidence we have so far, but we keep on
finding things that narrow the gaps in our knowledge of the
transitions, like the one I gave links for below. It had to do with
the transition from lobefin fish to the amphibians.
>These are offered in
> just about every book attempting to show macroevolution. Like Gould
> has remarked, how embarrassing for ToE!
He was just talking about oversimplified popularizations, that ignored
lots of other branches to the horse evolutionary tree. But even some
of the books written for children fifty years ago did mention
*Hypohippus*, which went on being a browser like *Hyracotherium* while
the grazers branched off, and *Hipparion*, which went on being three-
toed while another branch led to the modern one-toed horses, zebras,
and donkeys -- all *Equus*, but not all the same species.
And even today, we get occasional throwbacks with tiny hooves to
either side of the main one, like Julius Caesar's horse.
> > > If true, you wouldn't have made the
> > > "but it was there" argument above.
It's this kind of *non sequitur* that makes me suspect you are a
troll.
> > That's not a fair description of my argument.
>
> Yes, it is.
I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was there.
I merely said a lot of the evidence perforce disappeared. But we may
unearth other copies, so to speak, on land.
> > > Again, missing evidence? Too bad.
>
> > Hmmmm.... DO you have any cherished beliefs? Or are you a nihilist
> > pretending to be a Christian and an Objectivist?
The difference between you and Pagano seems to be that you hang on
longer, but you simply IGNORE questions and statements in the posts to
which you reply. Like you totally ignored the question of whether you
have any cherished beliefs, and went grasping at straws:
> We recognize that Peter's use of the phrase "cherished beliefs" to be
> an admission that the evidence at issue is lacking.
"the evidence at issue" has never been specified. You keep hiding
behind equivocations like "missing evidence", as I pointed out in my
previous reply.
> Aint I right,
> Peter?
You ain't.
> I really don't know what your point is here.
That you don't like looking at evidence for evolution. You prefer to
jabber on with equivocations, as if there were NO evidence for it.
Peter Nyikos
prawnster
> [...]
> The fossils we have are just a tiny sample of the whole fossil record,
> most of which has been subducted into the earth's mantle during plate
> tectonics, never to be seen again. Most of the rest is yet to be
> discovered.
>
> Add to that the great odds against any organism being fossilized, and
> it's a wonder we have as much as we do.
While what you're saying may be true, this is a typical Darwinist way
of defining evolution in unobservable, non-falsifiable, non-scientific
terms, along with asserting that evolution happens too slowly to ever
be seen. Such arguments confirm that evolution is nothing but
question-begging metaphysics.
prawnster
> [...]
> > I will admit that JH is very good at establishing the claim of effect.
> > Now he needs to establish cause or his effect is an illusion. Of
> > course we have a better explanation for these effects.
>
> I reject your bizarre notion that we can't know an effect exists unless
> We do know the cause of the identical results from different data:
> common descent on the same tree. What you seem to require is that we
> know each and every difference in the DNA of the species, and why each
> difference arose and became fixed.
>
Yes. It's time for evolutionists to quit pretending it's the 19th
century, quit pretending that cells or life are simple, and quit
pretending DNA doesn't exist. To make evolution rigorous, scientists
must move step by step through each and every difference in the DNA of
the species in question, and how each difference arose and became
fixed. It must also, in the absence of any observable DNA differences
(i.e., so-called missing transitional species), calculate the
probability of any of these mutations ever occurring in its DNA, and
whether such mutations would render its offspring viable and/or
fertile. If scientists are too lazy to do this, then evolution
forever remains metaphysics and question-begging.
Kleuskes & Moos
The finding of rabbit bones (or any mammal skeletal parts) in a devonian
rock would falsify ToE in a quite dramatic fashion. The fact that it
hasn't been falsified, does not imply it's unfalsifiable.
The working of ToE has been observed on several occasions (includig
speciation) and in microbial life evolution may happen while you wait.
There are several experiments along those lines.
So ToE is both falsifiable *and* observable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________
< I'm not available for comment.. >
---------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Major
<78bc7445-c11c-4bae...@y39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Sep 1, 4:24 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 10:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 31, 5:29 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Aug 31, 11:41 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:44:57 -0700, John Harshman
>>
>> > > > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > > >T Pagano wrote:
>> > > > >> Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
>> > > > >> thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
>> > > > >> light of day.
>>
>> > > I forget--what was that challenge?
>>
>> Apparently Ray is clueless about all this, so I'm deleting the rest of
>> the back-and-forth to which he didn't respond.
>>
>
>I have my own challenge too:
>
>Microevolution:
>
>Show any Darwinian modification in species accomplished by an unguided
>natural process (and I will promptly concede the Creationism v.
>Darwinism debate to Darwinism)?
>
>I posted a separate topic on two different occasions, yet you never
>showed your face.
It has been pointed out to you several times that occasionalism, like
omphalism, simulationism and solipsism, is an unfalsifiable position.
If you are willing to retreat to a variant of occasionalism then your
challenge is worthless. If you are not willing to so retreat, there are,
for example, the observations described in The Beak of the Finch, that
is a prolonged period of low rainfall changed the mixed of plant seeds
produced, which resulting in a change to the frequencies of beak sizes
in a ground finch population. What grounds to you offer for
disqualifying that?
--
alias Ernest Major
Rolf
You hit the nail right on the head! I've been trying to tell Ray that at
least since 2005.
The nut (metaphorical) called Ray has withstood all attempts at cracking it.
His standard reply is "The concept of Natural Selection is not seen in
nature."
Rolf
> Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
> On Aug 30, 4:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I will admit that JH is very good at establishing the claim of effect.
>>> Now he needs to establish cause or his effect is an illusion. Of
>>> course we have a better explanation for these effects.
>> I reject your bizarre notion that we can't know an effect exists unless
>> we can determine the cause. And your idea of cause is itself ambiguous.
>> We do know the cause of the identical results from different data:
>> common descent on the same tree. What you seem to require is that we
>> know each and every difference in the DNA of the species, and why each
>> difference arose and became fixed.
>>
>
> Yes. It's time for evolutionists to quit pretending it's the 19th
> century, quit pretending that cells or life are simple, and quit
> pretending DNA doesn't exist.
That seems like an odd demand, considering that the evidence I presented
is all about DNA.
> To make evolution rigorous, scientists
> must move step by step through each and every difference in the DNA of
> the species in question, and how each difference arose and became
> fixed.
Why? I suppose you also demand that in order to make the physics of air
pressure rigorous, physicists must move step by step through every
collision of molecules in a balloon, and detail the position and
velocity of each molecule. Right?
> It must also, in the absence of any observable DNA differences
> (i.e., so-called missing transitional species), calculate the
> probability of any of these mutations ever occurring in its DNA, and
> whether such mutations would render its offspring viable and/or
> fertile. If scientists are too lazy to do this, then evolution
> forever remains metaphysics and question-begging.
This is far beyond anything you would demand of any other science.
Fortunately, any science is able to make do with incomplete information,
as long as we have enough information to make a reliable inference. In
the case at hand, we have the same conclusion from two independently
sampled sorts of data. Can you propose an alternative reason this might
happen?
rmj
Before the drought the island had finches variations in beak size. Same
after the drought ended. There was no modification of the species on the
biochemical level, only a change in percentage of a characteristic
within the species.
DanaTweedy
> On Aug 30, 4:25 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I will admit that JH is very good at establishing the claim of effect.
>>> Now he needs to establish cause or his effect is an illusion. Of
>>> course we have a better explanation for these effects.
>>
>> I reject your bizarre notion that we can't know an effect exists unless
>> we can determine the cause. And your idea of cause is itself ambiguous.
>> We do know the cause of the identical results from different data:
>> common descent on the same tree. What you seem to require is that we
>> know each and every difference in the DNA of the species, and why each
>> difference arose and became fixed.
>>
>
> Yes. It's time for evolutionists to quit pretending it's the 19th
> century, quit pretending that cells or life are simple, and quit
> pretending DNA doesn't exist.
"Evolutionists" don't pretend those things don't exist.
> To make evolution rigorous, scientists
> must move step by step through each and every difference in the DNA of
> the species in question,
Why? What would that accomplish, other than wasting time?
> and how each difference arose and became
> fixed.
Each difference arose by a mutation. It became fixed through selection.
> It must also, in the absence of any observable DNA differences
> (i.e., so-called missing transitional species),
There are many transitional fossils, and the genetic evidence shows that
transitional species existed.
> calculate the
> probability of any of these mutations ever occurring in its DNA,
The mutation rate is already known. The probability of those mutations
occurring is 100%, since they already happened.
> and
> whether such mutations would render its offspring viable and/or
> fertile.
Those that were not viable, or sterile didn't leave any offspring.
> If scientists are too lazy to do this, then evolution
> forever remains metaphysics and question-begging.
It's not a matter of "lazy" as your assumptions are false.
DJT
>
DanaTweedy
And that is evolution. One doesn't need to modify a species on the
'biochemical level' for evolution to have happened. Chimps and humans
are pretty much identical on a biochemical level, are you saying that
there isn't any difference between the two species?
DJT
Mark Isaak
>> [fossils] "never to be seen again" (PN).
>
> That's the majority of fossils, but there is a sizable minority that
> we keep finding, that did not get subducted into ocean trenches as a
> result of plate tectonics.
A nitpick not relevant to your overall point:
I'm reasonably sure that more fossils are destroyed by erosion than by
subduction. Subduction takes mostly deep ocean plates, whereas most
fossils form in shallow ocean and on land.
--
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
John Vreeland
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On 9/1/11 5:48 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>> [fossils] "never to be seen again" (PN).
>>
>> That's the majority of fossils, but there is a sizable minority that
>> we keep finding, that did not get subducted into ocean trenches as a
>> result of plate tectonics.
>
>A nitpick not relevant to your overall point:
>
>I'm reasonably sure that more fossils are destroyed by erosion than by
>subduction. Subduction takes mostly deep ocean plates, whereas most
>fossils form in shallow ocean and on land.
I think this is true. We did lose a lot of data on ancient climates,
however, and especially foram tests. So we have foraminifera only
going back to the Jurassic.
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.
John Harshman
> On 9/2/11 12:55 AM, prawnster wrote:
>> and how each difference arose and became
>> fixed.
>
> Each difference arose by a mutation. It became fixed through selection.
Or, usually, by drift.
Ernest Major
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> writes
>On 9/1/11 5:48 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>> [fossils] "never to be seen again" (PN).
>>
>> That's the majority of fossils, but there is a sizable minority that
>> we keep finding, that did not get subducted into ocean trenches as a
>> result of plate tectonics.
>
>A nitpick not relevant to your overall point:
>
>I'm reasonably sure that more fossils are destroyed by erosion than by
>subduction. Subduction takes mostly deep ocean plates, whereas most
>fossils form in shallow ocean and on land.
>
a lot of fossils form in the calcareous and radiolarian oozes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sediments
Also, a lot of fossils are destroyed by metamorphism.
--
alias Ernest Major
rmj
not demonstrate that there were or can be biochemical changes that lead
to an advantage in selection. Without biochemical changes there would
have been no evolution at all anywhere in the universe. You are using a
definition of evolution that produces more confusion than illumination.
The death or birth of an organism changes the allele proportions in the
species population; that is, according to a common definition of
evolution, evolution. So while the observation of the change in beak
size is interesting, don't cite it as evidence for evolution. Species
have plasticity and often can survive severe changes in the environment
without any change to the DNA coding.
Ray Martinez
So far! 150years!
Gould expressed his embarrassment publicly!
Imagine that; evolution based on one f*cking lineage!
If evolution were true you would certainly have hundreds or thousands
(out of tens of millions of species that have existed).
> but we keep on
> finding things that narrow the gaps in our knowledge of the
> transitions, like the one I gave links for below. �It had to do with
> the transition from lobefin fish to the amphibians.
>
Peter: Since no God exists, what other choice does the Atheist have
but to believe that species produce species (evolution)?
> >These are offered in
> > just about every book attempting to show macroevolution. Like Gould
> > has remarked, how embarrassing for ToE!
>
> He was just talking about oversimplified popularizations, that ignored
> lots of other branches to the horse evolutionary tree. But even some
> of the books written for children fifty years ago did mention
> *Hypohippus*, which went on being a browser like *Hyracotherium* while
> the grazers branched off, and *Hipparion*, which went on being three-
> toed while another branch led to the modern one-toed horses, zebras,
> and donkeys -- all *Equus*, but not all the same species.
>
Gould was saying that because the equine lineage is shown in most, if
not all, books on evolution, the implication is that that is all ToE
has!
Did you notice that Harshman did not offer horse evolution?
> And even today, we get occasional throwbacks with tiny hooves to
> either side of the main one, like Julius Caesar's horse.
>
> > > > If true, you wouldn't have made the
> > > > "but it was there" argument above.
>
> It's this kind of *non sequitur* that makes me suspect you are a
> troll.
>
> > > That's not a fair description of my argument.
>
> > Yes, it is.
>
> I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was there.
> I merely said a lot of the evidence perforce disappeared. �But we may
> unearth other copies, so to speak, on land.
>
Again, you are saying "But it was there!" The same means absence,
nothingness. You are engaged in damage control. NOW you add this
jewel:
"I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was
there" (PN).
A frank admission to what Creationists have always said. Why are you
an Evolutionist, Peter? You just admitted that the crucial reason-for-
being paleontological evidence does not exist, which is exactly what
Tony said in the OP. We see sudden fully formed appearance, followed
by changelessness, then sudden disappearance, which is exactly what
one would expect to see if species owe their existence to Special
Creation. We do not see the concept of speciation or macroevolution or
transformation----just the opposite. Again, Atheists have no choice,
Peter. You should know better. Nobody is fooled by the phony drama
that you and Richard Forrest and John Stockton played out in public
recently.
> > > > Again, missing evidence? Too bad.
>
> > > Hmmmm.... DO you have any cherished beliefs? �Or are you a nihilist
> > > pretending to be a Christian and an Objectivist?
>
> The difference between you and Pagano seems to be that you hang on
> longer, but you simply IGNORE questions and statements in the posts to
> which you reply. �Like you totally ignored the question of whether you
> have any cherished beliefs, �and went grasping at straws:
>
Tony, in the OP, pointed out an objective fact: continuity (what I
prefer to call "connectedness") is not seen. Why is anyone an
Evolutionist for God's sake? In your case you are holding on in blind
faith because you do not wish to offend the Emperor. For the sake of
career and family, I can understand that.
Ray
> Peter Nyikos- Hide quoted text -
Rolf
Bullshit. we have what fossils that natural causes have seen fit to allow us
to find. That is, out of the very few that's happened to become fossilized
in the first place, minus all the evidence lost forever due to all kinds of
geologic events, erosion, buried under the ice of Greenland or Antarctica
(Antarctica most likely is a treasure waithing to be explored as soon as we
get rid of the ice; that may take some millions of years before the
continent drifts off the south pole to a warmer place -leaving the ice to
melt.
But aside from that, we have plenty of evidence. You know, since all life is
descended from the first life, single celled, we may safeky asume that all
life today must have come down by the route of 'transitionals'. Some
transitionals left no descnedants, other did.
It is like that all over life, even down to your own family.
I am certain you will find siblings of some of your ancestors thal left no
children. That line got broken, extinct, forever. I find it very likely
that you yourself will not leave any signs of ever having lived on the
planet.
My line may survice for a long time, with two children and four
grandchildren so far.
But, since you never have and never will study science there is not any
chance that you ever will understand. Knowledge and understanding is yoyr
enemy! If you ever got it, you would be very sad indeed when you realize
having wasted so much of your life on bullshit.
DanaTweedy
>>> If you actually had what you are implying to have you would not have
>>> mentioned equine lineages in your reply to Tony.
>>
>> You are getting to sound more and more like a troll, coming up with
>> specious excuses for not looking at evidence.
>>
>> The horse lineage is the BEST evidence we have so far,
>
> So far! 150years!
>
> Gould expressed his embarrassment publicly!
Gould didn't express any embarrassment regarding the fossil record. You
seem to be confused.
>
> Imagine that; evolution based on one f*cking lineage!
Of course, evolution has much more evidence than one fossil linage.
Even so, that one linage tends to show creationism to be false.
>
> If evolution were true you would certainly have hundreds or thousands
> (out of tens of millions of species that have existed).
There are hundreds of fossil lineages, some longer, some shorter.
Evolution is true, and the fossil evidence isn't the strongest evidence.
The genetic evidence is much better.
>
>> but we keep on
>> finding things that narrow the gaps in our knowledge of the
>> transitions, like the one I gave links for below. It had to do with
>> the transition from lobefin fish to the amphibians.
>>
>
> Peter: Since no God exists, what other choice does the Atheist have
> but to believe that species produce species (evolution)?
Of course, an atheist has many other "choices" other than evolution, and
Goddidit isn't an explanation, even for those who do believe in God.
Evolution is the best scientific explanation available, for anyone, no
matter what that person's beliefs regarding God might be.
>
>>> These are offered in
>>> just about every book attempting to show macroevolution. Like Gould
>>> has remarked, how embarrassing for ToE!
>>
>> He was just talking about oversimplified popularizations, that ignored
>> lots of other branches to the horse evolutionary tree. But even some
>> of the books written for children fifty years ago did mention
>> *Hypohippus*, which went on being a browser like *Hyracotherium* while
>> the grazers branched off, and *Hipparion*, which went on being three-
>> toed while another branch led to the modern one-toed horses, zebras,
>> and donkeys -- all *Equus*, but not all the same species.
>>
>
> Gould was saying that because the equine lineage is shown in most, if
> not all, books on evolution, the implication is that that is all ToE
> has!
You have misunderstood Gould. What a surprise..... There is a great
deal more evidence than the horse lineages, but the are a good
illustration of evolution.
>
> Did you notice that Harshman did not offer horse evolution?
He just as well could have. What do you think is wrong with horse
evolution, Ray?
>
>> And even today, we get occasional throwbacks with tiny hooves to
>> either side of the main one, like Julius Caesar's horse.
>>
>>>>> If true, you wouldn't have made the
>>>>> "but it was there" argument above.
>>
>> It's this kind of *non sequitur* that makes me suspect you are a
>> troll.
>>
>>>> That's not a fair description of my argument.
>>
>>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was there.
>> I merely said a lot of the evidence perforce disappeared. But we may
>> unearth other copies, so to speak, on land.
>>
>
> Again, you are saying "But it was there!" The same means absence,
> nothingness.
Wrong again, Ray. It means that the evidence is there. Some has been
found, some is yet to be found.
> You are engaged in damage control.
No "damage control" needed.
> NOW you add this
> jewel:
>
> "I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was
> there" (PN).
>
> A frank admission to what Creationists have always said. Why are you
> an Evolutionist, Peter? You just admitted that the crucial reason-for-
> being paleontological evidence does not exist,
No, he did not, Ray. You need to read for comprehension, not just
looking for stuff you can take out of context.
> which is exactly what
> Tony said in the OP. We see sudden fully formed appearance, followed
> by changelessness, then sudden disappearance, which is exactly what
> one would expect to see if species owe their existence to Special
> Creation.
Actually, it's not what one would expect to see from "Special Creation".
In "special creation" one would see all life appearing at once, and
remaining unchanged, and not disappearing at all.
Instead what one finds in the fossil record is a pattern of change
over time, with individual species giving way to other closely related
species over time. Intermediate forms exist in the fossil record,
showing that change does indeed happen.
> We do not see the concept of speciation or macroevolution or
> transformation
One cannot see concepts, as they are abstract ideas. One does see
speciation in living populations. One sees macroevolution in the
pattern of descent found in the fossil record. One sees
"transformation" over time, both in fossils, and in living populations.
>----just the opposite. Again, Atheists have no choice,
> Peter.
Atheists have many choices, but it doesn't matter. Science isn't just
for atheists. Scientists accept the theory of evolution because of the
evidence for it. Opinions regarding the existence of God are irrelevant.
> You should know better. Nobody is fooled by the phony drama
> that you and Richard Forrest and John Stockton played out in public
> recently.
Ray, you are fooled, but by your creationist prejudices. You don't know
how badly you've been fooled, because you refuse to accept the facts.
>
>>>>> Again, missing evidence? Too bad.
>>
>>>> Hmmmm.... DO you have any cherished beliefs? Or are you a nihilist
>>>> pretending to be a Christian and an Objectivist?
>>
>> The difference between you and Pagano seems to be that you hang on
>> longer, but you simply IGNORE questions and statements in the posts to
>> which you reply. Like you totally ignored the question of whether you
>> have any cherished beliefs, and went grasping at straws:
>>
>
> Tony, in the OP, pointed out an objective fact: continuity (what I
> prefer to call "connectedness") is not seen.
Once again, Ray, you need to differentiate between your personal
fantasies, and facts. Your belief that connections can't be seen in
the fossil record is wrong. It's not a fact.
> Why is anyone an
> Evolutionist for God's sake?
Because of the massive evidence for the theory of evolution.
> In your case you are holding on in blind
> faith because you do not wish to offend the Emperor. For the sake of
> career and family, I can understand that.
Once again, Ray, making up "motives" for other people doesn't make those
motives correct. You are wrong, and won't admit to your errors.
DJT
DanaTweedy
Yes, the correct ones. What definitions do you prefer?
> But this event does
> not demonstrate that there were or can be biochemical changes that lead
> to an advantage in selection.
As pointed out, biochemical changes don't have to have occurred for
selectional advantages to be acquired. Physical changes don't need to
be biochemical.
> Without biochemical changes there would
> have been no evolution at all anywhere in the universe.
No, all that's needed is genetic changes. Biochemcial changes can be
produced by genetic changes, but they don't need to be.
> You are using a
> definition of evolution that produces more confusion than illumination.
How so? I'm using the definition of evolution used by biologists who
study evolution.
> The death or birth of an organism changes the allele proportions in the
> species population; that is, according to a common definition of
> evolution, evolution.
Evolution is allele change in a population over generations. Mere
allele change isn't enough. It has to be over time.
> So while the observation of the change in beak
> size is interesting, don't cite it as evidence for evolution.
Why not? It's an example of a documented change in the population,
over generations. Beak size is determined by genetic factors, so it's
an allele change. It's a perfect demonstration of evolution in real
time.
> Species
> have plasticity and often can survive severe changes in the environment
> without any change to the DNA coding.
Except that a change in beak size in the population is a change in the
"DNA coding". The birds with a larger beak have a different gene than
those with smaller beaks. "Species plasticity" is a result of
variations in alleles within the population. When one particular
variation is selected over others, and causes the population to have a
higher percentage of that variation, over generations, it's evolution.
DJT
>
>
Burkhard
Prosecution: members of the Jury: The accused was to benefit greatly
from the death of the deceased. He was seen buying a knife of the type
found at the crime scene, and identified by the shopkeeper. His
fingerprints were found on the knife, and his DNA on the crime scene.
Glass traces of the same rare chemical make-up that were used at the
victims home and that the killer shattered when entering were found on
the suspects clothing, as were pollen traces from a rare flower found
in the victims house. He was arrested when he tried to sell a ring
that belonged to the victim at a pawn broker
Defense (Ray,for it is him); Hah, but you do not have any CCTV footage
of my client killing the victim. Therefore you must acquit.
Prosecution: What CCTV footage? The victim was killed in his own
bathroom, there is no CCTV installed there. Where n earth would these
pictures come from, we shoudl not expect there to be any
Defence: You are just making excuses The fact is that my client was
not filmed on CCTV when killing the suspect
Accused looks forward to long stay in jail and wished he had had a
different attorney.
>
> "I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was
> there" (PN).
>
> A frank admission to what Creationists have always said. Why are you
> an Evolutionist, Peter? You just admitted that the crucial reason-for-
> being paleontological evidence does not exist, which is exactly what
> Tony said in the OP. We see sudden fully formed appearance, followed
> by changelessness, then sudden disappearance, which is exactly what
> one would expect to see if species owe their existence to Special
> Creation. We do not see the concept of speciation or macroevolution or
> transformation----just the opposite. Again, Atheists have no choice,
> Peter. You should know better. Nobody is fooled by the phony drama
> that you and Richard Forrest and John Stockton played out in public
> recently.
>
> > > > > Again, missing evidence? Too bad.
>
> > > > Hmmmm.... DO you have any cherished beliefs? Or are you a nihilist
> > > > pretending to be a Christian and an Objectivist?
>
> > The difference between you and Pagano seems to be that you hang on
> > longer, but you simply IGNORE questions and statements in the posts to
> > which you reply. Like you totally ignored the question of whether you
> > have any cherished beliefs, and went grasping at straws:
>
> Tony, in the OP, pointed out an objective fact: continuity (what I
> prefer to call "connectedness") is not seen. Why is anyone an
> Evolutionist for God's sake?
Because palaeontological evidence is only a very small piece of the
evidence available.
ALL the palaeontological evidence supports the theory, none
contradicts it, and there are sound, testable reasons for the relative
scarcity of that specific type of evidence
rmj
>
>
>> But this event does
>> not demonstrate that there were or can be biochemical changes that lead
>> to an advantage in selection.
>
> As pointed out, biochemical changes don't have to have occurred for
> selectional advantages to be acquired. Physical changes don't need to be
> biochemical.
>
>
>
>> Without biochemical changes there would
>> have been no evolution at all anywhere in the universe.
>
> No, all that's needed is genetic changes. Biochemcial changes can be
> produced by genetic changes, but they don't need to be.
So you believe all the organelles of the cell, all the organs of a body,
the five senses, etc. all could have come into existence without
biochemical changes. It is pointless to argue with you since you do not
know science.
Or perhaps you believe God created the first cell which had such a
complex DNA that all the subsequent variety in nature could have come
about otherwise.
>
>
>
>> You are using a
>> definition of evolution that produces more confusion than illumination.
>
>
> How so? I'm using the definition of evolution used by biologists who
> study evolution.
And it is a poor definition.
>
>
>
>> The death or birth of an organism changes the allele proportions in the
>> species population; that is, according to a common definition of
>> evolution, evolution.
>
> Evolution is allele change in a population over generations. Mere allele
> change isn't enough. It has to be over time.
Death and birth take time.
>
>
>
>
>> So while the observation of the change in beak
>> size is interesting, don't cite it as evidence for evolution.
>
> Why not? It's an example of a documented change in the population, over
> generations. Beak size is determined by genetic factors, so it's an
> allele change. It's a perfect demonstration of evolution in real time.
Some years later the beak sizes returned to about the original
percentages. So if a observer had cataloged the birds before the drought
and then again years later after the drought, that observer would have
found no significant change.
>
>
>
>
>> Species
>> have plasticity and often can survive severe changes in the environment
>> without any change to the DNA coding.
>
> Except that a change in beak size in the population is a change in the
> "DNA coding". The birds with a larger beak have a different gene than
> those with smaller beaks. "Species plasticity" is a result of variations
> in alleles within the population. When one particular variation is
> selected over others, and causes the population to have a higher
> percentage of that variation, over generations, it's evolution.
By DNA coding I meant the sequence of nucleotides. Such changes are the
foundation of evolutionary theory. That is how the variety in nature
came to be, not by solely choosing one trait over another within a species.
>
>
> DJT
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
DanaTweedy
Why do you feel the most accurate definition is not useful?
>>
>>
>>> But this event does
>>> not demonstrate that there were or can be biochemical changes that lead
>>> to an advantage in selection.
>>
>> As pointed out, biochemical changes don't have to have occurred for
>> selectional advantages to be acquired. Physical changes don't need to be
>> biochemical.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Without biochemical changes there would
>>> have been no evolution at all anywhere in the universe.
>>
>> No, all that's needed is genetic changes. Biochemcial changes can be
>> produced by genetic changes, but they don't need to be.
>
> So you believe all the organelles of the cell, all the organs of a body,
> the five senses, etc. all could have come into existence without
> biochemical changes.
Did I say that? My point is that biochemical changes can be produced
by genetic changes, but one doesn't have to have biochemical changes for
those changes to be evolutionary.
Also, some of the organelles of Eukaryote cells came from absorbing
other cells whole.
> It is pointless to argue with you since you do not
> know science.
You are making a poor assumption here, based on your own
misunderstanding of what I wrote. Read what I said above about
physical changes not having to be biochemical.
>
> Or perhaps you believe God created the first cell which had such a
> complex DNA that all the subsequent variety in nature could have come
> about otherwise.
No, I believe that God is involved in evolution through natural
processes. "Complex DNA" evolved from more simple nucleic acids, and
the first cells were most likely very simple replicators.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You are using a
>>> definition of evolution that produces more confusion than illumination.
>>
>>
>> How so? I'm using the definition of evolution used by biologists who
>> study evolution.
>
> And it is a poor definition.
Why, exactly? Is it because your personal beliefs are offended?
>>
>>
>>
>>> The death or birth of an organism changes the allele proportions in the
>>> species population; that is, according to a common definition of
>>> evolution, evolution.
>>
>> Evolution is allele change in a population over generations. Mere allele
>> change isn't enough. It has to be over time.
>
> Death and birth take time.
Yes. What is your point? Did you miss the part about "generations"?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> So while the observation of the change in beak
>>> size is interesting, don't cite it as evidence for evolution.
>>
>> Why not? It's an example of a documented change in the population, over
>> generations. Beak size is determined by genetic factors, so it's an
>> allele change. It's a perfect demonstration of evolution in real time.
>
> Some years later the beak sizes returned to about the original
> percentages.
Yes, and that was the result of another change in the climate. It was
more evolution, as the allele frequency changed again.
> So if a observer had cataloged the birds before the drought
> and then again years later after the drought, that observer would have
> found no significant change.
As it happened, the observers discovered two different evolutionary
changes in the population. Remember, evolution doesn't have a
per-determined direction. If the drought had persisted, the changes
would have persisted. When the drought ended, the population evolved
back the other way. If the conditions had changed even more toward wet
conditions, the smaller beaks might have prevailed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Species
>>> have plasticity and often can survive severe changes in the environment
>>> without any change to the DNA coding.
>>
>> Except that a change in beak size in the population is a change in the
>> "DNA coding". The birds with a larger beak have a different gene than
>> those with smaller beaks. "Species plasticity" is a result of variations
>> in alleles within the population. When one particular variation is
>> selected over others, and causes the population to have a higher
>> percentage of that variation, over generations, it's evolution.
>
> By DNA coding I meant the sequence of nucleotides.
And different alleles have different sequences of the nucleotides. Do
you think that all members of the same species have identical nucleotide
sequences?
> Such changes are the
> foundation of evolutionary theory. That is how the variety in nature
> came to be, not by solely choosing one trait over another within a species.
Where do you think the different traits came from? Hint: mutations in
the DNA sequences.... Natural selection acts on variations in the
population, choosing one (or more) traits over others in the population.
That's how adaptive changes get fixed within a population.
DJT
rmj
> changes in the population. Remember, evolution doesn't have a
> per-determined direction. If the drought had persisted, the changes
> would have persisted. When the drought ended, the population evolved
> back the other way. If the conditions had changed even more toward wet
> conditions, the smaller beaks might have prevailed.
Note that this is an example of the weakness of the definition of
evolution. In year 10 trait A might be 60% and trait B 40%. Five years
later (year 15) trait A is measured at 20% and trait B at 80%. Five
years (year 20) after that trait A is back to 60% and B to 40%.
According to the definition evolution occurred only because of the
measurements taken in year 15. If measurements had only been taken in
years 10 and 20, then the conclusion would have been that no evolution
had occurred.
In my opinion a better definition of evolution would require a statement
referring to permanent changes in a species (although in theory such
changes could be reversed, the odds of such would be small). The
variation in allele frequencies within a species may prove over time to
be significant in the evolution of the species, but 99.999% of the time
it is only a fluctuation that does not change a species. So why have a
definition of evolution that sees every fluctuation as evolution?
From the single cell to the crown of evolution, man, the transformation
has been enormous. But the current definition ignores transformation and
terms any fluctuation as evolution.
>
>
pnyikos
> On Sep 1, 6:06 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 6:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 1, 4:24 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 31, 10:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 31, 5:29 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Continuing where I left off in my previous reply:
>
> > > > > > Add to that the great odds against any organism being fossilized, and
> > > > > > it's a wonder we have as much as we do.
>
> > > > > All this says is that the evidence is missing, too bad.
>
> > > > Do you have a closed mind? Too bad. :-)
>
> > > Either its the odds (as you say) or lack of evidence (as we say).
The following challenge can be leveled at almost all creationists.
> > I'd like to see you argue against the huge amount of evidence for the
> > evolution of *Equus* (the modern horse) from *Hyracotherium* (aka.
> > Eohippus, "the dawn horse"). THAT evidence is not "missing"; it is
> > very much there, and creationists are more and more forced to come up
> > with specious arguments that don't even address it.
Martinez doesn't deny this below; he tries to pooh-pooh it instead.
But he of all people shoots himself in the foot thereby.
> > > Both
> > > admit to the fact of the latter.
>
> > ...for most other transitions. But we have a hell of a lot more for
> > e.g. whale evolution than we had even forty years ago. We have
> > *Ambulocetus*, *Rodhocetus*, and (AFAIK) *Pakicetus* that were not
> > known about back then. Forty years ago, no one would have seriously
> > argued that whales' closest relatives today are artiodactyls,
> > specifically hippos. Now we have very strong evidence for it.
>
> > Heck, Darwin didn't even know about Archaeopteryx. That's why he
> > called the evolution of birds from reptiles such a mystery.
>
> > > > > > And it keeps getting better all the time.
>
> > > > > You've just contradicted yourself.
>
> > > > Great fossil finds are being made all the time. I see the one I gave
> > > > links for below got the mmimudcmwtf ("my mind is made up, don't
> > > > confuse me with the facts") treatment.
>
> > > If you actually had what you are implying to have you would not have
> > > mentioned equine lineages in your reply to Tony.
>
> > You are getting to sound more and more like a troll, coming up with
> > specious excuses for not looking at evidence.
>
> > The horse lineage is the BEST evidence we have so far,
>
> So far! 150years!
It got a lot better in those years. And others have gotten a lot
better too.
> Gould expressed his embarrassment publicly!
>
> Imagine that; evolution based on one f*cking lineage!
Imagine that! Ray Martinez, who argues against any speciation
whatsoever, being completely undaunted by the huge but step-by-small-
step evolution from *Hyracotherium* to *Equus*. Big changes in the
feet, in the teeth, and in lifestyle: from a lithe but relatively slow
browser to a grazer built for speed at the expense of maneuverability.
Say, Ray, do you REALLY believe that speciation is impossible, or is
that just a statement that you make from time to time to provoke
debate?
[Why do I think you will totally ignore this question?]
> If evolution were true you would certainly have hundreds or thousands
> (out of tens of millions of species that have existed).
If you actually believed that speciation is false, you would be
worried by the horse sequence; since you obviously aren't, the natural
inference is that the answer to my "Say, Ray" question is a
resounding, "THE LATTER!!!"
> > but we keep on
> > finding things that narrow the gaps in our knowledge of the
> > transitions, like the one I gave links for below. It had to do with
> > the transition from lobefin fish to the amphibians.
>
> Peter: Since no God exists,
Is that your position, and have you just been pretending to believe in
God and the Bible?
> what other choice does the Atheist have
> but to believe that species produce species (evolution)?
What other choice does any scientifically knowledgeable person looking
at the horse sequence have but to believe the same thing?
> > >These are offered in
> > > just about every book attempting to show macroevolution. Like Gould
> > > has remarked, how embarrassing for ToE!
>
> > He was just talking about oversimplified popularizations, that ignored
> > lots of other branches to the horse evolutionary tree. But even some
> > of the books written for children fifty years ago did mention
> > *Hypohippus*, which went on being a browser like *Hyracotherium* while
> > the grazers branched off, and *Hipparion*, which went on being three-
> > toed while another branch led to the modern one-toed horses, zebras,
> > and donkeys -- all *Equus*, but not all the same species.
>
> Gould was saying that because the equine lineage is shown in most, if
> not all, books on evolution, the implication is that that is all ToE
> has!
>
> Did you notice that Harshman did not offer horse evolution?
No, but it doesn't surprise me. The evolution of this or that class
or order or family of vertebrates is not something he is particularly
interested in.
pnyikos
> On Sep 1, 6:06 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 6:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Picking up close to where I left off in my last reply...
> "I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was
> there" (PN).
Ripped out of context: "there" refers to fossil evidence that has been
destroyed by the natural processes of the earth. There is enough
> A frank admission to what Creationists have always said. Why are you
> an Evolutionist, Peter?
Why are you afraid to tell us whether you have any personal
convictions, Ray?
Do you really believe, for instance, that there is a heaven and that
the atheist Ayn Rand is there because she told the truth at various
times? Or was that a phony drama you initiated?
> You just admitted that the crucial reason-for-
> being paleontological evidence does not exist,
Just the opposite: that what disappeared was not crucial.
> We see sudden fully formed appearance, followed
> by changelessness, then sudden disappearance,
Not in the horse sequence.
> which is exactly what
> one would expect to see if species owe their existence to Special
> Creation.
But it is not what we do see in the horse sequence.
> We do not see the concept of speciation or macroevolution or
> transformation----just the opposite.
Garbage in, garbage out.
> Again, Atheists have no choice,
> Peter. You should know better. Nobody is fooled by the phony drama
> that you and Richard Forrest and John Stockton played out in public
> recently.
Forrest and Stockwell are dishonest scoundrels. If you think what I
did was play-acting, you have no idea where I am coming from. Try
clicking my profile in Google to start getting some idea of that.
Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote innews:apagano-e9es57tk20egr...@4ax.com:
>
> > This is amusing. How on earth would Harshman know whether I quote
> > from Gish or not? Harshman is too lazy to read Behe which is
> > available in most libraries. Bluff called?
>
> Here it is again:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f57c2845fbbeefe7?
>
> You then denied having plagiarised Gish:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9114d1bf4d9d23d7?hl=en
>
> I posted what I suspect any reasonable person would say is proof that you
> did just that:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f22064037ccc8878?hl=en
>
> You didn't "quote" from Gish, you plagiarised Gish. You then denied having
> done so. You then ignored the proof. Baby Jeebus is in floods of tears.
Do you actually care? Take a look at the following post, and the
whole thread from which it comes, to see how people on your side
handle criticism of other people on your side:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/42c223e0cb1c232d?dmode=source
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Sep 3, 4:24�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was
> > there" (PN).
>
> Ripped out of context: "there" refers to fossil evidence that has been
> destroyed by the natural processes of the earth. �There is enough
I meant to add: "fossil evidence in our hands to clinch some of the
parts of evolution, and I expect many times what we have to be
unearthed in the next twenty centuries."
> Peter Nyikos
jillery
And here's where you offer an example of what I consider to be a
vaguely-qualified reference. It can't be that much harder for you to
specify which post(s) you refer to when you write "to see how people
on your side handle criticism". Maybe even offer a short description
of your thinking, just so you actually make your point clear and
meaningful.
Just a suggestion.
DanaTweedy
>> As it happened, the observers discovered two different evolutionary
>> changes in the population. Remember, evolution doesn't have a
>> per-determined direction. If the drought had persisted, the changes
>> would have persisted. When the drought ended, the population evolved
>> back the other way. If the conditions had changed even more toward wet
>> conditions, the smaller beaks might have prevailed.
>
> Note that this is an example of the weakness of the definition of
> evolution.
I don't see any weakness here.
> In year 10 trait A might be 60% and trait B 40%. Five years
> later (year 15) trait A is measured at 20% and trait B at 80%. Five
> years (year 20) after that trait A is back to 60% and B to 40%.
> According to the definition evolution occurred only because of the
> measurements taken in year 15. If measurements had only been taken in
> years 10 and 20, then the conclusion would have been that no evolution
> had occurred.
Why would this be a weakness in the definition of evolution? It's only
a weakness in the rate of sampling.
>
> In my opinion a better definition of evolution would require a statement
> referring to permanent changes in a species (although in theory such
> changes could be reversed, the odds of such would be small).
How does one know what changes are permanent?
> The
> variation in allele frequencies within a species may prove over time to
> be significant in the evolution of the species, but 99.999% of the time
> it is only a fluctuation that does not change a species.
That is why there is "stasis" in the fossil record. Not all
evolutionary change leads to speciation.
> So why have a
> definition of evolution that sees every fluctuation as evolution?
Because every fluctuation IS evolution. Again, Evolution doesn't have
a goal, or a telelogical function. Evolution is change.
>
> From the single cell to the crown of evolution, man, the transformation
> has been enormous.
Yes, and so has the time span. Of course, humans are not the goal of
evolution, or it's end point.
> But the current definition ignores transformation and
> terms any fluctuation as evolution.
It doesn't ignore transformation, it simply puts the focus on a smaller
level. The most extreme transformation begins with the smallest
fluctuation.
DJT
rmj
> On 9/5/11 12:34 AM, rmj wrote:
>>> As it happened, the observers discovered two different evolutionary
>>> changes in the population. Remember, evolution doesn't have a
>>> per-determined direction. If the drought had persisted, the changes
>>> would have persisted. When the drought ended, the population evolved
>>> back the other way. If the conditions had changed even more toward wet
>>> conditions, the smaller beaks might have prevailed.
>>
>> Note that this is an example of the weakness of the definition of
>> evolution.
>
>
> I don't see any weakness here.
>
>
>
>> In year 10 trait A might be 60% and trait B 40%. Five years
>> later (year 15) trait A is measured at 20% and trait B at 80%. Five
>> years (year 20) after that trait A is back to 60% and B to 40%.
>> According to the definition evolution occurred only because of the
>> measurements taken in year 15. If measurements had only been taken in
>> years 10 and 20, then the conclusion would have been that no evolution
>> had occurred.
>
> Why would this be a weakness in the definition of evolution? It's only a
> weakness in the rate of sampling.
>
>
>
>>
>> In my opinion a better definition of evolution would require a statement
>> referring to permanent changes in a species (although in theory such
>> changes could be reversed, the odds of such would be small).
>
>
> How does one know what changes are permanent?
Criteria can be created for this nebulous idea. It would not be perfect,
but such would be a more meaningful definition.
>
>
>
>> The
>> variation in allele frequencies within a species may prove over time to
>> be significant in the evolution of the species, but 99.999% of the time
>> it is only a fluctuation that does not change a species.
>
> That is why there is "stasis" in the fossil record. Not all evolutionary
> change leads to speciation.
That comment is irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
>
>> So why have a
>> definition of evolution that sees every fluctuation as evolution?
>
> Because every fluctuation IS evolution. Again, Evolution doesn't have a
> goal, or a telelogical function. Evolution is change.
Evolution is change. That is what the definition using allele
proportions amounts to. So let's excise the word evolution from the
dictionaries and textbooks and just say life constantly changes;
afterall, it's true.
When the word evolution is used, it suggests something more than just
change. Everyone, including those bound to the allele proportion
definition, has in the front or back of their mind, the rise of the
today's creatures from primitive, simpler organisms.
>
>
>
>>
>> From the single cell to the crown of evolution, man, the transformation
>> has been enormous.
>
>
> Yes, and so has the time span. Of course, humans are not the goal of
> evolution, or it's end point.
>
>
>
>> But the current definition ignores transformation and
>> terms any fluctuation as evolution.
>
> It doesn't ignore transformation, it simply puts the focus on a smaller
> level. The most extreme transformation begins with the smallest
> fluctuation.
As I said, 99.9999% of these fluctuations are merely fluctuations. I
have no objection to examining such, just don't emasculate the word
evolution by terming all fluctuations evolution.
>
>
> DJT
>
Bill
> Elsberry's famous Transitional Forms Challenge was crushed by me in
> mid 2001. Elsberry was highly embarrassed and vanished from the forum
> almost never to be seen again. Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
> thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
> light of day.
So many crushing victories to relive.....It's amazing that Darwinism
manages to hobble along after the thunderous wallopings you've given
it over the years.
> .. .
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> Evolution is change. That is what the definition using allele
> proportions amounts to. So let's excise the word evolution from the
> dictionaries and textbooks and just say life constantly changes;
> afterall, it's true.
But not all change is evolution. When you get a haircut, you have
changed, but you have not evolved. "Evolution" is reserved for a
certain kind of change -- specifically, of a population and involving genes.
jillery
wrote:
You say you accept that life constantly changes. At what point along
that continuum has something (time?) sufficiently accumulated that you
would call it evolution but not before then? What objective
distinction do you make between "mere fluctuations" and "evolutionary
transformation"? Are you trying to limit evolution to those cases
some might call macroevolution, and exclude what they might call
microevolution? Do you believe there is a difference between the two?
Ilas
news:614e4dab-76eb-4ed1...@a7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>> You didn't "quote" from Gish, you plagiarised Gish. You then denied
>> having done so. You then ignored the proof. Baby Jeebus is in floods
>> of tears.
>
> Do you actually care?
No, not really. It's just interesting how often self proclaimed "true"
Christians turn out to be quite shameless liars. I'm interested in how they
justify it - lying for Jesus is what I'd guess, closely followed by
internal doublethink (they can't be liars - after all, they're Christians).
Take a look at the following post, and the
> whole thread from which it comes, to see how people on your side
> handle criticism of other people on your side:
I don't have a side, so I don't partcularly care what others say. There's
no side, just evidence, and there's no evidence of a supernatural creator
(or of little green men), despite what the fundies, the ignorant, the
deluded and the just plain old loons suggest. Simple as that.
Arkalen
"Change" is but the tiniest part of what "evolution" in biology entails.
That life changes is a significant fact, that wasn't always known, but
the word "evolution" also includes the specific mechanisms and history
of this change.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> From the single cell to the crown of evolution, man, the transformation
>>> has been enormous.
>>
>>
>> Yes, and so has the time span. Of course, humans are not the goal of
>> evolution, or it's end point.
>>
>>
>>
>>> But the current definition ignores transformation and
>>> terms any fluctuation as evolution.
>>
>> It doesn't ignore transformation, it simply puts the focus on a smaller
>> level. The most extreme transformation begins with the smallest
>> fluctuation.
>
> As I said, 99.9999% of these fluctuations are merely fluctuations. I
> have no objection to examining such, just don't emasculate the word
> evolution by terming all fluctuations evolution.
99.9999% of fluctuations in the movements of molecules are merely
fluctuations. We shouldn't emasculate the word "heat" by terming all
fluctuations heat.
In other words : by terming all fluctuations "evolution" we're not
"emasculating" the word, we're giving it its true meaning. Not all small
changes add up to form the big macroscopic changes the layperson thinks
of as "evolution", but the truth is the big macroscopic changes in
question are made of the sum of such fluctuations, and nothing else, and
moreover those fluctuations are happening all the time - unlike the big
macroscopic changes, which only happen when circumstances make the
fluctuations add up in the right way.
Tim Anderson
> On 9/2/2011 7:21 AM, DanaTweedy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/2/11 9:47 AM, rmj wrote:
> >> On 9/2/2011 12:22 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> >>> In message
> >>> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
What do you propose as the proximate cause of the changes in beak
length, if not from changes in DNA coding of individuals from
generation to generation (aka biochemical changes between successive
generations - hint: DNA is a biochemical)?
A term such as "species have plasticity" is usefully vague, but it is
also formally wrong, since the individuals making up a species change
their DNA coding between generations if they are sexually reproductive
- that is to say, all individiuals in a species re-sort their DNA in
every meiotic event, so it follows that a species must also change its
collective DNA make-up. Whether the "collective species DNA" can
survive a "severe change" depends on the undefined severity of the
change. Without further clarification of the adjective "severe", the
statement cannot be tested,
Ray Martinez
Both Forrest and Stockwell argue evolution the same way you argue
evolution.
Tony Pagano in the OP said that continuity, what I prefer to call
connectedness, is not seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth.
In response you keep invoking equine lineages. This is exactly what
Gould was expressing embarrassment about. We are Creationists because
Special Creation is seen directly in this line of evidence.
Perhaps you should recruit Forrest or Stockton, or even Roger Shrubber
to help you here?
Ray
pnyikos
> On Aug 31, 4:29�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > The fossils we have are just a tiny sample of the whole fossil record,
> > most of which has been subducted into the earth's mantle during plate
> > tectonics, never to be seen again. �Most of the rest is yet to be
> > discovered.
>
> > Add to that the great odds against any organism being fossilized, and
> > it's a wonder we have as much as we do.
>
> of defining evolution in unobservable, non-falsifiable, non-scientific
> terms,
If that were all I had to say on the matter, you would have a point;
as it is, you have none.
Take a look at my replies this month to Ray Martinez to get a hint at
what more I have to say on the matter.
> along with asserting that evolution happens too slowly to ever
> be seen.
We see it, but in proportion to the amount of time that has elapsed
since scientists have started seriously looking.
[The very word "scientist" in its modern meaning is of very recent
vintage.]
If you want something more substantial, look at the evolution of
Chihuahuas on the one hand and Irish Wolfhounds on the other from the
first domesticated dogs.
>�Such arguments confirm that evolution is nothing but
> question-begging metaphysics.
The specious arguments you've given here are the real question-
beggers, and I wouldn't even use the term "metaphysics" for them.
Peter Nyikos
Rolf
That's jest what you want to belive. You have not studied the subject
because you
already have made up your mind
You don't know what you are talking about.
> In response you keep invoking equine lineages. This is exactly what
> Gould was expressing embarrassment about.
That's your interpreation, see above.
We are Creationists because
> Special Creation is seen directly in this line of evidence.
>
No, you are creationists because of ignorance.
Creationism is harmful to the brain.
pnyikos
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 1, 5:16 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> >> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote innews:apagano-e9es57tk20egr...@4ax.com:
>
> >> > This is amusing. How on earth would Harshman know whether I quote
> >> > from Gish or not? Harshman is too lazy to read Behe which is
> >> > available in most libraries. Bluff called?
>
> >> Here it is again:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f57c2845fbbeefe7?
>
> >> You then denied having plagiarised Gish:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9114d1bf4d9d23d7?hl=en
>
> >> I posted what I suspect any reasonable person would say is proof that you
> >> did just that:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f22064037ccc8878?hl=en
>
> >> You didn't "quote" from Gish, you plagiarised Gish. You then denied having
> >> done so. You then ignored the proof. Baby Jeebus is in floods of tears.
>
> >Do you actually care? Take a look at the following post, and the
> >whole thread from which it comes, to see how people on your side
> >handle criticism of other people on your side:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/42c223e0cb1c232d
>
>
> And here's where you offer an example of what I consider to be a
> vaguely-qualified reference. It can't be that much harder for you to
> specify which post(s) you refer to when you write "to see how people
> on your side handle criticism".
The one for which I provided the url is a the best place on that
thread to start.
And indeed, you found the post and also my reply--but you ignored
Shrubber's post, while replying to mine with a snide remark.
As for the whole thread, it is quite short -- only 28 posts long at
present, and it was shorter when I posted the above.
This is in stunning contrast to the 950+ line thread that Srhubber
wanted me to wade through and STILL wants me to wade through after I
suggested in a quite civil manner that he post a few urls (no more
than half a dozen) that I could really contribute something to in my
reply.
Go ahead, look--his reply is among the first 28 posts on that thread.
> Maybe even offer a short description
> of your thinking, just so you actually make your point clear and
> meaningful.
I prefer to let people make up their own minds. If Ilas wants me to
clarify anything, [s]he's free to do so, and I'll try to accommodate
him/her as best I can.
Peter Nyikos
Rolf
> On Sep 2, 2:45 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 4:29 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> The fossils we have are just a tiny sample of the whole fossil
>>> record, most of which has been subducted into the earth's mantle
>>> during plate tectonics, never to be seen again. Most of the rest is
>>> yet to be discovered.
>>
>>> Add to that the great odds against any organism being fossilized,
>>> and it's a wonder we have as much as we do.
>>
>> While what you're saying may be true, this is a typical Darwinist way
>> of defining evolution in unobservable, non-falsifiable,
>> non-scientific terms,
>
> If that were all I had to say on the matter, you would have a point;
> as it is, you have none.
>
> Take a look at my replies this month to Ray Martinez to get a hint at
> what more I have to say on the matter.
>
I look forward to his replies. If any.
Ray Martinez
Since no God exists Atheists have no other choice but to believe that
species originate species, Bill.
The indictment of the OP: continuity/connectedness (evolution) is not
seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth; what is seen is abrupt
fully formed appearance, enduring in changelessness, followed by
abrupt disappearance (= Special Creation/immutability).
Ray
pnyikos
Elsberry. Doe s anyone reading this know what Pagano was talking
about?
Peter Nyikos
Prof Weird
> On Sep 5, 10:36 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 30, 7:26 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > Elsberry's famous Transitional Forms Challenge was crushed by me in
> > > mid 2001. Elsberry was highly embarrassed and vanished from the forum
> > > almost never to be seen again. Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
> > > thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
> > > light of day.
>
> > So many crushing victories to relive.....It's amazing that Darwinism
> > manages to hobble along after the thunderous wallopings you've given
> > it over the years.
>
> Since no God exists Atheists have no other choice but to believe that
> species originate species, Bill.
Nope - whether God exists or not is irrelevant to doing good science.
Reality-based folk accept that species can split by examining the
actual real world data (which has no obligation to conform to your
peculiar 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales).
And just how, EXACTLY, is blubbering about the unknowable whim of an
unknowable being qualify as an answer to anything ?
Slapping a robe and halo on ignorance and calling it 'God/Intelligent
Designer' explains nothing, and helps no one (except IDiots, creotards
and theoloons who can thrive only in ignorance - the more ignorant the
populace, the more relevant and valid IDio-creotardism appears).
> The indictment of the OP: continuity/connectedness (evolution) is not
> seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth; what is seen is abrupt
> fully formed appearance, enduring in changelessness, followed by
> abrupt disappearance (= Special Creation/immutability).
No sane or rational person EXPECTS fossilization to be continuous;
therefore, the record will be spotty/discontinuous.
Unless, of course, you're silly enough to 'think' that every creature
that ever existed left a fossil behind (which would be the only way
gaps in the record would be a problem) ....
Some fossils are known only from a single specimen - are you actually
STUPID enough to 'think' that particular fossil WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT
EVER LIVED ?!?!
Your mom may have pictures of you when you were one year old, and two
years old; are we to assume that if she doesn't have a picture of you
at one year, two months, five days, six hours old that the later
pictures are NOT you ? That the baby in the 1 year old picture was
snatched by grendelspawn and magically replaced with a different baby
for the '2 year old' picture (which is pretty much what you are
suggesting for the fossil record) ?
What, EXACTLY, would a NOT 'fully formed' ANYTHING even look like ?
Are you again assuming that everyone is as ignorant as you are ?
To the ignorant, the fossil record may LOOK changeless; but to those
that actually study fossils, a lineage can change quite a bit (may be
something as mundane as number of ridges on a shell - a paleontologist
may use those to seperate species, but a layman may not even notice
the difference and decide there was no change at all.)
'Abrupt appearance' can be explained by the FACT that not everything
that lived is fossilized - if only one in a million of a population is
ever fossilized and discovered, the odds of finding an example of a
population while its numbers are low are very slim. Once the numbers
increase (most populations have a doubling time which is 'short'
RELATIVE to the fossil record), enough of them may be fossilized to be
later found.
Good thing that the fossil record is just a bonus and not the entirety
of the evidence for evolution - we could've derived the validity of
evolution from many other fields long, long ago.
Even if there was no fossil record, evolution is the best reality-
based scientific explanation for the OBSERVED patterns of similarities
we see in life today.
(there are other 'explanations', but they are neither reality-based
nor scientific since they rely utterly on the unknowable whims of
unknowable beings that somehow did stuff sometime ago for some reason
and so cannot be tested or verified).
That species are mutable has been known for MILLENNIA - you just evade
by assuming that intelligence is a magical quality that can override a
different magical quality (in this case, the creotard's 'baramin
barrier' that somehow prevents evolution). The Brassicaea pretty much
crotch-stomp your silly idea of 'immutable species'. As do dog
breeds, pigeon varieties, etc.
Stanley Friesen
>pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>news:614e4dab-76eb-4ed1...@a7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> You didn't "quote" from Gish, you plagiarised Gish. You then denied
>>> having done so. You then ignored the proof. Baby Jeebus is in floods
>>> of tears.
>>
>> Do you actually care?
>
>No, not really. It's just interesting how often self proclaimed "true"
>Christians turn out to be quite shameless liars. I'm interested in how they
>justify it - lying for Jesus is what I'd guess, closely followed by
>internal doublethink (they can't be liars - after all, they're Christians).
self-hypnosis might be a better description. They convince themselves
that what they say *must* be true, since they believe their "faith"
depends on it.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
>Both Forrest and Stockwell argue evolution the same way you argue
>evolution.
>
>Tony Pagano in the OP said that continuity, what I prefer to call
>connectedness, is not seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth.
>In response you keep invoking equine lineages. This is exactly what
>Gould was expressing embarrassment about. We are Creationists because
>Special Creation is seen directly in this line of evidence.
>
Gould *embarrassed* by the evidence for equine evolution?? That is new
to me. The closest I have seen to this in my reading of his works is an
objection to the overly *linear* presentation in some museums and older
biology texts. And in this he is correct to object - evolution is rarely
linear, it is far more often a highly branched bush - and the actual
evidence on equine evolution conforms to this.
DanaTweedy
Because evolution is a fact. There's only one way to argue it...
>
> Tony Pagano in the OP said that continuity, what I prefer to call
> connectedness, is not seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth.
Which is not true. The overall pattern is one of continuity.
> In response you keep invoking equine lineages.
Which were continuous....
> This is exactly what
> Gould was expressing embarrassment about.
Gould didn't express any embarrassment about equine lineages. He
pointed out that the equine fossil record is more "bushy" and not a
simple straight line of descent. He didn't say the horse sequences
weren't good evidence of evolution.
> We are Creationists because
> Special Creation is seen directly in this line of evidence.
No, you are a creationist because Gene Scott told you to be one. It has
nothing to do with the evidence, which you keep running away from.
Special creation has never been observed, anywhere, or at any time.
>
> Perhaps you should recruit Forrest or Stockton, or even Roger Shrubber
> to help you here?
What makes you think he needs "help"?
DJT
jillery
for Punctuated Equilibrium. Too bad Eldredge and Gould don't agree
with you:
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but
they are abundant between larger groups."
From:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
jillery
> As for the whole thread, it is quite short -- only 28 posts long at
>present, and it was shorter when I posted the above.
>
>This is in stunning contrast to the 950+ line thread that Srhubber
>wanted me to wade through and STILL wants me to wade through after I
>suggested in a quite civil manner that he post a few urls (no more
>than half a dozen) that I could really contribute something to in my
>reply.
>
>Go ahead, look--his reply is among the first 28 posts on that thread.
to, thus my comments.
Vincent Maycock
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a821376-ba0a-4874...@u6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 5, 10:36 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 7:26 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Elsberry's famous Transitional Forms Challenge was crushed by me in
>> > mid 2001. Elsberry was highly embarrassed and vanished from the forum
>> > almost never to be seen again. Elsberry's now defunct challenge was
>> > thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has yet to see the
>> > light of day.
>>
>> So many crushing victories to relive.....It's amazing that Darwinism
>> manages to hobble along after the thunderous wallopings you've given
>> it over the years.
>>
>
> Since no God exists Atheists have no other choice but to believe that
> species originate species, Bill.
Theistic evolutionists believe in both God and evolution.
> The indictment of the OP: continuity/connectedness (evolution) is not
> seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth; what is seen is abrupt
> fully formed appearance, enduring in changelessness,
Change through time (above the species level) is the rule in the
paleontological record.
>followed by
> abrupt disappearance (= Special Creation/immutability).
Many fossil groups disappear only slowly, becoming less and less common
until they finally disappear from the record.
John Harshman
was the reason. That's all. Anyone who has met Wesley knows there are
good reasons he doesn't post, having nothing to do with Tony.
rmj
express a fact. Evolution can be defined in a multitude of manners. One
argues, in my opinion, that fluctuations are evolution solely because
the definition of evolution states thus.
Biology is messy because life is complex. Consider the difficulty of
defining precisely what species are, of deciding whether a virus is life
or just some wierd combination of molecules. There is no line to draw
between macro and micro evolution except by an agreed upon convention. I
wouldn't bother to do such; I would just throw out the word
microevolution; it expresses what I argue against: that all fluctuations
should be considered evolution.
Defining evolution is difficult. I suggested that the definition should
consider changes that are permanent, and of course the question of what
is permanent arises since nearly always any change would be reversible.
Another criteria for evolution would be a change in the DNA coding
sequence which is found not to be a neutral change. Objections to that
can be raised as well. In my opinion a good definition would, at least
tacitly, express the notion of the complex arising from the simple.
Scientists have such difficulties and chosen to call all change evolution.
Why do you like that definition?
Arkalen
But that definition would be wrong. The notion of the complex arising
from the simple is NOT an intrinsic part of evolution. Evolution is an
optimising process; it can result in the complex arising from the simple
(say, if you start out with something simple, and the optimised "target"
is complex) but it can also result in the opposite.
On the net, evolution on Earth has resulted mostly in the complex
arising from the simple, true... But then, it started out as simple as
could be, and it happens that many kinds of highly flexible and
adaptable behaviour (which evolution of living things would privilege)
require complex structures. Those are pretty trivial reasons for going
from simple to complex, and aren't related to the evolutionary process
itself. Indeed there are other "forces" that tend to make evolution go
from complex to simple : complex structures may allow more flexible and
directed behaviour, but simple structures are more robust and resistant
to mutation.
That's probably why the more complex a structure we see in nature, the
more adaptive it needs to be, and as soon as it's no longer adaptive it
starts simplifying.
> Scientists have such difficulties and chosen to call all change evolution.
>
> Why do you like that definition?
>
I'm sure there are many difficulties with defining "evolution" just as
there tend to be difficulties with defining everything, but the
difficulties YOU have seem to stem from a simple misunderstanding of
what evolution is in the first place.
Rolf
And what do you attribute that huge number of 'abrupt disappearances' to?
Countless millions of species just deciding they no longer will reproduce?
Or new species being put there by God so that they could get rid of the
previous ones?
You say it happens, you need to explain HOW it happens, and you also have to
examine the geological, paleontolocical and genetic evidence to see if it is
consistent with your theory. Prediction: Not consistent.
Denial != facts.
> Ray
Rolf
Prof Weird wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 10:36 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 7:26 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Elsberry's famous Transitional Forms Challenge was crushed by me in
>>>> mid 2001. Elsberry was highly embarrassed and vanished from the
>>>> forum almost never to be seen again. Elsberry's now defunct
>>>> challenge was thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has
>>>> yet to see the light of day.
>>
>>> So many crushing victories to relive.....It's amazing that Darwinism
>>> manages to hobble along after the thunderous wallopings you've given
>>> it over the years.
>>
>> Since no God exists Atheists have no other choice but to believe that
>> species originate species, Bill.
>
>
> Reality-based folk accept that species can split by examining the
> actual real world data (which has no obligation to conform to your
> peculiar 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales).
>
> And just how, EXACTLY, is blubbering about the unknowable whim of an
> unknowable being qualify as an answer to anything ?
> Slapping a robe and halo on ignorance and calling it 'God/Intelligent
> Designer' explains nothing, and helps no one (except IDiots, creotards
> and theoloons who can thrive only in ignorance - the more ignorant the
> populace, the more relevant and valid IDio-creotardism appears).
>
>> seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth; what is seen is
>> abrupt fully formed appearance, enduring in changelessness, followed
>> by abrupt disappearance (= Special Creation/immutability).
>
> therefore, the record will be spotty/discontinuous.
>
It is a sad fact that not all people fit those criteria.
Rolf
pnyikos
> On 9/5/2011 11:17 AM, DanaTweedy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9/5/11 12:34 AM, rmj wrote:
> >>> As it happened, the observers discovered two different evolutionary
> >>> changes in the population. Remember, evolution doesn't have a
> >>> per-determined direction. If the drought had persisted, the changes
> >>> would have persisted. When the drought ended, the population evolved
> >>> back the other way. If the conditions had changed even more toward wet
> >>> conditions, the smaller beaks might have prevailed.
>
> >> Note that this is an example of the weakness of the definition of
> >> evolution.
>
> > I don't see any weakness here.
>
> >> In year 10 trait A might be 60% and trait B 40%. Five years
> >> later (year 15) trait A is measured at 20% and trait B at 80%. Five
> >> years (year 20) after that trait A is back to 60% and B to 40%.
> >> According to the definition evolution occurred only because of the
> >> measurements taken in year 15. If measurements had only been taken in
> >> years 10 and 20, then the conclusion would have been that no evolution
> >> had occurred.
>
> > Why would this be a weakness in the definition of evolution? It's only a
> > weakness in the rate of sampling.
>
> >> In my opinion a better definition of evolution would require a statement
> >> referring to permanent changes in a species (although in theory such
> >> changes could be reversed, the odds of such would be small).
That expression "in a species" could lead to trouble, especially with
such grand equivocators as Martinez participating.
> > How does one know what changes are permanent?
>
> Criteria can be created for this nebulous idea. It would not be perfect,
> but such would be a more meaningful definition.
> >> The
> >> variation in allele frequencies within a species may prove over time to
> >> be significant in the evolution of the species, but 99.999% of the time
> >> it is only a fluctuation that does not change a species.
>
> > That is why there is "stasis" in the fossil record. Not all evolutionary
> > change leads to speciation.
>
> That comment is irrelevant.
It may be helpful in removing ambiguities, by noting that variation of
population frequencies is a form of stasis as long as populations can
interbreed.
>
>
> >> So why have a
> >> definition of evolution that sees every fluctuation as evolution?
>
> > Because every fluctuation IS evolution. Again, Evolution doesn't have a
> > goal, or a telelogical function. Evolution is change.
>
> Evolution is change. That is what the definition using allele
> proportions amounts to. So let's excise the word evolution from the
> dictionaries and textbooks and just say life constantly changes;
> afterall, it's true.
I think you mean, "let's excise the use of `evolution' to mean mere
changes in allele frequencies".
> When the word evolution is used, it suggests something more than just
> change. Everyone, including those bound to the allele proportion
> definition, has in the front or back of their mind, the rise of the
> today's creatures from primitive, simpler organisms.
Which is why we NEED the word "evolution," badly.
[...]
> As I said, 99.9999% of these fluctuations are merely fluctuations. I
> have no objection to examining such, just don't emasculate the word
> evolution by terming all fluctuations evolution.
I concur. On the other hand, restricting "evolution" to mean, "the
rise of the today's creatures from primitive, simpler organisms" is
going to the opposite extreme.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
pnyikos
> On Sep 5, 10:35�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 4:24�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 1, 6:06 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 1, 6:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Picking up close to where I left off in my last reply...
>
> > > "I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was
> > > there" (PN).
>
> > Ripped out of context: "there" refers to fossil evidence that has been
> > destroyed by the natural processes of the earth. �There is enough
>
> > > A frank admission to what Creationists have always said. Why are you
> > > an Evolutionist, Peter?
>
> > Why are you afraid to tell us whether you have any personal
> > convictions, Ray?
<crickets chirping>
> > Do you really believe, for instance, that there is a heaven and that
> > the atheist Ayn Rand is there because she told the truth at various
> > times? �Or was that a phony drama you initiated?
<crickets chirping>
> > > You just admitted that the crucial reason-for-
> > > being paleontological evidence does not exist,
>
> > Just the opposite: that what disappeared was not crucial.
<crickets chirping>
> > > We see sudden fully formed appearance, followed
> > > by changelessness, then sudden disappearance,
>
> > Not in the horse sequence.
>
> > > which is exactly what
> > > one would expect to see if species owe their existence to Special
> > > Creation.
>
> > But it is not what we do see in the horse sequence.
>
> > > We do not see the concept of speciation or macroevolution or
> > > transformation----just the opposite.
>
> > Garbage in, garbage out.
>
> > > Again, Atheists have no choice,
> > > Peter. You should know better. Nobody is fooled by the phony drama
> > > that you and Richard Forrest and John Stockton played out in public
> > > recently.
>
> > Forrest and Stockwell are dishonest scoundrels. �If you think what I
> > did was play-acting, you have no idea where I am coming from. �Try
> > clicking my profile in Google to start getting some idea of that.
>
> > Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Both Forrest and Stockwell argue evolution the same way you argue
> evolution.
Evasive response noted. You accused me of participating in a phony
drama, and this does not excuse you saying that.
Besides, I don't believe you. Have you ever seen anyone else argue
evolution the way I did in my preceding reply to you--the one you are
totally ignoring?
_____________ begin excerpt
Imagine that! Ray Martinez, who argues against any speciation
whatsoever, being completely undaunted by the huge but step-by-small-
step evolution from *Hyracotherium* to *Equus*. Big changes in the
feet, in the teeth, and in lifestyle: from a lithe but relatively slow
browser to a grazer built for speed at the expense of maneuverability.
Say, Ray, do you REALLY believe that speciation is impossible, or is
that just a statement that you make from time to time to provoke
debate?
[Why do I think you will totally ignore this question?]
> If evolution were true you would certainly have hundreds or thousands
> (out of tens of millions of species that have existed).
If you actually believed that speciation is false, you would be
worried by the horse sequence; since you obviously aren't, the natural
inference is that the answer to my "Say, Ray" question is a
resounding, "THE LATTER!!!"
+++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78c76a0f8889e75a
Message-ID: <696ab3a3-7bc6-44a2-990f-
df3101...@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
> Tony Pagano in the OP said that continuity, what I prefer to call
> connectedness, is not seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth.
And the word of Tony Pagano is like holy writ to you?
> In response you keep invoking equine lineages.
Yes, and the way you left the crickets chirping up there, and the way
you are ignoring the post where I wrote the above excerpt, suggests
that I was right on the money about you being a troll.
On the other hand, if you are a troll, you are more helpful than any
other troll I've encountered. I have you to thank for the url which
you gave me way back in December that demonstrated hypocrisy on the
part of Ron Okimoto. I now have mountains of evidence on him, and it
is approaching a critical mass.
> This is exactly what
> Gould was expressing embarrassment about.
NOT about the lineages themselves, only about oversimplifications in
the popularizations. You've been corrected about this before. And I
see several others have corrected you since you wrote this benignted
equivocation.
> We are Creationists because
> Special Creation is seen directly in this line of evidence.
If so, the horse sequence is the special creation of rookie angels.
"Hyracotherium was a great success for our teachers who created it,
and they said we could "molarize" one set of premolars, and create
Orohippus".
"Orohippus worked out quite well, so let's molarize another set of
premolars, and create Epihippus".
"Hey, those last two creations worked out so well, let's get a little
bolder and get rid of that fourth toe in the front feet, and also make
the following little changes..."
And so Mesohippus was created. :-)
[By the way, I bet you've never seen anyone argue evolution the way I
did just now.]
> Perhaps you should recruit Forrest or Stockton, or even Roger Shrubber
> to help you here?
Perish the thought.
By the way, who is Stockton? The closest name I know to that here in
t.o. is Stockwell.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 10:36 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 30, 7:26 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Elsberry's famous Transitional Forms Challenge was crushed by me in
> >>> mid 2001. Elsberry was highly embarrassed and vanished from the
> >>> forum almost never to be seen again. Elsberry's now defunct
> >>> challenge was thrown in the crapper by me 10 years ago and it has
> >>> yet to see the light of day.
>
> >> So many crushing victories to relive.....It's amazing that Darwinism
> >> manages to hobble along after the thunderous wallopings you've given
> >> it over the years.
>
> > Since no God exists Atheists have no other choice but to believe that
> > species originate species, Bill.
>
> > The indictment of the OP: continuity/connectedness (evolution) is not
> > seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth; what is seen is abrupt
> > fully formed appearance, enduring in changelessness, followed by
> > abrupt disappearance (= Special Creation/immutability).
>
> And what do you attribute that huge number of 'abrupt disappearances' to?
>
> Countless millions of species just deciding they no longer will reproduce?
> Or new species being put there by God so that they could get rid of the
> previous ones?
Or by rookie angels: see my reply to Ray a couple of minutes ago.
Such heavy-handed creationism cheapens the creative power of any
entity worthy of being called God.
> You say it happens, you need to explain HOW it happens, and you also have to
> examine the geological, paleontolocical and genetic evidence to see if it is
> consistent with your theory. Prediction: Not consistent.
>
> Denial != facts.
Right. And I think Ray Martinez will call it quits from this thread
soon. The weight of our comments is pressing ever more heavily on
him.
Peter Nyikos
> > Ray
jillery
wrote:
To be honest, I haven't seen that argument before.
>Biology is messy because life is complex. Consider the difficulty of
>defining precisely what species are, of deciding whether a virus is life
>or just some wierd combination of molecules. There is no line to draw
>between macro and micro evolution except by an agreed upon convention. I
>wouldn't bother to do such; I would just throw out the word
>microevolution; it expresses what I argue against: that all fluctuations
>should be considered evolution.
ISTM you're argument suggests throwing out both micro- and macro-
evolution.
>Defining evolution is difficult. I suggested that the definition should
>consider changes that are permanent, and of course the question of what
>is permanent arises since nearly always any change would be reversible.
>Another criteria for evolution would be a change in the DNA coding
>sequence which is found not to be a neutral change. Objections to that
>can be raised as well. In my opinion a good definition would, at least
>tacitly, express the notion of the complex arising from the simple.
>Scientists have such difficulties and chosen to call all change evolution.
>
>Why do you like that definition?
IIUC most scientists do not call all change evolution. Within any
population, individuals can respond similarly to a range of
environmental conditions without invoking genetic change. An obvious
example; the average height and weight of the U.S. population has
increased over generations. This is not considered evolutionary
change.
Genes are the heritable part of the phenotype against which the
environment selects. Their frequency in one generation is the
foundation on which future heritable changes might happen in the next
generation. At times it might be useful to distinguish between
changes large or small, profound or mundane, complex or simple,
permanent or transient, but ISTM important to establish that all
evolutionary changes have the same cause; a change in frequency of
alleles across generations.
Rolf
That reply of your stuck out; it was very good and I expected that Ray would
ignore it; that's what he does whenever the going gets to rough unless he
can brush it off with a blank denial.
Keep the heat on!
Mark Isaak
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 22:27:51 -0800, rmj<glennaRe...@jps.net>
> wrote:
>> defining precisely what species are, of deciding whether a virus is life
>> or just some wierd combination of molecules. There is no line to draw
>> between macro and micro evolution except by an agreed upon convention. I
>> wouldn't bother to do such; I would just throw out the word
>> microevolution; it expresses what I argue against: that all fluctuations
>> should be considered evolution.
>
> ISTM you're argument suggests throwing out both micro- and macro-
> evolution.
I think it is time to include, in all public school curricula, a unit on
the epistemology of definition. We need to teach, or better, to hammer
in the point, that a definition is still useful even when there are
boundary cases that are unclear. Indeed, the definitions which allow
for no such boundary cases are the extremely rare exceptions. So we can
still refer to "red" even though there is no non-arbitrary division
between it and orange; we can still refer to "chairs" even though there
are a variety of seating arrangements which might or might not qualify;
and we can refer to "species" and "microevolution" even though nature
makes it impossible always to make distinctions of exactly what is
meant. I think third grade would not be too early for such a course.
We could also teach that the world will not end if a word has more than
one definition. And that a word can have a single perfectly clear
meaning, and people will still misunderstand it.
</soap-box>
--
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
Stanley Friesen
>On 07/09/11 07:27, rmj wrote:
>>
>> Defining evolution is difficult. I suggested that the definition should
>> consider changes that are permanent, and of course the question of what
>> is permanent arises since nearly always any change would be reversible.
>> Another criteria for evolution would be a change in the DNA coding
>> sequence which is found not to be a neutral change. Objections to that
>> can be raised as well. In my opinion a good definition would, at least
>> tacitly, express the notion of the complex arising from the simple.
>
>But that definition would be wrong. The notion of the complex arising
>from the simple is NOT an intrinsic part of evolution. Evolution is an
>optimising process; it can result in the complex arising from the simple
>(say, if you start out with something simple, and the optimised "target"
>is complex) but it can also result in the opposite.
>
One clear, and repeated, example of this is parasites, which are often
vastly simplified from their ancestral condition, often to the point of
making that ancestry being nearly impossible to determine. Consider
tapeworms, "mesozoans", and quite possibly viruses.
jillery
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On 9/7/11 8:38 AM, jillery wrote:
<snip to point>
><soap-box>
>
>I think it is time to include, in all public school curricula, a unit on
>the epistemology of definition. We need to teach, or better, to hammer
>in the point, that a definition is still useful even when there are
>boundary cases that are unclear. Indeed, the definitions which allow
>for no such boundary cases are the extremely rare exceptions. So we can
>still refer to "red" even though there is no non-arbitrary division
>between it and orange; we can still refer to "chairs" even though there
>are a variety of seating arrangements which might or might not qualify;
>and we can refer to "species" and "microevolution" even though nature
>makes it impossible always to make distinctions of exactly what is
>meant. I think third grade would not be too early for such a course.
>
>We could also teach that the world will not end if a word has more than
>one definition. And that a word can have a single perfectly clear
>meaning, and people will still misunderstand it.
>
></soap-box>
All valid points. ISTM your penultimate one especially so. The
definition and use of words are necessarily a matter of dynamic
consensus. A challenge then is to identify that consensus early on,
something made more difficult when there is a lack of good faith on
all sides.
Regarding the word "evolution", there exists a reasonably functional
definition as used by the biological sciences. ISTM that should be
the default meaning when discussing those topics. If someone wants to
use a variation, it's not too much to expect them to be clear up front
what that variation is, and also perhaps an explanation as to why that
variation is useful/necessary within the context of the discussion at
hand.
For example, there's no inherent problem with the using words like
macro- and micro-evolution to refer to relatively large-scale and
small-scale changes in the genotype, respectively. The problem
happens when some speakers say they accept micro-evolution but not
macro-evolution without specifying the mechanism that divides the two
in their mind. Using your analogy, it's a bit like saying you
recognize maroon but not pink as a variation of red. That might be
your sense of it, but that's not enough to impose it on someone else
without explanation.
Some speakers use evolution to refer to more general changes over time
of non-biologic systems, ie the evolution of the universe. I have no
problem with that as long as those speakers use due diligence to avoid
conflating the two meanings. When someone talks about the evolution
of the universe and the evolution of biologic populations as both
Darwinian concepts, ISTM that's a fatal flaw and needs to be resolved
in order to make sense of what they're saying.
Ray Martinez
> On Sep 6, 2:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 10:35 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 3, 4:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 1, 6:06 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 1, 6:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Picking up close to where I left off in my last reply...
>
> > > > "I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was
> > > > there" (PN).
>
> > > Ripped out of context: "there" refers to fossil evidence that has been
> > > destroyed by the natural processes of the earth. There is enough
>
> > > > A frank admission to what Creationists have always said. Why are you
> > > > an Evolutionist, Peter?
>
> > > Why are you afraid to tell us whether you have any personal
> > > convictions, Ray?
>
> <crickets chirping>
>
> > > Do you really believe, for instance, that there is a heaven and that
> > > the atheist Ayn Rand is there because she told the truth at various
> > > times? Or was that a phony drama you initiated?
>
has occurred (past tense). No, it doesn't. You need to show cause or
the effect (close relationship) is not real, but illusory. Harshman
couldn't answer this question, how about you, Peter?
Ray
> Say, Ray, do you REALLY believe that speciation is impossible, or is
> that just a statement that you make from time to time to provoke
> debate?
>
> [Why do I think you will totally ignore this question?]
>
> > If evolution were true you would certainly have hundreds or thousands
> > (out of tens of millions of species that have existed).
>
> If you actually believed that speciation is false, you would be
> worried by the horse sequence; since you obviously aren't, the natural
> inference is that the answer to my "Say, Ray" question is a
> resounding, "THE LATTER!!!"
>
> +++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt
> fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78c76a0f8889e75a
> Message-ID: <696ab3a3-7bc6-44a2-990f-
Ray Martinez
in nature. Unless you can show how (cause) your effect is illusory,
question begging. We see no relationship between any species in the
equine sequence. See how that works, Peter? What we see in each
species is design. This tells us that your effect is not real.
Ray
[....]
Rolf
> On Sep 7, 7:32 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 10:35 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 3, 4:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 1, 6:06 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Sep 1, 6:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Picking up close to where I left off in my last reply...
>>
>>>>> "I didn't say the common-descent-clinching fossil evidence was
>>>>> there" (PN).
>>
>>>> Ripped out of context: "there" refers to fossil evidence that has
>>>> been destroyed by the natural processes of the earth. There is
>>>> enough
>>
>>>>> A frank admission to what Creationists have always said. Why are
>>>>> you an Evolutionist, Peter?
>>
>>>> Why are you afraid to tell us whether you have any personal
>>>> convictions, Ray?
>>
>> <crickets chirping>
>>
>>>> Do you really believe, for instance, that there is a heaven and
>>>> that the atheist Ayn Rand is there because she told the truth at
>>>> various times? Or was that a phony drama you initiated?
>>
>
> Ayn Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aquinas.
>
illusory.
You can, cant you? Unless you can, the scientific consensus stands
unchallenged!
You don't strike me as particularly smart.
Richard Clayton
PROVE it wasn't magic invisible angels, it's not evolution."
At least it's more honest than "I have a devastating, air-tight
rebuttal, but you'll have to wait for my Paper to read it..."
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Dana Tweedy
snip
> > > > Do you really believe, for instance, that there is a heaven and that
> > > > the atheist Ayn Rand is there because she told the truth at various
> > > > times? Or was that a phony drama you initiated?
> >
>
> Ayn Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aquinas.
> > Besides, I don't believe you. Have you ever seen anyone else argue
> > evolution the way I did in my preceding reply to you--the one you are
> > totally ignoring?
>
> All this says is that discovery of close relationship means evolution
> has occurred (past tense). No, it doesn't.
> You need to show cause or
> the effect (close relationship) is not real, but illusory. Harshman
> couldn't answer this question, how about you, Peter?
Why do you keep ignoring this?
snipping more of what Ray runs away from
DJT